[ExI] My prediction

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 5:12 PM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:


> *> I am even more agin unlimited nuclear war.  After the fact we know that
> the probability of that horrifying world-shattering event was zero with the
> leader who won the 2000 election, but we don’t know what it was had it been
> otherwise.  Conclusion: the outcome of the 2000 election saved the world
> from risk of nuclear war.*
>

*Spike, I don't know how to tell you this but… that's not the way
statistics or probability works.  *


*>>… and I recall what I said in 2016 very well, I said I didn't expect a
> nuclear war but if He Who Must Not Be Named became president the
> probability of it happening would be larger (but still less than 50%) than
> if Hillary Clinton became president….*
>
>
> *> That prediction was wrong. *
>

 *I said the probability of a nuclear war would be less than 50%,
substantially less if I remember correctly, therefore my prediction
would've been wrong if and only if there had been a nuclear war. Or to put
it another way, if there was not a nuclear war then my prediction would not
be wrong; and there was not a nuclear war. *



> *> We know after the fact that the probability was zero point zero the way
> it came out, but non-zero had it gone the other way.*
>

*After the fact we know that the probability of a cure for cancer being
found during the first term of George W Bush's presidency was
exactly zero, but we don't know what the probability of that happy event
occurring if Al Gore had been president for those 4 years, all we know is
the probability couldn't have been less than zero and might have been
larger than zero. **Conclusion: the outcome of the 2000 election condemned
millions of people to die of cancer. *

*Question: Do you find anything in the logic in the above paragraph that
might be considered just a tad screwy? *


> * > **Our society is living an absurd self-parody by pretending we can’t
> define gender*
>

*I agree completely, but you're the one who demanded a definition of the
word "man" not me  *



> *>> …And if** the Electoral College was eliminated and somebody in
>> Wyoming was unhappy that they were living in a state that had little
>> political influence then all they would need to do is move to California….*
>
>
>
> > *They can do that now.  People living in Wyoming individually control a
> larger fraction of a state government. *
>

*I know and that's part of the problem. The population of Wyoming is far
too low for it to be considered a state that deserves two senators. I think
there should be a constitutional amendment that says a state must contain
at least 5% of the total population of the country, if it's smaller than
that then several states must combine to form a larger state. Wyoming only
has 0.17% of the nation's population so it would need to combine with
Montana, Idaho, Dakota (we sure as hell don't need to have 2 of them)
Nebraska and perhaps several others.  California contains 12% of the
nation's population so it would probably be a good idea to split it in
two. *



> * > if individuals want more influence on state and national government,
> the logical thing to do is move to Wyoming.*
>

*To banish someone to Wyoming seems like a pretty cruel thing to do, how is
it fundamentally different than saying if you don't like the way this
nation is run then leave the country you were born in and live in another
country? I think the logical thing for a person to do is to try to get
ancient idiotic laws changed.*


> *> You agree it is a good thing to protect minorities, ja?*
>

*No I do not! I think minority ideas should be vigorously protected, but I
don't think black people should be protected more than white people, or
Jews protected more than Christians, or gay people protected more than
straight people. And I most certainly do NOT think the amount of protection
a citizen of the nation receives should depend on something as trivial as
the geographical coordinates of where they happen to spend most of their
time.  *


> *>>…**If AI does advance as fast as I think it will then He Who Must Not
>> Be Named popularity will be in the toilet and so he won't be able to cancel
>> the November 2028 election as he would like….* *John K Clark*
>
>
>
> *> Being popular doesn’t mean a POTUS has the authority to cancel an
> election. *
>

*Authority? He Who Must Not Be Named doesn't give a hoot in hell about that
and neither does his gang of MAGA zombies, he didn't have the authority to
invade Venezuela without even informing Congress, let alone receiving
authorization to use military force, but that didn't stop him for one
nanosecond. I'm sure You Know Who would agree with Chinese leader Mao
Zedong who said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".*

> the guy who is no longer POTUS on20 Jan following the election.


*On January 21 2029 when we still have the same president that we have
today regardless of what the Constitution says, no doubt the man will dream
up some cockamamie reason to explain why that was necessary, and his MAGA
faithful will agree and try to find excuses for his traitorous behavior.
Will you too? Or will you decide that enough is enough? *

*John K Clark*



>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260107/b40d3a52/attachment.htm>