Today I discovered that The Edge annual question asked it’s last question in 2018, after 21 years.

The final question was:

What is the last question?

Some of them are good.

Some are WTF? that’s your final question?

My final engineer’s question is:

How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I discovered that The Edge annual question asked it’s last question in 2018, after 21 years.

The final question was:

What is the last question?

Some of them are good.

Some are WTF? that’s your final question?

My final engineer’s question is:

How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

You tried asking me that one.
Where would Australia have been without the world’s first elected socialist government?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I discovered that The Edge annual question asked it’s last question in 2018, after 21 years.

The final question was:

What is the last question?

Some of them are good.

Some are WTF? that’s your final question?

My final engineer’s question is:

How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

You tried asking me that one.
Where would Australia have been without the world’s first elected socialist government?

?

When did Australia have an elected socialist government?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I discovered that The Edge annual question asked it’s last question in 2018, after 21 years.

The final question was:

What is the last question?

Some of them are good.

Some are WTF? that’s your final question?

My final engineer’s question is:

How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

You tried asking me that one.
Where would Australia have been without the world’s first elected socialist government?

?

When did Australia have an elected socialist government?

The ALP calls itself Social Democrats. They were the first national government formed by the political wing of the union movement.

A question just for roughie:

The Half Remarkable Question

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

You tried asking me that one.
Where would Australia have been without the world’s first elected socialist government?

?

When did Australia have an elected socialist government?

The ALP calls itself Social Democrats. They were the first national government formed by the political wing of the union movement.

Bing says:

“The first national Labor government. The first Labor government – and the first such national government in the world – was formed on 27 April 1904, when JC Watson and his ministers took their oaths of office. Following Westminster tradition, Watson chose his own Cabinet and allocated the ministerial portfolios.”

(link didn’t work for some reason).

I probably should have known that.

And you call yourselves nerds…I don’t know. I also don’t know what the Ultimate Question is, but the answer has to be 42. Surely.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

?

When did Australia have an elected socialist government?

The ALP calls itself Social Democrats. They were the first national government formed by the political wing of the union movement.

Bing says:

“The first national Labor government. The first Labor government – and the first such national government in the world – was formed on 27 April 1904, when JC Watson and his ministers took their oaths of office. Following Westminster tradition, Watson chose his own Cabinet and allocated the ministerial portfolios.”

(link didn’t work for some reason).

I probably should have known that.

The current ALP platform states:

“The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.”

It has been a self-styled socialist party from the year dot, and remains one.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The ALP calls itself Social Democrats. They were the first national government formed by the political wing of the union movement.

Bing says:

“The first national Labor government. The first Labor government – and the first such national government in the world – was formed on 27 April 1904, when JC Watson and his ministers took their oaths of office. Following Westminster tradition, Watson chose his own Cabinet and allocated the ministerial portfolios.”

(link didn’t work for some reason).

I probably should have known that.

The current ALP platform states:

“The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.”

It has been a self-styled socialist party from the year dot, and remains one.

OK, but they aren’t very socialist really, agreed?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bing says:

“The first national Labor government. The first Labor government – and the first such national government in the world – was formed on 27 April 1904, when JC Watson and his ministers took their oaths of office. Following Westminster tradition, Watson chose his own Cabinet and allocated the ministerial portfolios.”

(link didn’t work for some reason).

I probably should have known that.

The current ALP platform states:

“The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.”

It has been a self-styled socialist party from the year dot, and remains one.

OK, but they aren’t very socialist really, agreed?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It’s a very broad term.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The current ALP platform states:

“The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.”

It has been a self-styled socialist party from the year dot, and remains one.

OK, but they aren’t very socialist really, agreed?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It’s a very broad term.

I thought that was “liberal” :)

But enough of politics.

I liked this one from Lee Smolin:

Why is the acceleration of the expansion of the universe roughly equal to a typical acceleration of a star in a circular orbit in a disk galaxy?

Is it really going to be that bad?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I discovered that The Edge annual question asked it’s last question in 2018, after 21 years.

The final question was:

What is the last question?

Some of them are good.

Some are WTF? that’s your final question?

My final engineer’s question is:

How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

That’s harder to answer than my ultimate question “what is life”?

> How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

Is this actually two questions:

• What are the political and economic systems that maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone?
• How do we change what we have now?

I had a political system based on – dang it, can’t find it, from memory:

The government is run by people in a few political positions.

• The vision – has the role of setting policy
• The executive – has the role of getting things done
• The judge – hears and decides on cases
• The voice – communicates to the public and foreign countries
• The crook – roots out self-interest and corruption wherever it occurs

Each individual hired for their qualifications and abilities for the job. For example, “the voice” has no role in setting policy and “the vision” doesn’t talk to the media.

As for “how do we change what we have now for the long term overall benefit of everyone”, might I suggest starting by adding antidepressants to the water supply along with the fluoride?

mollwollfumble said:

> How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

Is this actually two questions:

• What are the political and economic systems that maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone?
• How do we change what we have now?

Just quickly but,

Good point :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

A question just for roughie:

The Half Remarkable Question

:)

He looks a bit like I did back then.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I discovered that The Edge annual question asked it’s last question in 2018, after 21 years.

The final question was:

What is the last question?

Some of them are good.

Some are WTF? that’s your final question?

My final engineer’s question is:

How can we change political and economic systems to maximise the long term overall benefit for everyone, rather than maximising the short term material benefit for those in positions of power and influence?

