Their reality doesn't defy understanding by the scientific process. It has reliable, repeatable results, and therefore can be studied and empirically catalogued. The only way something could not be studied by science is if it's totally random, if actions do not correlate, even slightly, with results. Of course, such behavior would make it completely useless as a tool, because one could never get desired results from it. Magic in the setting is very reliable and repatable, and as long as you do it right, results can be studied, so it's easily catalogued by the scientific method.
Mnemnosyne
joined 2 years ago
From what I hear he was actually rather inexpensive. If I was in his place I'd be insulted by the price he gets.
This is why PS3 is the last PlayStation that I owned, and I didn't even buy it retail.
After they discontinued the backwards compatible model I sought out and bought one secondhand, and swore never again to buy a PlayStation product unless they release one on which I can play all my PlayStation games all the way back to 1.
To be fair, not using punctuation and paragraphs should be a bannable offense on every form of written media to exist!
Eh, the constitution is already ignored on this point plenty, since there's lots of 'arms' that have been restricted. Why not ignore it some more?
So this was interesting to think about, cause it's a tough decision when I think about it, but ultimately I think one wins out. Let's compare the two options and seeing what benefits are obtained from each.
If we only have to sleep 1 hour a day to be fully rested, that essentially gains us additional life, additional time. After all, every hour we spend asleep is time we're not living our lives and doing things we want to be doing. If we sleep an average of 8 hours a night now, this means we gain seven hours a night. This means that every 3.42 days approximately, we have gained 24 hours of awake-time that we otherwise would have spent sleeping. This calculates out to 29.17% of any given timeframe. That means that, if we were to acquire this ability on our 20th birthday and live to be 80 exactly, we gain 29.17% of those 60 years - we have effectively extended our life by 17.5 years!
On the other hand, perfect nutrition gives us no such clear, easily calculated benefit. However, what it does give us is our body gaining exactly the correct amount of nutrition to be healthy at all times, regardless of how little or how much we eat. That means that within a few years at most from gaining this ability, we will never be overweight or underweight, develop an adequate amount of muscle for the level of exercise we do, and generally feel better since nutrition is one of the most important things in how a person feels. Just as importantly, we're unlikely to ever develop illnesses that are caused primarily by diet, and other illnesses that are exacerbated or diet otherwise increases the risk factor of will be much less likely to happen. This means that not only do we feel better, we are likely to gain some amount of lifespan from this.
Thus, after consideration, it seems to me the perfect nutrition is the clear winner here. We feel better at all times because of perfect nutrition keeping our body in much better condition than most humans experience, we dramatically lower our odds of developing a vast array of health conditions that can lower our lifespan and lower the quality of our life, and we gain some lifespan - probably not as much as 29.17% of lifespan, but we gain some, and that lifespan is likely to be spent in far better health and thus be more enjoyable to us.
These convictions were for state level crimes that happened before he was president. So completely outside the scope of the official act thing.
That decision is probably going to be used to get him completely out of the classified documents case though, not that he really needed the extra help since that one was already being presided over by a crony judge he appointed.
Yeah, I mean, Trump already got convicted of felonies and then nothing happened. Did he even pay a fine or something for that? I heard about the conviction and then.... absolutely nothing.
Especially the violence is always bad, violence never solves anything, just ignore bullies, avoid, do not confront, do not escalate attitude that has been being pushed for decades.
This is the result of good people not being willing to stand up for themselves in hostile, aggressive, and violent ways. Give up violence as a tool only used by the bad guys or by authorized individuals, then the bad guys will, once they have infiltrated and taken control for the organizations allowed to do violence, be able to use it with impunity everywhere.
Long ago, if you said or did things that are abhorrent to most decent people (as defined by the morals of the day at least) you're likely to get a fist in your face. Today, although these things are abhorrent to most people, no one is willing to just punch someone for most things.
Remember when Buzz Aldrin just punched the guy accusing him of participating in the moon landing conspiracy? If 20-30% of decent people were willing to respond like that to Nazis, racists, homophobes, transphobia, and other abhorrent groups, they wouldn't be bringing these things up in public.
But decades of this anti-violent attitude have resulted in a population who is largely decent but unwilling to act to preserve that decency.
Yeah, Trump is a stupid target and this is bad timing. Now if someone had gone after the Supreme Court a year or three ago, that would've been a good thing. Even now it might still be. But Trump? Terrible choice of targets. He's...his relevance has already happened. It's too late for his death to be positive in any significant way.
Hell, I suspect that it might boost the Republican candidate, whoever is selected to replace him, unless they wind up having a really nasty fight where various supporters get extremely entrenched against each other. But that's not likely - Republicans are very tribalist, once they select a candidate, most of them are going to support him, regardless of how badly they were speaking of him five minutes ago when they were in full support of his opponent.
Despite Musk, Teslas did have some positive effect as they helped push electric car adoption. The big automakers were not interested in taking risks, and nobody was eager to build out large charger networks.
I certainly don't credit Musk himself for it, but no one should feel ashamed of having bought one of those cars back then. Today there are other good options for electric vehicles from companies run by slightly less bad people, but let's not kid ourselves. Everything we buy comes from some company that is enriching monsters...it's just that some of them are more monstrous than others.
No. They're not. If they were, they'd be stopping this themselves. This guy shot her. What about the other officers that were there? At least one other is mentioned in the article. Why didn't they immediately draw on him and stop him from attacking this woman?
Every time we hear about one of these bad cops, there's other cops just standing around doing nothing at best, and helping at worst.
No 'good people' are cops. If they were good people when they went in, they either get fired, get mysteriously dead on the job, or stop being good. There are no other options.