A trial attorney? I could see it she wanted to be like a corporate attorney or real estate or something, where your character as a person isn’t relevant. How is she going to empanel a jury without potential jurors having preexisting feelings about her trustworthiness? “Yeah, she seems sincere, but remember that time on her reality show where she was faking tears for sympathy?”

I don’t know her, or how competent she would be at trial, and anyone can be anything they want to be. But also, recognize that choices have consequences. Maybe trading dignity for fame and fortune means you don’t get to live any dream you like.

There have been several high-profile systemic failures in the past few years that give us a glimpse into the hypothetical you’re describing. Most interruptions have lasted mere hours, if not minutes, before causing mass panic and devastating economic catastrophes. Planes are grounded, banks stop operations, global trade shuts down, and hospitals can’t access patient records.

The question isn’t how long before it would be a huge problem. That starts immediately. The better question is, how long before people adapt to a world without the internet? How long would it take to build an alternative?

Ok, so the coroner and his brother had a hidden room where they kept decomposing bodies, some as long as 15 years. This was discovered and he resigned his position as coroner. A new coroner was appointed.

That coroner’s office also, separately, planned a community event for a Halloween party. The planned Halloween party would have had zero corpses, and the creep who kept the corpses wasn’t invited to attend (probably?). Cancelling the event had nothing to do with safety, in spite of what the unnecessary quotes in the headline would suggest.

They also refused to release the remains of the people killed, denying they retained any. Eventually, the University of Pennsylvania admitted to retaining some of the remains of 12 year old Delisha Africa and returned them to her family, in 2021.

Telescopes would be fun. Everyone doesn’t need their own, if you can sign it out on a clear night and return it in good shape.

Bull, and I cannot emphasize this enough, shit. Everyone is not a little bit bigoted. That’s something bigots tell themselves when rationalizing their own prejudices. You should probably take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you’re the problem.

“Progressive” describes a position, not a person. A person can be many things. A person can hold contradictory viewpoints, and fully believe two incompatible thoughts at the same time. It’s tragically naive to assume that people are rational or consistent.

Can a person think they are progressive and also be a bigot? Of course a person can. Everybody is the hero in their own story.

There are thick, uncrossable lines, and there are a lot of people who don’t mind crossing them. You cannot compromise with a bigot. You cannot find common ground with a person who would subjugate you, or someone who sees you as less than human.

We can have disagreements about many political issues, but when you are standing next to pedophiles, rapists, fascists, and bigots, you shouldn’t be surprised to be called a Nazi.

So the question becomes, what is the test of “purity”?

Who says that?

No press is bad press, I suppose. Doesn’t make me want to buy their coffee.

What’s your preferred client? I switched from plexamp to fintunes, but I really hate the app and the lack of functionality.

The researchers are also bots.

I’m thinking of that scene from Dr. Doolittle with Eddie Murphy where the lady keeps going to the hospital with an allergic reaction to shellfish. Later, she’s in a bathroom stall gnawing on a lobster while her face swells up.

I never understood that, but then my doctor told me to cut out sugar or my pancreas might explode (or something) and I immediately thought of that character.

It really depends on what sort of knight we’re talking about. Despite how they are portrayed in movies, swords were more for ceremony than for fighting, and could have been anything from a dagger to a saber to a broadsword. Full plate armor is designed for mounted combat, and most duels were won by whoever knocked the other guy down first.

One good swing could kill a lion, I’m sure, but if you miss, or it doesn’t kill the lion, then the lion will pounce and knock down the knight. Even lightweight armor would be 30-60 lbs, and once you’re down, the lion has won.

So here’s the thing, I have never hunted a lion, so I really am just speculating. I know that individual humans have hunted and killed lions, and theoretically a single human could do it. I don’t think that, even with 10 hunters, the humans are guaranteed to come out unscathed. Modern hunters with rifles and jeeps and tranquilized lions still get mauled to death on occasion, so like I said, any given sunday.

Humans have successfully hunted and killed lions, and lions can definitely kill a human.

I think it depends on the arena. Believe it or not, I think the human has better chances in the wild. Human endurance is our superpower, and you could keep scaring the lion with loud armor noises until it collapsed from exhaustion.

In a cage match, I think the lion wins. A knight’s sword in any era is not designed for hunting. If the knight was using a lance or a pike, that would be a better choice, but I think maneuverability is the biggest liability for the knight. Mail armor would deflect scratches, and full plate armor might prevent bites to the covered areas, but once the lion has the knight on the ground, it wouldn’t matter how much protection he has. Proximity benefits the lion, and there’s no question who is faster and stronger.

Still, humans have killed lions without any armor, so it’s any given sunday and all that.

Edit to add a dramatic reenactment of such a battle.

The better option is to simply stop using YouTube.

Yep, and their belief is a danger to literally everyone who does or will ever live on Earth.

Not at all. And in fact, I wish more people weren’t expecting a cool prize at the end of all the death and destruction.

To be entirely fair, we are like 2 cubic meters of carbon dioxide away from total ecological collapse. Made-made climate change is now beyond any threshold where we previously had reasonable expectations of being able to prevent it. The oceans will rise, climate catastrophes will increase, and the world will become more hostile.

It kind of feels like were frogs in a boiling pot, and we’re living though the apocalypse now. But the wifi still works, so scroll on and don’t think about it too much.