zapatos

You are making gigantic assumptions. Maybe this is Simulation v8.6 and the 'simulation time' prior to last Thursday was just cut/pasted into this version of the simulation. Maybe the "7.5 billion narratives and countless iterations" are just part of an infinite loop in the program and that portion was written by the interns over a weekend. Why would they want to wait almost 14 billion years to find out what they are really looking for, which is the state of the universe in the year 2021? Maybe the simulation has a series of Big Bangs going back in time and we just haven't uncovered them yet, which is a key point of the simulation. Maybe the point of this particular simulation is to test their ability to launch on a Thursday while making it look like the universe is almost 14 billion years old. Thinking you know the mind of the simulators (who you don't even have any evidence exist) has got to be the biggest wild ass guess since Nostradamus predicted 9/11 would actually happen on September 12.

I'm in no position to judge the physics behind michel's speculation, but it reminds me of someone trying model the universe from a geocentric perspective. It might ultimately work, but why complicate something that is (relatively) simple and works just fine?

QFT

I was actually unable to find any study that showed money to be the primary motivator. https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv

If this is indeed a simulation why is it ridiculous to think it may have begun last Thursday? When do you propose the simulation actually began?

Like perhaps a test for God? Unless we KNOW the testable characteristics of a simulation, the only thing you can test for is what you IMAGINE a simulation to look like. Similarly I can test for God only if I KNOW a physical characteristic unique to God that I can test for. Otherwise I'm testing for God by seeing the beauty in a child's face or the miracle of living through a horrendous car crash. It may be that a lattice structure is evidence of God, not a simulation.

Sorry, I was referring to the military of most First World Countries. As I am speaking of training military personnel and not about equipment, this portion of the military would be considered more socialistic (funded by us, run by the government) as opposed to capitalistic (a weapon created by private industry). My point was that the government does a very good job of training our military personnel.

Well, that's the goal anyway. Given that many Defense programs are wildly over budget I wouldn't call it a "guarantee". So you would say that the military training of most First World countries results in a "mediocre product?"

I have no idea how he intends to present his evidence.

When do you think you will get around to presenting the evidence?

Now would be a good time to start presenting the evidence.

I went out to Amazon to see what hand sanitizer was selling for. While all prices are ridiculously elevated, the worst was 36 1-oz bottles for $499.

But wouldn't it be great on SNL?

How is "can I be healed in your country" relevant to whether or not the military is a socialistic system?

That might best be discussed in another thread.

Or a spouse or parent of the billionaire. Huh? No executions involved. I don't know what you are talking about.

Whatever. It is the Social Security System in the United States.

I'm describing the way our social security system works.

As iNow pointed out there are many variations. I am making the argument that socialism requires that the contributors to a system also be the benefactors of the system. An example being Social Security, and a hybrid system being the military.

I agree. So we need to quit calling it socialism if instead it is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism.

Doesn't matter if I need it or not. I still get it. And it is proportional. I'll get more than my wife because I paid in more than she did. It doesn't matter to me, it matters to the definition of socialism and its application to the military, which is what the OP asked about.

No, my 'doctrine' of socialism requires that the benefactors be those who paid for the military. If the benefactors are oil companies then the military is serving the needs of capitalism, not socialism. I disagree. Social Security as an example provides funds to everyone who contributed, and the more you contributed, the more you get back. If you are a billionaire you still get social security payments.

Any collective monies spent on capitalistic interests or to defeat socialistic governments is not a socialistic endeavor.

"American" interests sure, but not necessarily for anything resembling socialistic interests. Many of the interventions during the Cold War were decidedly anti-socialism. Many others were in support of capitalism. Those interventions tend to undermine the claim that the military (at least in the US) is a socialistic institution. Some of Canadas "larger conflicts" include overseeing elections in Korea and work in Haiti, which again is hardly a threat. Canada is a shining example of using their military for the right reasons, but those reasons are not always for protecting citizens who are Canadian.

Even in Canada the Military does more than that, and the US puts Canada to shame when it comes to using the Military for other purposes. The US has sent troops to Latin America about every four years on average since its founding. Countries like Grenada haven't really posed much of a threat to the US.