I’m not saying it’s not possible that the Sims franchise has gotten worse. I’m just saying that lots of people would have described every Sims game in the same terms OP did. I’m also saying that your tastes and preferences can change over time. It’s possible, but certainly not the only option, that these two things are more true than it is that Sims is getting worse.

Star Trek is a great example of what I’m talking about actually. How many legitimate scientists do you think are out there right now who either had their interest in science first sparked by or at least significantly influenced from watching some version of Star Trek? I would bet it is a lot of them. Not every concept in Star Trek is worth diving into from a scientific perspective but not trying to do that at all would be a huge mistake.

Now, Graham Hancock isn’t writing Star Trek but people listen to what he’s saying for the same basic reasons they watch Star Trek. They are curious about a science based approach to the world. They don’t know he’s exaggerating some things and taking other things out of context. Use the opportunity to teach them.

In other words, don’t call them idiots for watching Star Trek, start a conversation about space travel.

Lots of things people are interested in could reasonably be described as ridiculous by someone educated in the field. Why is it so hard for you to see those topics as a conversation starter rather than basically calling people idiots for wanting to learn about something?

There’s nothing fun about the game, and you see people streaming it, it’s just building. That’s all they are ever doing. Just building crap.

To be fair, that’s always been a reasonable description of games like Sims, Minecraft, and most other simulation style games, depending on personal preference. Maybe the fact that you’re choosing to use it now means you aren’t as interested in that style of game, or even video games in general, as you used to be. Maybe not, but I think it’s worth considering at least.

You’re ignoring the interesting questions he asks in favor of the easy to hand wave away stuff and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. To be clear, I’m not defending the things he says. I’m pointing out that his more outlandish theories gain more traction because the scientific community doesn’t lean into the softballs and use them as an opportunity to both teach people actual science and understand what different groups of people want to learn about.

Ignore the star / soul example and focus in on the possibility of an ancient and semi advanced civilization existing. That’s the part grabbing people’s attention. Talk about what that would change about our understanding of the past and what sort of evidence we would expect to find if it were true. Showcase people working in related fields and what they have found already. Propose other locations we could look for that evidence and discuss other topics we could study while looking for that evidence in those places. Engage the curiosity, don’t dismiss it. Anyone listening to Graham is likely uneducated in science but interested in it so use that as your jumping off point instead of judging those people for not being farther down the path.

I don’t see how getting more people interested in ancient history and geology is a bad thing. Part of the reason Graham has the wiggle room to make the claims that he makes is that the subject is relatively unstudied.

Obviously there is actual science taking place in the field and has been forever but funding for that kind of thing is notoriously difficult to come by compared to many other fields. Getting grants to study the distant past for essentially no reason other than curiosity is not a priority within an economic system that prioritizes profit over all else. The best way to break through that particular obstacle is getting more people to pay attention and ask questions. If we need a benign conspiracy theory about “big geology” hiding the truth from us to make that happen then where’s the harm in that? The vast majority of people prone to conspiratorial thinking are already farther down that rabbit hole than Hancock’s ideas will take them.

Additionally, actual scientists would do well to learn something from Graham about presentation. Despite what you may think of him, the way he talks about the subject resonates with people. People don’t want hear a regurgitation of facts in a research paper. Speculate a bit and get people excited about your future work. You don’t need to go to the extremes that he does but don’t refuse to branch out from what can be conclusively proven today either. Talk about your theories and what you’re hoping to find / learn just as much as you talk about the results of your research.

What kind of resources does this guy have? I don’t think governments can even do proportional and instantaneous DDOS responses. I messed with the wrong dude.

I suppose it’s good to take any opportunity to clarify moderation policies but… all this over cat food? Jesus Christ people, have some perspective. Not every topic needs to devolve into a debate about free speech and censorship.

It’s easier to verify rote memorization than actual understanding so naturally shitty schools focus on the former at the expense of the latter. Most American schools are shitty by academic standards.

True but if we suddenly invent an AI that can replace most jobs I think the rich have more to worry about than we do.

In what way is presenting factually incorrect information as if it’s true not a bad thing?

I was perfectly fine with the amount of annoyance I felt before I read this comment but you just had to bring up another unfinished series didn’t you? Now I’m all flustered.

And yet they still regularly have a right wing government fucking things up for them. Perhaps turnout is not the primary issue after all.

Space elevator. Trash go up, gentle push towards your favorite star (except the sun), bye forever.

By the way, I know this isn’t practical so a detailed response outlining the challenges is unnecessary.

I don’t disagree with you that it’s bad but I don’t think changing the fashion industry is going to solve those problems either. People are selfish and exploitation is in our nature. We will simply invent new ways to steal from and oppress others unless the whole world suddenly decides they don’t like money. The people making cheap shirts in Malaysia still need to make a living if we shut down the sweat shops. Unless the root problem is solved they’ll just be out of work until Apple or whoever else comes in to exploit the cheap labor market and the cycle starts over again.

Exactly. I would say an MBA is only useful if your undergrad degree was in something other than business. It is meant to add management skills to an already skilled individual. If you don’t have any other skills it’s just an expensive piece of paper that, at least to me, signifies essentially the same thing as being the boss’s son would. You probably aren’t very good at anything but always think you’re the smartest person in the room.

MBAs have no useful skills and yet they run every company in existence.

Sure but they need to be at least a little bit believable and have a clear beneficiary or else they don’t serve much of a purpose. It’s pretty easy to see why various groups of people would have wanted JFK dead, or to fake the moon landing, or hide the fact that vaccines cause autism, or cover up alien abductions, or any of the other conspiracy theories you normally hear about. Flat earth just seems so benign in comparison.

I have so many questions about flat earth theory. Many practical questions like you noted but also more general stuff like who benefits from it? Conspiracies usually have some secret order hiding the truth in order to maintain power or enrich themselves. What difference does it make to anyone what shape the earth is? It doesn’t seem like it benefits anyone to deceive the world about that. Maybe globe makers since a 3D object is more expensive than a map on a piece of paper?

These questions pop into my head every time the topic gets brought up but I don’t make the effort to look into it because at the end of the day it feels like a pointless exercise to peer into the mind of a lunatic looking for rationality.

That concept is lost on so many people and I don’t understand why. One of the last teams I was on had two weekly meetings. One was 9:00 AM Monday morning and the other was 4:00 PM on Fridays. They were both running through all of our projects and always seemed surprised that the Monday update was the same as the previous Friday update.