You tried asking me that one.
Where would Australia have been without the world’s first elected socialist government?

?

When did Australia have an elected socialist government?

You don’t recall? It was way back when we had a tree of knowledge.

buffy said:

And you call yourselves nerds…I don’t know. I also don’t know what the Ultimate Question is, but the answer has to be 42. Surely.

Yep.

In Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy we learn that the answer to everything is 42.
42, split up, is 'shi' (Chinese version) and 'ni' in Japanese. Put together 'shini' can be written in kanji as 死に, which means 'to die'.
hhgttg is telling us the answer to everything is to die 😳 pic.twitter.com/B9n4Cs3u6d

— Gary 鯨理／경리 Illyes (@methode) August 13, 2018

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

And you call yourselves nerds…I don’t know. I also don’t know what the Ultimate Question is, but the answer has to be 42. Surely.

Yep.

No

5.5

Arts said:

In Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy we learn that the answer to everything is 42.
42, split up, is 'shi' (Chinese version) and 'ni' in Japanese. Put together 'shini' can be written in kanji as 死に, which means 'to die'.
hhgttg is telling us the answer to everything is to die 😳 pic.twitter.com/B9n4Cs3u6d

— Gary 鯨理／경리 Illyes (@methode) August 13, 2018

Everything that comes into being is meant to break down.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

In Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy we learn that the answer to everything is 42.
42, split up, is 'shi' (Chinese version) and 'ni' in Japanese. Put together 'shini' can be written in kanji as 死に, which means 'to die'.
hhgttg is telling us the answer to everything is to die 😳 pic.twitter.com/B9n4Cs3u6d

— Gary 鯨理／경리 Illyes (@methode) August 13, 2018

Everything that comes into being is meant to break down.

Here’s my question for today, having just read a NS article that yet again stated that the fundamental laws of physics have no direction of time:

WTF do so many scientists state that the fundamental laws of physics have no direction of time, as if it was some absolute and unquestionable truth, when any real complex system shows a direction of time when modelled according to the fundamental laws of physics, if it is modelled with sufficient precision?

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

In Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy we learn that the answer to everything is 42.
42, split up, is 'shi' (Chinese version) and 'ni' in Japanese. Put together 'shini' can be written in kanji as 死に, which means 'to die'.
hhgttg is telling us the answer to everything is to die 😳 pic.twitter.com/B9n4Cs3u6d

— Gary 鯨理／경리 Illyes (@methode) August 13, 2018

Everything that comes into being is meant to break down.

It’s a happier meaning than that. Shi ni is pronounced Shiny & it attracts all sorts of exotic creatures.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

In Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy we learn that the answer to everything is 42.
42, split up, is 'shi' (Chinese version) and 'ni' in Japanese. Put together 'shini' can be written in kanji as 死に, which means 'to die'.
hhgttg is telling us the answer to everything is to die 😳 pic.twitter.com/B9n4Cs3u6d

— Gary 鯨理／경리 Illyes (@methode) August 13, 2018

Everything that comes into being is meant to break down.

It’s a happier meaning than that. Shi ni is pronounced Shiny & it attracts all sorts of exotic creatures.

:) Like that one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

In Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy we learn that the answer to everything is 42.
42, split up, is 'shi' (Chinese version) and 'ni' in Japanese. Put together 'shini' can be written in kanji as 死に, which means 'to die'.
hhgttg is telling us the answer to everything is to die 😳 pic.twitter.com/B9n4Cs3u6d

— Gary 鯨理／경리 Illyes (@methode) August 13, 2018

Everything that comes into being is meant to break down.

Here’s my question for today, having just read a NS article that yet again stated that the fundamental laws of physics have no direction of time:

WTF do so many scientists state that the fundamental laws of physics have no direction of time, as if it was some absolute and unquestionable truth, when any real complex system shows a direction of time when modelled according to the fundamental laws of physics, if it is modelled with sufficient precision?

Why would we have gone to so much trouble to measure time more and more accurately?

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

In Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy we learn that the answer to everything is 42.
42, split up, is 'shi' (Chinese version) and 'ni' in Japanese. Put together 'shini' can be written in kanji as 死に, which means 'to die'.
hhgttg is telling us the answer to everything is to die 😳 pic.twitter.com/B9n4Cs3u6d

— Gary 鯨理／경리 Illyes (@methode) August 13, 2018

Everything that comes into being is meant to break down.

It’s a happier meaning than that. Shi ni is pronounced Shiny & it attracts all sorts of exotic creatures.

:)

I need to fix my model of an ideal government by adding a new member – the knowledge.

The government is run by people in a few political positions.

• The vision – has the role of setting policy
• The knowledge – keeps up to date with everything happening
• The action – has the role of getting things done
• The decision – hears different opinions and decides which to follow
• The voice – communicates to the public and foreign countries
• The crook – roots out self-interest and corruption wherever it occurs

Each individual hired for their qualifications and abilities for the job. For example, “the voice” has no role in setting policy and “the vision” doesn’t talk to the media.

> Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy

Has several good things to say about government. So does Heinlein in, for instance, “The moon is a harsh mistress”.

From HHGTTG.

“Any person capable of becoming president of the galaxy should under no circumstances be allowed to do the job”.

“The problem is this: Change”.

From TMIAHM.

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

“My point is that one person is responsible. Always. In terms of morals there is no such thing as ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts. I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”