When has Trump use a word as big as disincentivize in the last 15 years? His media representative needs to up their game.

Well, oven lights are notoriously dim, little better than a night light (which also used to be incandescent).

The incandescent bulb in my oven is 4W.

Those spoilers deserve an upvote.

Let’s not think of all the infrastructure to get what they sell to the people who buy it or that gets the stuff you buy to you. And if your response is, “Well, that’s only 100 miles to the nearest store/city/hospital,” that completely ignores how the stuff got there so you could pick it up.

Unless your lifestyle is such that you only have to buy or sell things a few times per year to survive, you’re relying on that national/global infrastructure to enjoy your rugged, individualistic lifestyle.

Well, things went about as well for Japan’s royalty as it did for Japan in general when they lost WWII.

Their government was an imperial model during WWII. Unless they killed off the royalty, why would you assume they had no descendants?

Yes, but it’s worth it to make them say it out loud, rather than letting them hide behind excuses like fiscal responsibility or the economy.

I’ve been saying for years now, you can pay for police and jails or you can pay for social assistance and schools, but one way or another, you will pay.

There is a difference between maximum age and life expectancy, just as there is a difference between life expectancy at different ages. The life expectancy at 25 in Roman times was about 70 years old. All of our advances have added about 10% to a person’s life span after they got past childhood diseases, the recklessness of youth, and serving in the military in the case of Romans. And I’m not entirely sure of the relevance of a genocide in Israel to Xi’s prospects.

Immune suppression drugs have their own risks, and the older you are, the harder surgeries are on you. Even if they have cloned organs, how does that help systemic frailty?

Life expectancy at 25 hasn’t changed dramatically in the last 2000 years, less than 10 years in most parts of the world. Life expectancy at birth has improved dramatically, and that isn’t doing much for me, Putin, or Xi at this point. Certainly, the improved healthcare afforded to Putin and Xi is going to help their life expectancy more than the average. All that said, a lot of improvements have happened in the last couple centuries, mostly based on our knowledge. Sure, exponential growth isn’t going to happen forever, not even in gaining knowledge, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen in biology for the next century. If it does, extending life expectancy at birth to 150 could be quite conservative.

Bad simulation design?

I wasn’t setting an upper limit. There is good evidence we are closing in on some of the causes of the symptoms of aging, as well as gaining evidence that dealing with the symptoms may reduce the effects of aging. If we only have those basic tools in the next 100 years, I could see lifespans being pushed to 150 to 200 for the typical person. If we can also deal with the lesser regenerative capability of the brain, I could see people living for centuries. As you said in other comments, there are a lot of interconnected pieces, and just fixing one or some of them won’t be as useful as fixing all of them, which really takes transplants off the table as a general solution, but also means we may see limited increases in life span rather than getting past the tipping point of life extension research outpacing the gain it gives you, eg., extending lifespans more than one year per year.

I honestly believe people could live to 150 within the next century and if organ transplants are part of it it will either be due to cloning or far better control of the immune system than we have now. I don’t expect those advances to be soon enough to help either of these guys, no matter how much money they have.

Alright, and now you’ve dehumanized them. Now what? How do you solve the problem that is Nazis? Billionaires? Landlords? Omnivores? Breeders? You agree some or all of these aren’t really human, right? So what’s off the table for you with respect to your inhuman group of choice? What’s the limit for others who, like you, think one or all of these groups are inhuman? And what do you think the end point is? Remember, genocide was the Final Solution, not the First Solution.

No one really deserves to die. Sometimes that’s the only option to stop them from harming others, or we have no capability to protect society from them in a reasonable manner. The former is usually in situations that qualify as self defense or the defense of others, the latter is more often a financial issue more dependent on the level of civilization and I would say doesn’t apply to most of the world at this point in time.

There is never a reasonable need to kill another person unless that is the only option to stop them from causing harm to others. Anything else is just lazy and/or inhumane thinking.

The Measure of a Man does a far better job of going into this than I can, but suffice to say, what package someone is wrapped in shouldn’t be the arbiter of what qualifies as a person. Does this apply to AI in its current form? I’d say no, but does it apply to whales, octopuses, pigs, possible aliens, possible AI implementations in the future? That’s a little trickier.

I think it’s more like:

(salty water + unpotable fresh water) → (salty water + potable fresh water + energy)

…with a few steps in between. Even if most of the power is used in running the plant, you end up with potable fresh water and no brine being dumped into the ocean, which is a net win.