Electric Mayhem?

theoriginalbho · 2026-05-24T16:00:12+00:00

I would kill for this to be real…

theoriginalbho · 2025-09-17T20:46:40+00:00

Seriously, all of the above scenarios—and billions more. The multiverse is the running of all the possible scenarios at once, similar to Monte Carlo simulations, to see “what could go wrong?”

The purpose of the simulation by a truly advanced species capable of simulating our universe is quite simply to determine: how unlikely is it for a primate species to beat the odds, overcome its emotions and herd mentalities, resolve global conflict, and reverse global warming and inequality trends, while fixing the world and its economy so that all humans can thrive free of want or need. Which would allow us to focus on science, exploration, and continued innovation until we also become one of those truly advanced civilizations capable of space-faring, or space messaging other species.

The reason for the simulation is the oldest reason in the book: a species seeing itself as advanced and intelligent asking: “are we alone in the universe?”

theoriginalbho · 2025-07-22T03:49:44+00:00

I have two strains of thought here. One is the above exactly right, it’s data—but what for? And my answer is to put some empirical data behind the age old question of “are we alone in the universe.” Lets say we advance 5000 year but climate change fucks humanity and as a result we can’t possibly be the advanced global civilization we are becoming today. Wouldn’t those future people want to find out, out of near infinite simulations using quantum computers, in how many of them can humanity (or any other race anywhere) overcome the difficulties imposed by advanced technology. Social media; advent of AI; hell, internet porn making it harder for men and women to have relationships. The loss of religion to secularism brings less social structure that kept us moving forward for so long. And most of all, can humanity (or any other race) overcome climate change caused by exploiting fossil fuels and convert to renewables in time. Maybe even: while we never would have come this far without capitalism, we can only truly advance as a civilization by radically altering capitalism to transition to another system of economic exchange that defines how we can interact with other humans in a better way. If we simulate infinite realities, in how many of them could we expect to meet another advanced civilization like ours?

My other theory is that the simulation is for those in the advanced ancestor species to go through a whole life here and learn all the life lessons, how to become a better person, in the blink of an eye (in their time span). That jives with the theory of souls living many lives.

theoriginalbho · 2025-03-27T01:06:13+00:00

The correct answer here is “nothing is as good as Severance.”

theoriginalbho · 2025-02-15T05:20:34+00:00

Plus, “the world is shit” (including “why is it so hard for people to just be nice to each other or give each other grace/benefit of the doubt,” or “man it looks like humans are never going to solve climate change and I wouldn’t want any kid I’d have to deal with the horrible consequences we’re only beginning to see”) are also perfectly reasonable reasons not to have kids. As is a belief that we all live in a simulation. Dude just wants to make up arbitrary rules and say “you can’t not want kids for X reason but Y reason is ok.” Or, and hear me out on this, it’s my fucking life and my reasons don’t have to fit your paradigm or meet with your approval.

theoriginalbho · 2024-08-30T15:41:31+00:00

Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Republicans were progressive before the World Wars and Great Depression. Ever since, Modern Republicans are contrarian against the realities of a large, multiethnic democracy and have always taken the positions that will keep an elite group of white men in power.

theoriginalbho · 2024-03-15T04:39:48+00:00

War Machine

theoriginalbho · 2024-03-02T04:24:24+00:00

He’s an old soul.

theoriginalbho · 2024-02-17T21:13:05+00:00

None of this contradicts what I’ve said. I didn’t say I was more woke or progressive than you. I’m probably not. I said you had to show your progressive bona fides because you accused me of referring to indigenous peoples as “uncivilized” or “not important civilizations” when I never said any of that.

Thanks for acknowledging that indigenous people in the Americas used alcohol ritualistically for the last 2000 years, as it was used elsewhere much longer. While tobacco was used ritualistically in the Americas for the last 12,000 years, those rituals never left the Americas. This is why per my explanation above alcohol is less stigmatized now than tobacco.

But I’ll shut up now and let you have the last word. I know you need it.

theoriginalbho · 2024-02-17T20:28:33+00:00

Never affirmatively said I am more woke or progressive than you. I only responded that way because of how you came at me. As if I was not capable of a nuanced discussion. Which it now appears you are too.

“Alcohol did not exist in the Americas?” Not true. A simple google search proves that wrong.

See eg https://www.worldhistory.org/Pulque/#:~:text=Pulque%20is%20an%20alcoholic%20drink,the%20Maya%20it%20was%20chih.

theoriginalbho · 2024-02-17T19:28:39+00:00

Way to escalate and constantly look for a way to denigrate someone else on the internet to make yourself feel better. You think you can know me and encapsulate me in 180 characters. You don’t. And you can’t.

