Yeah that’s true. The headline is asserting something that I don’t think Musk has actually said he will do. On the other hand, I’m having trouble thinking of any random idea Musk has had that he didn’t attempt to follow through on.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots,” explained Musk.

I’ll be perfectly honest with you. I have never liked the Cybertruck. It looked ridiculous when it came out and there were various online articles that agreed with this at the time. Though I will grant you that there were also a lot of people on the Elon bandwagon who thought it was awesome. One of my best friends actually put down the deposit for one and he and I had a lively debate about it. It was a controversial thing from day 1. And looking back now, this might have been my first clue that Elon was headed off the deep end.

Maybe if the alternative to building a horse barn in 1910 was building a garage that was so expensive only like 5% of the population could afford it.

Yes but also your phone gives you the ability to “install” a web app as if it was a normal app. Go into the voyager settings and follow the instructions to do this. Basically what your phone is doing is saving a bookmark to the web app with an icon, but when it runs, it has the feel of an app instead of a website because it doesn’t open up the full browser with the url bar and all that other browsery stuff.

⊥

It’s specifically the “I’m here to recognize it and acknowledge it and talk about it” part followed up by no recognizing, acknowledging, or talking about anything substantial.

They’re also a VP of Community. As someone with such a specialized purpose specifically in this area, we should have expected a better performance.

He also played John Rolfe in “The New World”, meaning he’s also been a boatman.

Maybe it is taking OP a really long time to write the comment.

I think it’s one of those “probably close enough to random” type things. I found this: https://quantumbase.com/sse/lottery/

I think that’s only true if the lottery numbers you end up with are truly the result of random selection in infinite universes.

Ok, that makes sense. I would agree that for any truly random circumstance, when given infinite iterations, all possible combinations will eventually occur.

I agree with all of that. But the bigger point is that there are things that can’t/won’t happen that we can’t predict, so this means we can’t assume that “there must be a universe in which X happens to me”.

Well, but if there are other “me”s, then there must be some set of common events that must occur in each universe containing a copy of me in order for that individual to qualify as me. In that case, isn’t it entirely possible that those particular things that must be in place preclude certain other possibilities that make it such that there is no chance that some otherwise conceivable events could occur?

But what evidence is there for this being true?

I think Cantor would say you need a proof for that. And I think he would say you can prove it via generating a new real number by going down your set of real numbers and taking the first digit from the first number, the second from the second, third from third, etc. Then you run a transformation on it, for example every number other than 1 becomes 1 and every 1 becomes 2. Then you know that the number you’ve created can’t be first in the set because its first digit doesn’t match, and it can’t be the second number because the second number doesn’t match, etc to infinity. And therefore, if you map your set of whole numbers to your set of real numbers, you’ve discovered a real number that can’t be mapped to a whole number because it can’t be at any position in the set.

Some will say this proves that infinities can be of unequal sizes. Some will more accurately say this shows that uncountable infinities are larger than countable infinities. But the problem I have with it is this: that we begin with the assumption of a set of all real numbers, but then we prove that not all real numbers are contained in the set of all real numbers. We know this because the number we generated literally can not be at any position in the set. This is a paradox. The number is not in the set, therefore we don’t need it to map to a member of the other set. Yet it is a real number and therefore must be in the set. And yet we proved it can’t be in the set.

I’m uncomfortable making inferences based on this type of information. But I’m also not a mathematician. My goal isn’t to start an argument. Maybe somebody who’s better at math can explain it to me better.

If you say so :)

Serious question: Can somebody explain to me, if an infinite number of universes exist, why do we assume that every possibility must exist within the set? Like, why can’t it be an infinite number of universes in which OP does not win the lottery?

Yeah these are two very different pronunciations in Standard American English. /æs/ versus /ɑrs/

As a result there is a difference in severity as well, akin to the difference between “damn” and “darn”.