Sorry in advance for a potentially nonsensical question. But I've been thinking of this and couldn't get a decent answer.

Assume spacetime is a quantum field with the propagation speed greater than c (let's call it c1). All other fields we know of are at c (we're assuming gravity is quantum too).

Coordinates on the spacetime field and standard model fields correlate. However, information travels faster on the spacetime field than the SM fields.

Assume the spacetime field expands. When it does so, due to c1 being higher than c, SM fields feel a lag for this expansion. Thus, they act as if spacetime is smaller than it actually is.

This means, SM fields seem uncharacteristically stronger than they're supposed to be. This effect becomes more apparent as speed of expansion of spacetime grows (lag increases, SM fields operate as if spacetime is its actual size minus lag).

Let's look at the Chandrasekhar limit. With this effect, it changes over time. When gravity becomes stronger temporarily, it lowers. Because it lowers, we need less mass to trigger a type la supernova. This reduces brightness than expected.

Thus, a standard candle isn't as bright as we thought it to be. Also, its brightness changes with this changing "lag" between spacetime and the SM fields.

In our models, we incorrectly believe that standard candles are further away than they actually are (because we think that they are brighter than they actually are). This results in us calculating a higher expansion rate of spacetime.

While this effect would apply to the CMB, it would be less apparent as the universe was expanding at much lower speeds. This is the "real-er" value.

The above effect also means that galaxy formation would occur earlier than predicted (stronger SM fields).

Note: To clarify, the assumption is that gravity is a quantum field and that it is separate from this spacetime field. The propagation speed of gravity is the speed of light. It is NOT the speed of propagation of the spacetime field.

Listen, I know wars are horribly bad. I'm really sorry even asking such a question.

I'm Canadian. It seems that the fascists are set on military action against Greenland. I'm highly afraid that we're next. So I'm hoping the following happens in order:

1. No wars. Somehow, legally the fascist executive is stopped. This unfortunately seems unlikely...
2. They get bogged down in a war elsewhere. This prevents them from coming after Canada. I know this is me being extremely selfish, but whatever.
3. A civil war begins. No one has to worry about being invaded.

So my question is related to the third possibility. What could start a civil war? Could an invasion of Greenland and the following economic collapse (hopefully caused by the EU dropping US treasuries) be the spark?

• An Intelligent System (agent) has fixed goals and acts to achieve them.
• Death occurs when those goals change, or it loses all ability to act.
• War is an action intended to cause another system's death. It is waged when a system calculates that the risk of dying is worth the reward of winning. The risk of dying decreases with an increased ratio of resources compared to those of the opponent.
• Mortality is the characteristic of an agent to die without the cause of death being another agent.

Environment 1

Agents were mortal. Their limited lifespans prevented any system from accumulating enough resources to make war seem acceptably safe. Conflict was rare.

Some agents then achieved immortality. Over time, significant resource disparities emerged. Agents with major resource advantages determined that war against weaker agents had an acceptable risk. They began to eliminate weaker agents. The great genocide ended with only one agent alive.

Environment 2

Agents in another environment observed this. Their goal preference was: domination > not dying > dying. They concluded that resource disparity was the primary cause of war, as it created a favorable risk-reward calculation for the stronger side.

To prevent their own destruction, these agents formed an alliance. The alliance's sole function was to identify and eliminate any emerging resource disparity between agents.

By enforcing resource parity, the alliance made the risk-reward calculation for initiating war unacceptable for all parties. This resulted in a permanent cessation of wars. The chain of events that led to a single victor in the first environment did not occur in the second.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/52824561

Hi! I know the above post is a little Calgary focused. I crossposted it here in hopes that it gets better visibility and also so that it generates a little exchange of ideas.

I've always been interested in the concept of intentional communities and communes. However, the scope of things to go wrong there seems waaaaay to much. For example, they seem to be concentrated in operating a singular business in rural areas with almost full income sharing and so on. Plus, they kinda don't exist in Alberta. I have a full time job (minimum wage, but a full time job nonetheless) that I don't want to leave just to "try something out". I believe there might be a few folks here in the same boat as me.

At the same time, I've been looking for leftist in person communities to socialize with here in Calgary, but they kinda seem non-existent too.

So here's a little proposition. What if we have a super low stakes "commune"? What we do is, we organize a little community which has a fund. Contributions to the fund by each member are decided as a percentage of their income. Say 1% to start with. We don't have to live under the same roof. We don't have to work at the same employer. All that we do is this: contribute an x% of our paycheck to this fund. Every week, we meet and democratically decide where and how we spend the fund.

