While I’d argue in practice there is a pretty significant difference in capability between household labour, advance materials refinery, and workforce management for the sake of this argument we are obviously assuming hyper advanced robotics and in that case you’re 100% right.

However, going back to my argument of “if they can replace all labour with robotics”: in that kind of situation, what’s to stop us from making more until every job is covered by robotics?

Then none of us need to work, and the entire concept of a billionaire becomes irrelevant.

And who even cares if a couple thousand people decide to leave with some robots? They still won’t be able to bring the majority of their wealth and in that case all the more for us left on earth.

Several people have answered this with essentially: “No, because terraforming is unfeasible and expensive”. I’ll try and answer this question under the assumption that terraforming and leaving is feasible to do.

The core argument against billionaires is that they hoard wealth that they didn’t produce.

Instead, it’s the billions of humans that turn work into value, whether that’s by turning a log into planks, planks into chairs, or by managing the sales operations that allow the sale of those chairs to others.

The 3.5k-ish billionaires in the world didn’t create a billion euros worth of value themselves, they captured most of it from other people’s work, under the justification that they provided the startup capital that allowed the plank maker to buy the log, the chair maker to buy the plank, and the sales managers to buy the chairs to sell. Depending on your ideology this is either justified or not (labour theory of value)

Because of this, getting rid of all the people that generate this wealth inevitably destroys the wealth itself, meaning that: no, they couldn’t just abandon earth because we are the ones that actually create the wealth that allows them their lifestyle. No one to cook, no one to clean, no one to build giant yachts means no billionaire lifestyle.

Now, the newest question at hand in a lot of economies is: will AI and robotics essentially allow billionaires to actually produce this wealth without other people?

Even though research suggests that lots of jobs could be lost, “lots” doesn’t mean all. However, I assume in part your question is motivated by the thought that billionaires will destroy the planet in an attempt to answer that question.

If they CAN, then this means someone still needs to build those robots. That’s probably not going to be the billionaires themselves, so it’ll be us the people doing that. In that case, the only thing stopping us from just making more, until none of us need to work anymore, is the billionaires telling us so.

If they CAN’T, they also can’t leave us behind without also leaving behind pretty much all of their wealth and us just continuing on our way without them, presumably with less being skimmed off the top.

The last caveat to this is, of course, the ruined planet. This is a tricky one, but comes down to a numbers game. We outnumber billionaires by a lot and can drive the change we want by voting and pushing for regulation that benefits the many, not the few.

So, tl;dr: If they want to leave, they need to bring us along, and then they may as well not move, so we pretty much need earth.

I mean, I don’t see an issue with hiding the casting of a spell from people. I do think it should probably be the other way around for players (do a slight of hand to hide the semantic/material components, and beat passive perception), but in principle I don’t see why you shouldn’t be able to hide those?

I tend to rule that any components are “assumed to be in the materials pouch”, unless there is a significant (relative to party wealth) gold price attached, in which case they need to be bought. In practice I found that only really seems to apply to resurrection spells.

From there, the only thing that matters to me is can you reasonably perform or (roll to hide to perform) the semantic and vocal components, as well as get out the materials of your materials pouch in your current state.

In practice this means I can ignore components 85% of the time, but can still temporarily de-power my players if needed for some reason.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re proposing to use as a fingerprint, or what

checking if enough of the fingerprint hashes match with the key

means, however at the end of the day all server-client authentication and authorization works by passing a “password” with the request to prove who you are. Whether that’s a passkey, session token, jwt, actual password or a salted and hashed fingerprint doesn’t change where the security leak for session hijacking is: stealing whatever it is you keep passing along.

You are sending the server something to prove it’s you, and if I steal it I can pretend to be you.

This can be mitigated with short lifespans for those “passwords”, or using cryptography. However, cryptography is expensive and usually already included somewhat by using https, and short lifespans (which I think your multiple fingerprint hashes refers to?) eventually lead to poor user experience by requiring frequent logins or very quick usage because the tokens run out before they can be refreshed.

I know several people who are in arranged marriages, and while they are happy enough with the situation, all of them have very clearly said they will never do this to their children, so take from that what you will.

Introduction is common enough I’d say, but any expectation beyond maybe talking to them is not.

As for what most people do: it’s just going about life and meeting people. Join clubs, talk to people in your community, at work or school, friends of friends (or family friends, again introducing is common enough, anything beyond that isn’t), even bars works; anywhere really.

Just don’t go places to find a partner; go to places to meet people. From there meet the ones you like more often, make friends, and over time you’ll bump into people and find the right ones. This is one of those things that happens more the less you “try”. Be open to the idea, but let people get to know you as a friend first.

Longer is always better, but a fully random password will always be stronger than a “memorable” password of equal length.

You need exactly one memorable password, and that should be the one to your password manager, maybe two if you need to log into your device first. From there everything else should be long and random. Hell, with most of them you don’t ever even need to know your own passwords, the tool just handles them itself.

XKCD has it right that you need length over complexity, but it’s also from 2011. Today, we very easily can and should get both.

Passwords should be like bad experiences.

The more you remember the worse they were.

Agreed, I use AI for coding the way I used to use Stack Overflow:

Find me code examples, explain an error or give me some summaries of how something should work but then I go confirm that or test it separately!

I never trusted Stack Overflow for anything more than pointing me in the right direction for what to research. Documentation links, snippets, blogs etc, that sort of stuff. As long as I tell the AI to give me a reference, about 60-70% of the time I’ll get something I can actually use to confirm the code it gave me or get an answer for my question. At best what it does is save me googling time.

I don’t have hard evidence for this (might try and find some at some point though), but I feel like outages have become progressively more common in the last 4-5ish years.

Feels like every time the AI tools “get better” there’s an increase and no one gives a shit. Like, what the fuck? When did stability and reliability become so irrelevant to people?

Hell, GitHub might as well just close up shop with the amount of outages it’s had recently! I get that the bubble is a bubble but how has AI not cost companies enough in outages to show it’s a waste???