Comments by "Mook Faru" (@mookfaru835) on "Veritasium" channel.

  1. No the answer to the problem is Universal income and “smart factories” “Smart factories” have machines that could be work at semi specialized speeds but have the machine be able to do any other task. The giant cost of factory machines would be offset as you can make your “smart factory” to make anything, letting that factory last forever. I am using absolute terms to make it easy to understand. Since people don’t have to keep making one type of thing to offset the cost, you can make a thing to last 100 years (like lightbulbs). And change the output of the factory to make a different thing every time, after having sold to everyone in the world, would only need to sell parts for repair. This allows a system for a few factories to make parts for the whole world. But the problem moves to a monopoly one. Why wouldn’t they maximize gain and charge the max they can so that living expenses matches income? They would, the world has always had major powers. The problem moves again and is a problem of the human condition. Why would people do this? A person in power is a small part of the group in power, they are just small part, sharing tiny responsibility(a cog in the machine). They do not see the outcome of their decisions, + more factors. The system is stable. A solution is to change the human condition by gene editing to make people smarter, kinder, braver. To make a Superman! One that would sacrifice himself and his family for what is right. Like how you hear in the news of a family who are noble and publicly against a bad system, like how Jesus was. Over time the whole world would become a race of the best people to ever have existed, each one having the heart of Jesus, the mind of Einstein, and the body to Achilles. Earth would be a utopia, research would googolplex, people would become literally what Demi gods were in old times. That world would be a completely different world than any before, A Eternal Super Enlightened Futuristic Utopia. I am generalizing of course and leaving out different possibilities and viewpoints to make my point clear and powerful.
    3
  2. @Peter Sage the quotes original intentions are different, but life is vast and you can interpret things a lot of ways.
    2
  3. Its just practical, not genius. Do you want a bent part?
    2
  4. But it’s real heavy.
    1
  5. P hacking the same as throwing more dice in a game of roullete.
    1
  6. Life sucks as you get older
    1
  7. Ahhh the system is broken.
    1
  8. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaay
    1
  9. Your viewers are biased in that they want to be educated which is why they watch your show. No wonder 62 percent say yes. You want to test all types of people.
    1
  10. It's the same thing with netflix, instead of the review system "1/5-5/5 stars" they had when netflix was new; Now they got rid of that system. There are no starts(accuracy of +-20%) or even thumbs up or down(accuracy of +-100%) . It makes the shitty videos viewed more. Individual makers gain and the publisher(netflix) has more viewers and the viewers lose more. It's the idea of personal gain. Which side will gain more than the other? Did I get the accuracy part right?
    1
  11. No, The answer to the problem is: Universal income and “smart factories” “Smart factories” have machines that could be work at semi specialized speeds but have the machine be able to do any other task. The giant cost of factory machines would be offset as you can make your “smart factory” to make anything, letting that factory last forever. I am using absolute terms to make it easy to understand. Since people don’t have to keep making one type of thing to offset the cost, you can make a thing to last 100 years (like lightbulbs). And change the output of the factory to make a different thing every time, after having sold to everyone in the world, would only need to sell parts for repair. This allows a system for a few factories to make parts for the whole world. But the problem moves to a monopoly one. Why wouldn’t they maximize gain and charge the max they can so that living expenses matches income? They would, the world has always had major powers. The problem moves again and is a problem of the human condition. Why would people do this? A person in power is a small part of the group in power, they are just small part, sharing tiny responsibility(a cog in the machine). They do not see the outcome of their decisions, + more factors. The system is stable. A solution is to change the human condition by gene editing to make people smarter, kinder, braver. To make a Superman! One that would sacrifice himself and his family for what is right. Like how you hear in the news of a family who are noble and publicly against a bad system, like how Jesus was. Over time the whole world would become a race of the best people to ever have existed, each one having the heart of Jesus, the mind of Einstein, and the body to Achilles. Earth would be a utopia, research would googolplex, people would become literally what Demi gods were in old times. That world would be a completely different world than any before, A Eternal Super Enlightened Futuristic Utopia. I am generalizing of course and leaving out different possibilities and viewpoints to make my point clear and powerful.
    1