At the end of the day data is just binary, i.e. it's composed of 0 and 1. What those 0 and 1 represent is mostly irrelevant to this discussion. The short version is that 01000001 can mean A or it can mean that a given pixel is 65/256 red, or that the speaker should vibrate in a specific frequency, etc, etc.

So what happens when you open a file that's not text in a text editor? Well, some of the 0 and 1 make up gibberish, or characters that are not meant to be printed. Fun fact, you should be able do this the other way around too, i.e. open a text as an image, but again it will be gibberish, and most likely would not load since images have lots of information that relate to size, compression, etc, that if incorrect the program won't know what to do, but because text can always be valid it will always work, although sometimes your editor might show weird thing in the places where there's a non-printable character.

Do you find it important that Spider-Man does not exist? Do you think anyone in their right mind would find it important? No, but the moment someone starts to force you to do or not do stuff because Spider-Man thinks it's bad it becomes important to make it clear that Spider-Man is not real.

The VAST majority of atheist are indifferent towards religion, unless that religion is trying to control them somehow. This is why you don't see atheist complaining about Buddhism in western countries, if a religion is not trying to force itself into an atheist life he cares as much as you do about all of the thousands of other religions you're an atheist towards. If you feel atheist are trying to impose their non-believe on you, it's because you're trying to impose your belief on them and they're calling you on your bullshit.

Also, btw, I never claimed I was an atheist, so I see no reason for you to think that atheist should believe the same thing I do.

Nope, he finds it important no one uses what to him is a fictional character to push laws and regulations. You would also care if people prohibited you from doing something you like to do or think is important because Superman said it was wrong.

That's a big difference, in general atheist don't care about God(s), they care about people trying to use God(s) to push an agenda, but the people who're trying to use God(s) to push that agenda rarely see the difference.

Now there are clowns everywhere throwing pies at each other

Until there's an AGI that won't happen in any meaningful way. Why? Because here's something that matches your criteria of:

a mystery detective RPG in the style of Sherlock Holmes but set on a cyberpunk styled city on a space station like the Citadel from Mass Effect

You get a text based game where everything you try to do ends up with you dead because a corporation kills you unless you discover that if you look at the ground where you start there's a penny from the year the murderer is from, and then you need to discover who's the murder (changes every time) based solely on this, because that's the sort of thing Sherlock Holmes would do. No, it's not fun, it's frustrating, it's essentially luck, if that's fun to you I have an infinitely replay able game, flip a coin and see how many times you can get heads in a row, if you get to 16 you win.

The thing is LLMs don't understand "fun", they're just auto-completes, so they will just do boring or unfair stuff. And you would need to go very deep into the specifics of your game, to the point where you're essentially programming the game, so at the end of the day it's not something an end user would use.

That's not to say there aren't interesting uses for it inside games, but the moment you can prompt an entire game that's actually fun to play on an AI, that same AI would be able to replace almost every job in the world.

I don't live there anymore, and it's not the oldest building, but there is a pub in Dublin that's been running since 1198, they claim to be Ireland's oldest pub but IIRC the claim is a bit bogus.

I didn't say that they provide no value, I said that the argument of you can't tolerate intolerance can't be used to advocate intolerance towards a group that contains tolerant people, even if the majority of them were not then the argument applies to those specific people, not to the group as a whole.

Not reasonable because you're making a broad generalization that everyone in that country will be intolerant. I'm in favor of facilitating immigration, in fact I'm an immigrant myself, but I do believe that specific people who have intolerant views of others should not be allowed to immigrate.

For example (since this is the most obvious example for immigration), not all Muslims are intolerant, lots of them just want to live a normal life, follow their religion and are okay with others following theirs. Other Muslims are intolerant towards different religions or ways of life, just like how you have Christians who think the same. If you make a broad statement of "all Muslim immigrants are intolerant" you're the one being intolerant, if you say "People who are not okay with LGBT+ rights or freedom of religion should not be allowed to immigrate" then I'm okay with that statement. But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it's unlikely they'll use this argument.

Also I think that as a general rule immigration requires adaptation, if you're interested in moving to another country you should adapt to the culture (and even more importantly the laws) of that place. To give a somewhat innocuous example of this, here in Europe is common for women to expose their breasts when going to the beach, in other parts of the world (possibly including the US) people would be horrified and demand that they're forced to cover themselves, in fact I can imagine a stereotypical US Karen demanding that someone covers their breasts because their kid will see them, but curiously I've never seen that happen. In fact I've even seen Muslim women on the beach, covered from head to toe with special made swimsuits, in the beach near others who were sunbathing and neither of them complained about the other, they just enjoyed their day at the beach their own way. That Muslim woman was likely an immigrant, yet she understands that this is not the same country she grew up, it has different rules and different culture, and she's okay with it, she teaches her values and her culture to their kids, but also teaches them that they need to respect others, and those kind of immigrants not a problem, unlike an intolerant co-citizen.

Yes, I agree, it's not always black in white, but your example is a bad example, I don't care the language someone says that, "The Jews should be eliminated" is an intolerant statement, just as much as "The Muslims should be eliminated", regardless of who says it, it's intolerant and should not be excused by someone's skin color.

Also we must clarify if we're talking about moral or legal argument, as I said morally I think you're okay punching someone in the face when they said you should be eliminated, legally you should probably have some proof of that.

With what level of force are you going to attack them?

With forço proportional to the threat, just like the moral basis for any any self defense. You can't shoot someone who pushed you, but someone who threaten your life is morally (and if you have proof of the threat and it is believable also legally) fair game. Same thing applies here, someone stating "X should be prevented from voting" should not legally be allowed to be punched, but should have his voting rights removed temporarily.

Or force to the extent that they die from it? After all nothing’s safer than a dead attacker.

Yes, if they threaten your, or anyone's, life then killing them is self defense and morally okay in my opinion. So someone claiming "all X should be exterminated" can morally be killed.

Ok but now you’re the one talking about extermination… so what do we do with you? The problem with the Paradox of Tolerance is that there’s a Paradox of Intolerance, too.

Yes, that's why it's a paradox, it wouldn't be a paradox if it didn't have some contradiction in it. But that contradiction is easy to fix, in my examples X must be a superset of people that includes tolerant people. This means that Jews or Muslims are an invalid X, since there are tolerant Jews or Muslims, but "people who wish (non-X) dead" are not, e.g. "people who wish Muslims dead" are a valid X.

Thanks for the correction, I've edited the comment, indeed that could be missinterpreted.

I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually seize power and make an intolerant society, the only way a society can become truly tolerant is by being intolerant towards intolerance.

It's paradoxical, but makes absolute sense. If you allow Nazis to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough Nazis to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they'll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced. The only way to prevent it is by cutting the evil at the root and prevent Nazis from spreading their ideology.

Personally I believe that punching a person who hasn't tried to attack me or anyone is wrong. But the moment someone openly preaches that someone else must be exterminated they're inciting violence which can encourage others to act on it, to me, morally speaking, attacking that person is as much self defense as if they were commiting the act themselves.

Would I personally punch a person because they're spewing hate? Probably not, I would probably try to talk to them and understand their point of view and try to convince them otherwise, since I believe that punching them would make the person close himself to any reasoning from outside of his group, which would make him more Nazi than before. But I also don't think it's morally wrong to do so, it's just not the optimal way of dealing with it.

Nope, never bought any of the NFTs that were sold to idiot speculators because I understand the technology and see no value in owning a token representing a digital image. I feel that the rage of downvoting comes from people who got scammed because they didn't understood the technology and now see it mentioned and think it's all a scam, similar to how old people used to think emails were a scam because they sent money to a prince in Nigeria.