sircac

May be doing a translation of some parameters of the story helps to highlight the absurd behind the whole thing: what if pre-WWII a perturbed individual, with nazi beliefs despite being conscious of his jew origins, kills Germans attempting to promote the reasoning that jews must be handled according to nazi ideals and the nazi party pretends to use it with this intent…

Good, let’s make it mutual, including internet services

Why keep feeding the consumism that is part of the problematic system? DIY, the message would be undeniably stronger ;)

Thank you kind stranger, that was a nice and interesting review!

There is a long story already about his remains…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas#Relics

I do not see the “more problems” part on “more money”, you can always repurpose it or get rid of it until you are fine, doubt how that option would be problematic…

That’s why I effort at maximum into keep my kind away of being successfully bitten at all: none that targets me may bite me, none that bites me may survive, they better keep perpetuating without successfully using me.

CEOs will not become more human due to this potential threat, they will just keep a lower and more discrete profile (which have started to happen already) while probably increasing security measures up to their own convenience.

I would love that such kind of CEOs get prosecuted for good ethical reasons, but the legal system seems to not support such cases, so that’s what should be changed on the first place.

Also, because I trust in the strength of a civilised society and its monopoly of the violence, I want that anybody that decide to kill someone unilaterally face the consequences of such action, with consideration to all the circumstances as usual, so I want him also prosecuted: if I ever take justice into my own hands I will do it accepting all the consequences.

I don’t understand the reduction to a simple false dichotomy about which side between the shooter or the CEO must be taken, sounds like the deliberate simply polarisation from ill public forums nowadays.

More taxes and less charity

The main point is to be able to handle uncertainties in a normal basis, the greyness of reality, despite the temptation of blacks and whites of our minds.

For sure it costs a lot. The consideration of the superposition of possible truths and the weight of potential biases is a huge burden without granted full coverage, but allows you to accumulate a landscape of plausibility of things: yes, is not 100% precise and is still built by personal prejudices but, with a systematic acceptance of new bits of information regardless of how comfortable they are, it can grow a mostly reliable understanding of reality with a variable amount of temporary uncertainty on some facts… and you can still convert greys into quasi-b&w once they reach a decent amount of independent evidences, you now, to free a bit your RAM.

PS: Peer review is neither 100% perfect, is just more solid.

I cannot agree more with this comment, the bias is so evident that is in the brink of being plain propaganda

The wrong migration to IMHO…

Well, when the loop takes place there is a travel in time taking place… but not as in the standard time travel films.

I think is important to point out that in the Groundhog time loops the travel is only of the memories or the information, there is no energy-mass traveling (though information is a kind of energy, let me skip physics here), and the traveler at the beginning of the loop has not carried anything from the future but the memories of the previous loop, did not age or suffered physical modifications (there may be exceptions, sure).

So I think that is a kind of time travel, but a sub-genre where the travel is less material than in the typical time travels.

In the end, there can be only one

Ma cuanto mi manca Italia…

I cannot avoid to be pedantic on this, it is recharged during half the trip… it just does not require plug-like recharging

I really would love to be able to tag this kind of beings capable of such actions in a way that I can recognise them when I find them out there in person, not for violence of any kind against them, a % of humans are alike and may be useful for certain tasks, but to take informed decision about with whom prioritise my altruism or any social collective benefit: I may share this planet with them, but I will never call them my people.

I don’t care, I just want a nice place to wander, nothing is forever, but the longer, the better, regardless of popularity

rule 34

deleted by creator