Less cognitive, really, did you give them all IQ tests? In a discussion on any other topic on HN shitty anecdotes like this would be dismissed immediately.
Is this a bot or what? I find it hard to believe that people actually believe that if you smoke pots you will only engage in Banal activities. Unbelievable.
Don't all you nerds live in Cali anyway so wtf is HN's issue with pot?
Why is this comment even necessary? The number of dirt poor rural whites in the US is staggering. Would you be comfortable telling such a person that they have immense privilege because of their white skin? They'll probably slap you silly.
Usain Bolts may not be but the averages certainly are. I think it's pretty obvious that if a woman can pass the same fitness requirements that men have then they should be able to serve in combat. If you are lowering the requirements to allow them in that's dangerous.
Honestly I think much of the problem lies here, the definitions people are using for Gender and Sex have shifted and for many, on the right certainly, they mean the same thing while they are distinct to the left.
However that doesn't excuse arguments like men being physically stronger and faster solely due to upbringing and not biology.
But men ARE better at games and they ARE stronger physically and they ARE faster and they DO have better reaction times. We can debate the reasons all day and I'm happy to do so but the problem is that people are denying the basic measurements.
You can look up countless instances of Social Science professors and students saying unironically that for instance superior Male performance in sports is entirely due to social upbringing. These people are overwhelmingly on the left politically. James Damore was fired from Google for publishing a relatively straightforward reading of sexual difference research. So yes it is a taboo.
I don't think your example demonstrates my point at all. Accepting that there are sex differences has little to do with acceptance of Trans people.
I think you are seriously overestimating our current understanding of the universe/physics. For instance we don't even know if our universe is finite or not, if it's infinite then your point is moot and you literally would have access to infinite compute.
I disagree, I have seen research indicating that it's reasonable to have a computing system with on the order of 10^69 bits. There doesn't seem to be anything magical about this thinking at all.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.03394.pdf
>Apparently too many people dismiss the second possibility and forget reporting about it when discussing the topic.
I doubt most people even HN types have read the actual argument.
> I can think of several limits of physics and complexity that could make either hypothesis less than plausible
No one is saying this is feasible in the short term and no offense but I highly doubt that you are privy to the physics available to humans hundreds or thousands of years in the future.