run your entire steam library concurrently.

What’s hilarious about this assertion, is what the intersection of quantum computing and conventional gaming would look like. Quantum is, roughly, all about taking a vast array of possible outcomes for a system and collapsing all of that into a single, highly probable, result*. So running a game through a quantum computer would effectively “solve” it. So, enjoy watching the most statistically likely ending for every AAA game out there - no controller required.

(* “In linear time.” Which is fancy computer science talk for “many orders of magnitude faster than the conventional way.” But you still have to stack the math to make this work, which isn’t always easy or possible.)

Something I find funny - uncanny even - is how easily the roles swap. If someone sent you a mountain of ‘evidence’ for a flat earth or magnetising vaccines, and you threw it out saying obviously it’s BS and you can’t be bothered to read it, the internet would agree and laud you for common sense.

But OP-of-the-tweet sends her friend two ‘sources’ and we all agree the friend is an idiot for not believing the ‘facts’.

I suppose what it means is, quantity of evidence isn’t useless, but is only part of the search for knowledge.

Have to be careful to not upset Big Wheel

If the past 10 years have told me anything, by being a large hard-right media conglomerate consistently pounding the same facts as the reason for everyone’s fear, unifying desperate people against a windmill you propped up yourself.

stories about lived experiences are more effective, but ultimately it depends on the person being willing to introspect and change their mind

here’s a full article about how to change people’s mind, if you want to read more on the subject: https://time.com/6224300/how-to-change-someones-mind/

One of the biggest general things is giving them a graceful out.

One of the biggest markers of an intelligent person is the ability to accept they were wrong about something and update their world view. This leads them to finding the best understanding they currently can, rather than the first that stuck.

For most people this is extremely hard. If you also put them in a position where they feel like an idiot if they agree with you, many will just dig their heels in. Once this happens, the more you push the more they dig in. It has become part of their identity, and you are attacking it.

Unfortunately, the details about how to guide someone through are different depending on the person. Generally you want to align your new knowledge with their mindset, give them a good reason why they held their previous view, and how updating it improves them.

It’s analogous to clearing sand with a hose Vs a sledge hammer. The sledge hammer will often compact the sand, rather than move it. Water can wash it away, but the process is slower. It also gets harder if it’s previously been pounded with the hammer.

And rereading my word salad, I’ve got no idea how helpful it actually is as advice, but I’ll post it anyway, in case it’s actually useful to someone.

Belief is social. If you can appeal to a group they have membership in, they’re more likely to switch. If it sounds like you’re a member of an out group, you’re going to struggle.

So like if you’re trying to get a evangelical to stop littering, framing it as like Jesus told us to shepherd the earth will probably work better than saying anything about scientists.

Also if you’re trying to get someone to, like, stop believing in qanon, you’re probably going to need to get them to leave that group. If they keep hanging out on those forums and groups, the brain is going to treat you coming with facts similar to how it would treat a threat to its physical safety. The brain really strongly prioritizes group membership. Probably because in prehistory, getting kicked from the group was extremely dangerous. If you can get them to no longer see the other cultists as their primary group, the transition is easier.

Statistically and scientifically speaking, no