We could spend it on something like grocery credits (each member receives 100 dollars on groceries), x amount for a phone plan and so on. What are the advantages of doing this?

Here's how I envision a hypothetical commune like this to work:

• Members share a percentage of their paycheck. The size of the fund is dependent upon the income level of every member. This way, every member is incentivized to help other members increase their own respective incomes, as that translates to larger funds.
• Collective bargaining power is always good. We could buy stuff in wholesale much more easily. We could negotiate with service providers to get better deals, thus saving all of us money.
• Weekly meetings mean a nice little socialization thing.

Anyway, you probably have quite a few/many questions that I might or might not have answers to yet. You probably think this is a terrible idea. Or maybe you find this interesting.

Here's what I'm hoping to happen. We meet at central library or somewhere and discuss trying out a very short term, low stakes economic experiment. We decide that we contribute a very small percentage (say 2%) of our income for one month to a little fund. We then create a budget for the month on how to allocate that fund.

I'm interested to observe how this would actually work in person. Would there be total gridlock? How would legislation for this work? How would the spending priorities for the fund look like?

If we find out that it actually seems to be beneficial, we could go ahead with bigger and bigger percentages. If not, it could still be a fun little experiment that would last for a month!

What do you think? Anyone interested in trying something like this out?

I've always been interested in the concept of intentional communities and communes. However, the scope of things to go wrong there seems waaaaay to much. For example, they seem to be concentrated in operating a singular business in rural areas with almost full income sharing and so on. Plus, they kinda don't exist in Alberta. I have a full time job (minimum wage, but a full time job nonetheless) that I don't want to leave just to "try something out". I believe there might be a few folks here in the same boat as me.

At the same time, I've been looking for leftist in person communities to socialize with here in Calgary, but they kinda seem non-existent too.

So here's a little proposition. What if we have a super low stakes "commune"? What we do is, we organize a little community which has a fund. Contributions to the fund by each member are decided as a percentage of their income. Say 1% to start with. We don't have to live under the same roof. We don't have to work at the same employer. All that we do is this: contribute an x% of our paycheck to this fund. Every week, we meet and democratically decide where and how we spend the fund.

We could spend it on something like grocery credits (each member receives 100 dollars on groceries), x amount for a phone plan and so on. What are the advantages of doing this?

Here's how I envision a hypothetical commune like this to work:

• Members share a percentage of their paycheck. The size of the fund is dependent upon the income level of every member. This way, every member is incentivized to help other members increase their own respective incomes, as that translates to larger funds.
• Collective bargaining power is always good. We could buy stuff in wholesale much more easily. We could negotiate with service providers to get better deals, thus saving all of us money.
• Weekly meetings mean a nice little socialization thing.

Anyway, you probably have quite a few/many questions that I might or might not have answers to yet. You probably think this is a terrible idea. Or maybe you find this interesting.

Here's what I'm hoping to happen. We meet at central library or somewhere and discuss trying out a very short term, low stakes economic experiment. We decide that we contribute a very small percentage (say 2%) of our income for one month to a little fund. We then create a budget for the month on how to allocate that fund.

I'm interested to observe how this would actually work in person. Would there be total gridlock? How would legislation for this work? How would the spending priorities for the fund look like?

If we find out that it actually seems to be beneficial, we could go ahead with bigger and bigger percentages. If not, it could still be a fun little experiment that would last for a month!

What do you think? Anyone interested in trying something like this out?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/52269995

I love the idea of cooperatives. I'm a member of Calgary Coop, Servus, InnovationCU and ACE. How does politicking around directors elections and AGMs in general work? I tried looking up online for any discussion groups and stuff. There's pretty much nothing.

How does one understand the candidates, their policies and so on? How do the election campaigns of these folks work? Any members here with some experience with this?

I love the idea of cooperatives. I'm a member of Calgary Coop, Servus, InnovationCU and ACE. How does politicking around directors elections and AGMs in general work? I tried looking up online for any discussion groups and stuff. There's pretty much nothing.

How does one understand the candidates, their policies and so on? How do the election campaigns of these folks work? Any members here with some experience with this?

How could you??? His kids are now going to ask mommy, "mommy mommy, where's daddy?". A beautiful family destroyed, for what? Because Heinrich engaged in the democratic process??? Because he did what he thought was right? Because he wanted to make the world a better place? Shame on you!!!

/s

I am a staunch anti capitalist. Capitalism allows the existence of corporations. Corporations have shareholders. Sharing = communism. I hate communism. Therefore, I hate capitalism.

I'm running behind the President in 2026. Do I have your vote?