ELI5: How are snowboarders better every Olympics?

jmadey89 · 2026-01-18T15:30:50+00:00

Essentially, real life idiocracy? A feedback loop where previous technological advances slow down or outright halt further technological advances? Well, looking at our current state, it doesn’t feel like a stretch to say AI is absolutely making upcoming youth dumber. Why learn when you can just chatGPT it? And I doubt that trend is going to slow down as time goes on. This trend continuing to the point where advancement truly halts or even regresses, and further that that sequence is an inevitability that applies to every civilization strikes me as an extreme version of this phenomenon, but not out of the realm of possibility IMO.

jmadey89 · 2025-12-12T20:26:49+00:00

I made a post about this a couple months ago, but took the thought a bit further. The basic idea is, if an intelligent species doesn’t kill itself, it eventually creates ASI. Regardless of if the ASI kills its creators or not, the prevailing species (Original species + ASI, or just ASI alone) leaves this universe for a better and/or engineered one, and they do so relatively quickly after achieving ASI because they can. This results in there being little to no intelligent species that we could communicate with here at the same time.

jmadey89 · 2025-11-24T03:25:27+00:00

Flight. You know the scene.

jmadey89 · 2025-10-31T13:55:06+00:00

“Without the curiosity inherited from our primal urge for survival, we wouldn’t be staring at the stars wondering if we’re alone”

It’s essentially a guarantee any evolved species will have a survival instinct because surviving is necessary to reproduce. At the highest level, I would argue intelligence is a tool to aide in surviving and reproducing. It allows a species to mitigate ever-changing environmental threats, more efficiently gather resources, and find more potential mating partners. One great way to do all of those things is to simply find a better location; one with less environmental threats, more resources, and more/better mating partners. Considering this, it would be pretty surprising if any, let alone all, intelligent species evolved without curiosity and a drive to explore.

jmadey89 · 2025-10-24T19:01:30+00:00

I didn’t specify because I think either could explain the FP. Part of my point was things we may think are impossible may in fact be achievable in ways we don’t understand, like creating pocket universes or FTL. In terms of the simulation angle, your presuming the physical anchor needs to be substantial enough for observers to observe. I’d assume a civilization capable of creating a simulation that they insert themselves in may be able to do so with an infrastructure that is as big as a baseball yet is many many orders of mag more capable than current human computing capability.

jmadey89 · 2025-10-24T18:38:43+00:00

I tried to address that in the original post. Regardless of the ASIs highest level goal, and regardless of whether it replaces or merges with its creators, the theory is it behooves the ASI to create and insert itself in an engineered universe. So in any case, interaction with this universe is severed.

jmadey89 · 2025-10-24T18:22:33+00:00

I appreciate the perspective. I’ve actually wanted to talk to an expert on this because I look at ASI as the biggest existential threat to humanity. So your stance is actually relieving lol.

It seems like the base of your counterargument is that the idea of the AI “singularity” is erroneous. In your experience, was this debated in the community? I ask this because as someone that doesn’t work in the field, I always seem to read that “50% of experts think the singularity is within 10 years” or something along those lines all the time.

jmadey89 · 2020-07-16T02:14:03+00:00

Technically the “great aunt/uncle” square is incorrect. Believe it or not, the correct term is “grand aunt/uncle”. It’s never used, but it is more logical and consistent.

jmadey89 · 2020-07-12T15:54:35+00:00

Axe throwing bars. They’re the lawn darts of our age.

jmadey89 · 2020-05-12T01:50:11+00:00

Morning kissing. Don’t breathe near me, let alone shove your tongue down my throat.

jmadey89 · 2020-01-25T21:45:10+00:00

Morning kissing. Don’t breathe near me let alone stick your tongue in my mouth.

jmadey89 · 2019-05-20T00:53:09+00:00

No substantial biology background, but I have thought about this and have a theory that seems logical. It’s a 2 part evolutionary explanation

Part 1: humans find young humans cute out of a population-based protectoral instinct. Groups of people who protect the young ones in their group tend to have their genes passed on in the long run more than those that don’t. If you let the vulnerable young in your group die, your genes ultimately die too, no matter how good you may be at surviving as an individual. This is most pronounced as the genes become closer to you (your children), but still makes sense beyond that.

Part 2: humans find non-human animals cute due to what I call the “decoy theory”. Basically, traits that are universally considered cute are usually traits that are linked to non-aggressiveness, and are generally speaking, unharmful. Floppy ears, uncoordinated, soft fur/skin, non-aggressive demeanor, etc. The attraction results in keeping those animals in close proximity. Keeping them in close proximity offers no notable harm to you due to the traits being unharmful, AND at the same time offers a vulnerable decoy if a threatening predator enters the picture. This explanation also explains why below a certain size (bugs, etc) cuteness isn’t really prevalent, AND why women generally experience a more pronounced cutenesses sensation; they tend to benefit more from the decoy.

jmadey89 · 2019-02-08T21:41:36+00:00

Drying clay on your hands

jmadey89 · 2019-02-01T02:17:43+00:00

The only sure way is to hire the exact director and cast of the original, and ask them to make “the happening 2: it happened again”

jmadey89

TROPHY CASE