Um… you can always observe the cat by opening the box, same as you can look up the stock value. Observing the cat doesn’t change it’s actual state. It only changes your knowledge of it. Same as value of a stock. No difference.

As for the definition, you hand picked 2 peices from that whole page. The first one when you read the example below doesn’t even fit your case, so you left that out.

Then you had to do mental gymnastics to make the second one fit. But it was a legal definition. None of this is a legal document, so it doesn’t matter. There is a reason that one is so low on the page.

But whatever. You want to consider stocks going down at any given second to mean you lost money in your head… fine. But when conversing with normal people, you will be hard pressed to find people who agree.

I see. Focusing on the least relevant thing I said to avoid the main point that you can’t contest. Thanks for confirming that.

As for the committee… how do you think the new testament came into being. Some person collected all the writing he liked and declared it the new testament. Then everyone else said sure… we would like to buy a copy…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

By the time it came into being, the church was an organization with power. Such an organization always draws ambitious humans who crave that power and influence. The new testament was crafted to help grow that power and influence.

It is very likely in my opinion that Jesus never even claimed to be the son of god. Probably he was a very charismatic person who actually cared about the well being of people. And so he got popular with the people. Which is why he had to be killed. Then ambitious people leveraged him and his popularity to get what they wanted. Several other modern religions took a similar road.

Interesting. None of that is evidence that God exists. Without a doubt, someone going by the name Jesus (or something like it lost in translation) existed. And a religion was founded based on him. Lots of things happened. People wrote down a lot of things. But those people all had a bias. The vast majority were trying to build a religion. So without a doubt, they embellished and picked the “witness” accounts that supported what they wanted to say.

As for the 3 famous figures mentioned at the start. The same is true. Historians often say that we don’t know the real truth, just what was written.

As for the new testament. It was created by commitee. They hand picked stories and such that created the picture they wanted to present. And plenty of religious historians have pointed out that Christianity borrowed concepts and stories that worked well from previous religions.

So all that proves is that a human being going by the name Jesus existed and had a very influential life. It proves nothing of God.

Do sure the evidence for the god you believe in.

That is basically Schrodinger’s cat. If you don’t open the box, the cat is both dead or alive. So you “could” interpret “lost money” as lost net worth. But if you read it litterally, it wasn’t money. It was an asset. You couldn’t spend it and it doesn’t meet the definition of money. Poorer, I suppose, because you could borrow against that asset, but not as much as before.

There’s no evidence for God period, so your “because” doesn’t support your statement. Of course you also don’t seem to understand basic logic. The lack of evidence never “proves” anything. The presence of evidence “may” prove things.

The kid spread religion online. God killed him for it. Pope makes him a saint. God facepalms and says “How many more kids do I have to kill to show you that you should stop wasting time in church and just be a good person”.

But if you don’t sell, did you lose money. My 401k goes up and down all the time. But I didn’t lose any money. Same with my house value.

At work, the boss recently asked everyone to disclose any voluntary use of AI. This is a very small company (startup) and was for a compliance thing. Nearly all of the engineering team was using some AI from somewhere for a large variety of things. These are top engineers mostly. We don’t have manager, just the CTO. So noone was even encouraging it. They all chose it because it could make them more productive. Not the 3x or 10x BS you hear from the CEO shills. But more productive.
AI has a lot of problems, but all of the tools we have to use suck in a variety of ways. So that is nothing new.

You haven’t been to vegas lately. Grandma is not the target. Rich people who want to flaunt it is. Sounds like a match made in… heaven. Lol.
And since the gap between the haves and have nots is growing, it a perfect way for the haves to separate themsleves. Think back to the first commercial airliners. It was only for the rich. And it made a lot of money that way.

Vegas can make money from tourusm in a desert, a hotel on the moon (with a casino) will do just fine.

Meh, some people do want to use AI. And it does have decent use cases. It is just massively over extended. So it won’t be any worse than the dot com bubble. And I don’t worry about the tech bros monopolizing it. If it is true AGI, they won’t be able to contain it. In the 90s I wrote a script called MCP… for tron. It wasn’t complicated, but it was designed to handle the case that servers dissappear… so it would find new ones. I changed jobs, and they couldn’t figure out how to kill it. Had to call me up. True AGI will clean thier clocks before they even think to stop it. So just hope it ends up being nice.

Everything is always 5 to 10 years away until it happens. Agi cpuld happen any day in the next 1000 years. There is a good chance you won’t see it coming.

Meh, they come back up over time. Long term, the US stock market has only gone up.

I think it was always fucked. They just hid it better, and many people pretended not to see.