Carnivorous is the wrong word. Carnivorous plants have digestion systems that allow them to take nutrients directly from their victims.
Flagitious or sanguinary self fertilizing seems a more appropriate label for his hypothesis.

LOL. Do you have a counter-hypothesis?

*quality

I'm currently reading "Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom and it's pretty *fear inducing.

If we ever do hit the singularity... it doesn't really matter what we do.

First up, if it's an AGI is to be any use, it needs to be at least as smart as us. Which means, by definition, it will be capable of writing its own AGI.

There are any number of nightmare scenarios where even a seemly benevolent goal might be disastrous for humanity.

"Multivac, fix the environment!"
"Ok, what's the major issue with the environment?"
/wipes out humanity

"Multivac, solve the Riemann hypothesis!"
"Ok, but I'll need a lot of processing power"
/converts entire planet to a giant cpu

Even if, by some miracle, we end up developing a benevolent AI that understands our needs and is aligned with them, (e.g. the Culture Minds), we are no longer in control.

We might be along for the ride, but we're certainly not driving.

The other thing that's interesting is a question of scale. We tend to think of intelligence in human terms, like this.

infants..... children.....mentally impaired..Sarah Palin.....normal people.....Neil deGrasse Tyson.....Feynman, Einstein, Newton, etc.

But that ignores all the lower intelligences:

bacteria...Trump......insects.....sheep.....dogs...chimps, dolphins, etc............................... dumb human..smart human.

But from a superintelligence's point of view, the scale looks more like this
bacteria.. humanity ... Tesla ................................................... ..................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
............................................................................................. AI

This hypothesis seems more and more correct daily. It should be front and center in any argument against him, because it's a requirement for leadership and scars his hyper inflated ego. If he can't or won't read, we are at the mercy of Bannon and his other advisors, all of whom have been proven to be bold faced liars, and completely at the mercy of other leaders who can get him to sign anything by just lying about what he's signing.

I need to see him take a long form reading and comprehension test on unedited non-stop video, and pass it at a minimum high school level. Until then, I'll continue to think he's an illiterate, incompetent, treasonous, illegitimate president who is involved in a bloodless coup under the directions of Russia.

*promote

But I didn't say just read, I said learn, and I didn't say it would make it clear, I said it would offer more possibilities, and I would expect anyone that learns enough will reach the point beyond which we must admit that all we have is hypothesis, most of which will be wrong.
I disagree that we don't know shit, unless you'll only see our knowledge as a fraction of all knowledge possible, then we do know nothing.

Interesting hypothesis.

She should probably give more credit to the generation above her. It's the same old miscalculation and underestimation I see time and again. The generation above her are just as adaptable, caring, etc as her generation but in different circumstances. They are the ones who brought the world together for her generation to enjoy (they invented just about every high tech thing she enjoys).

Nice condescending line there too, "statistics tell us Trump voters are uneducated". Implying they have no education. Perhaps she should have said less educated.

"Older voters didn't grow up with the internet". True. A group of older voters invented it though. And the rest adapted to using it just fine.

"Teach older folks about climate change". FFS. Really? Perhaps if she looked she'd find that the scientists leading the charge on climate change are "older folks". They've been doing it since before she was born.

"And how to sort out hoaxes on the internet". Like younger people are any better. Lol.

Actually getting a little bored now. She's provided no data to back up anything. Just a stream of consciousness diatribe insulting just about anyone over 40. How thoughtful of her. Not hypocritical at all.

Side note: there was no competition to win the popular vote. You can't win something there is no contest over. Hillary received more of the vote we call the "popular vote". She didn't win anything. Just like you don't win the most yards gained. It is just another metric that has zero bearing on the outcome of the competition.

Hypothesis, not theory.

Lol.

Quite funny video though.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That cat is clearly not familiar with the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

Pretty tenuous to call this an experiment... What hypothesis were they testing, that people watch and share exciting content? That video editing technology is fairly advanced by now but certainly not flawless?

