blue pill, my existing knowledge won’t help me cause I’m not in a position to actually change things. 10 million dollars though… I could invest that and call it a day
You could do way more than just get Bitcoin. You could do shorts/puts on all types of market spikes/crashes and just normal investing in Apple, Google, Tesla, Amazon, etc etc. You could literally become a multi-multi billionaire.
That is, if going back to 6 years old also means that you’ll at least be 18 way before or by the time the mid-90s/early 2000s rolled around.
Agreed. That’s not what the second panel said though. OP said cringe about safe parking spots. That’s like saying cringe about giving homeless people food. Yeah no shit people shouldn’t be homeless.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear - the cringe is housing / economic situation pushing so many to have to live in their cars. Absolutely great idea to have safe havens.
the question is: is a skeleton that’s missing pieces still “one skeleton”? And if so, at which point does it become not a skeleton? Because i’m reasonably sure you wouldn’t call a severed foot a skeleton even though it is still arguably “one skeleton” that is just missing a lot of pieces.
I think I owe you an apology. I took your initial comment as you trying to insult me, given our past interactions. Not that I wasn’t giving an honest opinion on the design itself, but otherwise I would have just kept it to myself.
None of the design elements work with each other, to start with. Then it’s like after the fact, some shmuck from the propaganda office told the architects to stick a stupid looking fighter jet in there. It’s like a weak man’s idea of a strong design.
Funny you’d say that, because even though the first plans for it date back to the Russian Empire, it was the communists under Stalin who actually built it.
One thing to consider, assuming the red one is mental time travel (which is the only way it'd really be at all useful), you're essentially murdering everyone who exists from your subjective present to the jump point to replace with at best very similar clones and possibly no one or completely different people. Then you have to also assume the timeline isn't fixed and you can actually change things, and thus contend with butterfly effect causing divergence making your knowledge less useful. Sure, little changes probably won't impact things on a global scale for a while, but once you start doing big things like investing or preventing terrorist attacks or something that could cause major divergence. Ethically any kind of useful time travel should be limited to "World is already wiped out" scale scenarios where the alternative is worse.
Also just hope that major events are not converging points in multiple timelines, otherwise you will be aware of all the terrible things that will happen but will practically be unable to stop them
They’re so obsessed with buying up as much land as possible, I say we send them hurtling toward it from space, so they can become one with that which they love so much!
Nah that’s too lofty for them, i think in a just world they would have to produce labor like the rest of us, death and space is too kind a fate. (Not that labor is bad, but they think its a fate worse than death)
Real talk, they know there’s enough mineral wealth in the asteroid belt that even some of it could make either A) everyone effectively rich or B) everyone a slave to their massive wealth forever. They’re voting with their rockets.
That plus the land grab that always happens when a new unsettled area is colonized. Yeah the moon is a horrible place to live, but if you get a parcel of land for free, and a place to live safely there, I bet a lot of people would be tempted.
I plan on convincing my mom to leave my dad. Sadly, 6 isn’t young enough to prevent him from ruining her life, though. But at least she’ll get out earlier, and also I can hopefully prevent her from having a surgery that completely changed her life for the worse.
I disagree that we shouldn’t constrain the use of words to their definitions. It’s what helps make the meaning of sentences the most clear for everyone. If people had actually done that then the definition of “literally” wouldn’t include “figuratively” and a lot of misunderstandings could be avoided.
Otherwise we could end up with people saying that when they wrote “all white people deserve to die” what they actually meant was that they deserve to live, since that’s how they use the word “die”. It’s nonsensical to me.
Kind of a bad example, because mankind very clearly stems from ‘humankind’. And people are lazy and prefer using short words. The unfairness is rather that women got stuck with the words requiring more characters. But that is a phenomenon of the English language and not present in others.
However, in most languages the words for man/male are closer to human(kind) than female/woman, which very clearly shows the historic patriarchal influence, coming back around to your point after all.
Interestingly enough, in old English you had “werman” and “wifman” for man and woman respectively, in which case referring to all with “mankind” makes perfect sense. So the originator for mankind seems more likely to be from that than the explanation that it’s a shortening of “humankind” to me.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.