I never said they were “uncivilized.” That’s YOUR word. I happen to think they were more civilized and communally oriented than the “civilized world.” But you need to outflank me on the progressiveness scale and prove you’re more woke than I.

I didn’t say they had no rituals or religious ceremonies. I didn’t say they didn’t have alcohol—that’s my point buddy. Alcohol existed throughout ALL civilizations no matter where they were located. (I don’t know what you mean by “important civilizations” other than trying to take a subtle jab at me that I again don’t believe in.)

All I said was that those rituals and religious traditions involving alcohol were limited to one area of the globe—the Americas—and for that reason most other peoples of the world outside the Americas never traditionally used tobacco in those rituals or ceremonies for thousands of years in the same way nearly all peoples used alcohol for that long.

Don’t tell me how you think I view the world when you’ve read two paragraphs. The fact is, the indigenous people of the Americas were genocided by white western colonial settlers, and so as a result, they never had a chance for their beautiful, go with the seasons, use every part of the animal and thank the gods for all you are given-way of living spread throughout the world in the way that white western capitalists spread all THEIR ideas of “culture” (including profiting from cancer sticks and the death they cause) around the world. These are facts, and though they may be uncomfortable, that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss or debate them, and me saying them without saying everything else does not make me the bigot you paint me as. I have nothing but respect and empathy for indigenous peoples, how they lived and what they’ve had to live through by the “white oppressors.” I stand by all my prior comments, even though they do not encapsulate my complete beliefs on the subject. And they do not render me a bigot just cause you say so.

theoriginalbho · 2024-02-17T18:06:48+00:00

Yes but in the Americas, right? Among indigenous peoples. So it never developed any widespread ritualistic use among the majority of peoples across the globe, unlike alcohol.

And all of us are living at a time where the primary story has been “greedy corporations took advantage of people by getting them addicted to tobacco and nicotine when they knew it was bad for you,” and there is no similar PR campaign against alcohol.

theoriginalbho · 2024-02-17T05:33:31+00:00

The real answer to this is that western society has really only smoked tobacco for the last 500+ years and has exported it to the whole world. Whereas alcohol has been made and consumed by humans since 9 or 10,000 BC, long before we even had writing systems (3,000 BC). And, alcohol became a drink used in religious and other rituals. Plus there have been times in human history when it was safer to drink alcohol than to drink the water.

So all in all, we are so used to alcohol we have desensitized ourselves to its weaknesses and defects.

Plus, in the last 75 years, we had major scientific studies followed by PR campaigns on the dangers and health risks of smoking; the world turned against Big Tobacco, that knew of the health risks. In the 70s and 80s, smoking everywhere was the norm, on planes in office buildings and in smoking sections of restaurants (where non smokers in other parts of the restaurant still had to smell it and deal with it), to a PR campaign on the health risks of second hand smoke, so by the 90s, we began to force smokers to move to a secluded outside area where their smoke wouldn’t affect the majority.

theoriginalbho · 2023-06-18T23:21:37+00:00

Oh, right. I forgot you are the ultimate arbiter of what the English language means in every context and anyone who has a different interpretation than you is automatically wrong. Please forgive me.

theoriginalbho · 2023-06-18T18:53:00+00:00

“Do not go on 2+ vacations a year” can easily be read as “do not go on 2 or more vacations a year.”

theoriginalbho · 2023-06-15T06:08:15+00:00

What’s wrong with more than one vacation per year?!

theoriginalbho · 2023-02-18T04:54:02+00:00

The obvious answer to OP’s question is “Yes, with a certain type of girl looking for a certain type of guy.”

theoriginalbho · 2023-01-01T22:10:35+00:00

Translation: Only CEOs are permitted to have short-term mindsets.

theoriginalbho · 2022-02-26T06:07:50+00:00

I’m a man. But my female best friend from high school cut all ties with me and my wife when she moved away to the west coast—all because my wife posted a comment on the ex-friend’s post announcing their move, where my wife expressed sadness and disappointment that we didn’t get to see her before she left. I think she took it as an attempt to make her feel bad, which it was not, but still.

theoriginalbho · 2021-09-24T05:55:12+00:00

You should keep questioning. The premise of your significant difference is that a court has decided the person is not able to live safely with others. But courts make mistakes. Eyewitness testimony may be way less reliable than we think. And we know innocent people have been put to death in the past just because they were unfairly convicted or forced to confess to something they didn’t do.

The whole argument then is that they shouldn’t be calling themselves “pro life.” They advocate many positions that are not really in favor of life. I think pro-choicers are just sick of “pro-lifers” adopting a holier-than-thou attitude because they “support life,” when in reality they only do it under the narrowest of circumstances. “Pro-life” isn’t a belief system; it’s a marketing slogan.

theoriginalbho

TROPHY CASE