They seem to start off with some media criticism - 'how much of the news should you believe -' but then lose that trail since A) all of their videos were questioned and called out by many as fake, and B) everybody already knows that the 'news' section of the show is over when the anchors are just reacting to fun videos they found online.

I'm fine with this video being an example of well scripted VFX to maximize virality for virtality's sake, but it's pretty goofy to call it an experiment. The best part was the cameo by TV's Frank.

I think this goes a long way to showing my hypothesis that the schism between the two sides really started with the rise of right wing radio, then the furthering of it by Fox News and the really big split after the rise of social media like Facebook, is correct. The echo chambers started growing more and more, and politicians, rather than work with one another became more and more cemented on their respective sides.

"Aside from Tourette's, brain injuries, strokes, dementia , seizures and many other forms neurological damage can usher the onset of coprolalia as well. It is known to be caused by brain dysfunction, but the details are, as yet, hazy. One hypothesis, described by psychologist Timothy Jay in his book "Why We Curse" (John Benjamins Pub Co. 2000), suggests that it's caused by damage to the amygdala, a region of the brain that normally mitigates anger and aggression. Because cursing is a form of verbal aggression, amygdala damage could result in the inability to control aggression, including verbal aggression, or cursing."
http://www.livescience.com/33384-tourette-syndrome-people-curse-uncontrollably.html

If there was only some method where you could make guesses, (let's call them "hypotheses"), test them, and then either confirm or refute that original "hypothesis". I bet we could learn a lot.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Wait...you don't vote for corruption, but you'll vote for Trump? That does not compute. Trump has been involved in 3500 lawsuits over the last decades and often doesn't pay his bills, so often he had to address it and actually said 'if I don't think you did a good job, I don't pay'...that's theft of services, a crime of moral turpitude. You think he doesn't have experience placing obstacles to his adversaries? That's an insane hypothesis, he's shown thousands of times that he does know, and he wrote a book about it. EDIT: In fact, it seems that, in large part, he's made his money by extortion, making it far more difficult and expensive to fight him than it is to just let him rip you off and walk away.
He has clearly and repeatedly said HE is one of the people that paid off politicians to make laws that favor him (he said this in an effort to paint Clinton as corrupt for taking his money). HE is the ROOT of corruption in Washington....how on earth can you convince yourself he's not corrupt.

Trump will absolutely make an unfair system worse. He's a megalomaniac, and will do everything in his power, legal or not, to grab as much power as possible and put it into the hands of the president with no thought to what that does after he's out of office, and no one will stand up to him in any meaningful way out of fear of certain disproportionate reprisal.

Yes, maybe eventually the damage he does could be fixed, but that damage is FAR worse than you seem to imagine. The rest of the world sees him as a completely unstable, unpredictable person, and if he's the president, there's absolutely no question that world markets would fail due to that uncertainty, causing another world recession at best just from his election without a single act. As was mentioned, our standing on the world stage will also be destroyed, as it would be a clear signal to the world that America is not a partner, but an adversary to cooperation and reason.

Most non republicans would certainly disagree with your description of Scalia's record, as would many republicans. Some progressive laws got past him, yes, but the more progressive ones were usually stymied by him for completely insane reasons.

True, a smart corrupt person could do more damage than an upstanding idiot, but a bullying corrupt idiot with power can do the most damage of all without even trying...and holy shit are we all doomed if he gets upset and tries to do damage.

Try looking up powder coating...it's WAY stronger and tougher than paint, which is also highly toxic and chips off far easier. I'm not certain the Vantablack nanotubes are applied that way, but I'm certain that your hypothesis that powder coatings are not as tough or as sealed as paint is wrong. EDIT: Powder coating is going to stay better than paint over time. Yes.
You gonna let your baby suck on paint chips? Did your parents let you? ;-)

Yes, I don't disagree that in powder form nanotubes can get into everything and may be toxic....but in a sealed coating, they are not loose. Be afraid if you wish, but your fear is misplaced IMO. The only one's in danger of breathing the powder are factory workers.