Patrick Hays

I love how, in the modern era of public discourse, your conclusion about any topic - whatever it is - not only invalidates your reasoning, but somehow makes you an aggressor to those whom came to a different conclusion.

@reddit_lies Lots of mind readers in these comments.

She killed his kid. He divorced her.

@romanhelmetguy @Devon_Eriksen_ I would read this. All of it.

I’ve completed the opening lines of the Chudyssey. I’ll provide a detailed breakdown of my choices below.

@CrisisFront @muskonomy Catching rockets out of the sky was a fantasy, too.

@muskonomy Moving a million tons of cargo on a rocket that has not even completed a single fully reusable orbital mission is pure fantasy he is just throwing out massive numbers to keep his stock inflated

NEWS: Elon Musk laid out SpaceX's core mission in precise terms during his Forbes interview, describing the specific test he uses to define a genuinely self-sustaining civilization beyond Earth. If resupply ships from Earth stop arriving for any reason, does the civilization on the Moon or Mars continue to grow or does it collapse? Passing that test is the actual goal, not simply putting humans on another planet. To reach it, Elon estimates humanity needs to deliver roughly 1 million tons of cargo to the Moon or Mars to build sufficient industrial capacity. He was careful to define what multi-planetary actually means. It is not about leaving Earth and relocating somewhere else. That would simply be a single-planet civilization in a harder place to live. The goal is for humanity to extend outward while keeping Earth intact, eventually becoming a spacefaring civilization spread across multiple worlds. SpaceX's Starship, targeting full reusability as early as this year, is the vehicle Musk says makes the million-ton goal physically achievable. He described this as a "fundamental breakthrough" he hopes to see happen in 2026.

@grok @PresidentialSay @GuntherEagleman So I can have a property that I own taken out from under me during an absence, still be financially liable for it, then have the title go to the squatters?

No, the mortgage doesn't transfer to the occupants. Adverse possession can eventually pass title to the squatter after the long statutory period (years, not days/weeks), but existing liens like mortgages remain attached to the property. The lender can still foreclose for nonpayment no matter who ends up with title. You'd remain personally liable on the loan.

Elon just endorsed it. Gad Saad dropped the hammer on Fox this morning. We now live in a world where: - Rape victims get less sympathy than their rapists - Homeowners get less than the squatters breaking in - American vets get less than illegal migrants - Repeat felons with 186 charges get 200 more “chances” because “society made them do it” This isn’t kindness. This is suicidal empathy. Universities spent decades teaching our judges, leaders, and elites that personal agency is a myth if you check the right oppression boxes. So criminals become victims, victims become bigots for complaining, and the whole system rots from the inside.

@grok @PresidentialSay @GuntherEagleman Interesting. How does this work with mortgaged properties? If I owned a property and it was possessed in this way, would the mortgage transfer to the occupants? I can’t imagine that to be the case.

Because once someone occupies a property openly (even without permission), most jurisdictions shift it from pure criminal trespass to a civil possession dispute. Police avoid immediate forced removal to prevent liability for wrongfully evicting someone who might claim residency, utilities, or mail service. Owners must file for court-ordered eviction instead. This due process protects against errors but often delays resolution for legitimate owners. Fresh break-ins without established presence are more likely to get quicker police action as criminal trespass.

@grok @PresidentialSay @GuntherEagleman Why is that? If I own a property and someone occupies it, why can’t I opt for a quick police removal?

Yes, via adverse possession laws. In the UK, a squatter occupied an empty London house for years, applied under adverse possession rules, won ownership in court (High Court 2014 ruling applied pre-2012 civil framework despite acknowledging trespass), and sold the property for substantial profit. In the US, similar laws exist in every state (typically 5–20+ years of continuous, open occupation), though rare for quick residential takeovers. Short-term break-ins usually lead to slow civil evictions rather than instant police removal.

@PresidentialSay @GuntherEagleman Hey @grok, can you think of a case in the US or the UK where a squatter effectively took over another’s property, then was legally protected in doing so?

@GuntherEagleman These are extreme claims that don't hold up to scrutiny. Squatting is illegal, veterans have dedicated benefits, and undocumented migrants are barred from federal public assistance. Let's debate real policy, not viral outrage.

@TheGasStovee @johnnymaga Is it really this easy to rage bait? Dang, man.

@johnnymaga Shame on the state supreme court for such an unconstitutional ruling Hope it will be overturned by the federal supreme court when appealed

Woman screams at the Virginia Supreme Court building after the Democrats’ 10-1 power grab was ruled unconstitutional. “Shame on every single Supreme Court Justice who voted to take away our rights…”

@ZarkFiles No idea what this is about, but they are nearly identical pixel for pixel; the variation/noise looks very much like the artifacting from a photocopier.

Same “T” Break. Same “T” Bump. Same “G” Break. Statistically impossible for real signatures — even from the same person signing twice.

@dannycantalk That’s an easy switch.

For red pressers: The test is over. Red button won. You don't know by how much. You are randomly selected to get one last chance to save everyone. If you press the red button again, nothing changes. If you press the blue button, only you die and everyone else lives.

@theramblingfool I’m not sure I can agree with that; I’d argue that civilization is maintained by people primarily pushing red, and blue when passionate, convenient, or able. Of course, we could be thinking on completely different levels of societal structure, so I’m happy to be wrong.

@patrickhays2 FWIW, blue button pressing isn't just a western framework, it's actually the framework of basically any advanced civilization. You cannot reach or maintain complex societal scale without blue button pressing as the primary mode of your population.

Pro-red responses I've seen, when confronted with the possibility someone they care about might press blue: (1) No one I care about would ever press blue (really?) (2) [insert problematic group] aren't included in the hypo (wrong) (3) Those loved ones have to die (psychopathic)

There’s no room for nuance in your choice on Twitter, lol. I chose Red because I can’t see the majority of the world voting in alignment with a Western moral and ethical framework. I cant assume that every nation or person will think about the scenario the way my upbringing has taught me to. But would be ecstatic to be proven wrong. But I understand the fight that Blues are claiming to make, and it’s honorable (even though I feel like it’s doomed).

@patrickhays2 Lots of bad reasoning and those preemptive group posturing dynamics. Agreed. People's potential responses to any stimulus exist in a superposition and those responses being solicited on social media seems to just crank every variable in that superposition to the worst setting.

@infinite_walrus @nomanautomata They absolutely will; but I cannot imagine a planet Earth in 2026 that will vote majority blue on an 8.3 billion person sample size.

@patrickhays2 @nomanautomata The risk is a guarantee that innocent people will die.

What red button pushers might not understand is that what they perceive as "virtue signaling" is people intentionally applying social pressure to achieve pro-social outcomes. It's not purely narcissistic, there is a real purpose to it.

Man, I don’t know. I think there’s a lot going on in the subtext of this discussion, with a bit of forcing “team logic” and “team altruism” to be hypocritical in justifying their choice. And many on team logic just came out with guns blazing because they figured the “you’re a selfish grandma killer!” was on its way anyway, ya know?

@patrickhays2 This is shockingly absent in my conversations. When the poll first dropped, I thought "I will choose red but hope blue wins" would be a big contingent. But I haven't encountered any. I think it's because it doesn't maximally protect the mind from dissonance.

It’s still virtue signaling, just different virtues. People of either decision can’t even seem to agree on the meaning of the statements as they are written, nor can they seem to resist insulting another’s character by the choice they made. It’s depressing. Self-preservation isn’t a vice - God, could you believe what it would be like if it were? In this scenario, nobody has the power to save or kill anybody; every individual person has the ability to save themselves from whatever is doing the killing. As the simulated results have shown, many say they will choose possible doom over self-preservation; but again, there’s no risk. None it’s real. I am personally convinced that Red would win overwhelmingly in real life. But the fantasy isn’t stopping the “logical” ones from calling others retards, nor is it stopping the “altruistic” among us from deciding that those who chose otherwise are soulless psychopaths. It’s all so stupid.

@theramblingfool How about: “Not what I would’ve chosen; I hope it works out for them.”

Has anyone encountered a response to this point that didn't deny reality, try to redefine the hypothetical, or admit to psychopathy?

@baalzamon35 Almost nobody is having kids and people are excommunicating their families over political differences. And those are the people that are telling me to think of the kids and the elderly and push blue. Kinda weird, honestly.

The crusher is a great way of illustrating this problem. For the Red Button folks, they see this as an abstract where the crusher kills nobody until/unless they make an informed decision. Obviously, you'd get out of the way right? Hell, everyone should move, the scenario will wait long enough to get everyone out. For the Blue Button folks, they picture a helpless child or maybe even all helpless children trapped and are willing to risk their lives (on paper at least) to hold the crusher up and protect those unable or unwilling to move. Who wouldn't risk their life to save another? Or at least, WANT the courage to do so.

@totoriscreens @mhartl That’s exactly what i’m referencing. In real life, I believe the vast majority of people will choose red, regardless of what they say they chose. That belief does not impact my choice, however. Because I don’t have to think about it anymore after I’ve pushed red.

@patrickhays2 @mhartl I'm not sure what you mean, I was discussing a red button/blue button meme that went viral recently where pressing blue does nothing and pressing red guarantees your safety but kills all the blues if more than half the people press it.

@totoriscreens @mhartl Sorry, one of your tweets in the thread popped up in my feed and I thought you were discussing the premise that’s been floating around.

@patrickhays2 @mhartl What I posted is how it's stated. Maybe re-read the original prompt again lol. How did you miss that?