Depending on your definition, this actually is not peak performance.
Subways are.
Obviously, the tunnels are absurdly expensive, but nothing moves as many people as quickly around a city as a subway.
They’re also extremely reliable, meaning people are even more likely to actually use them, and their above-ground footprint is essentially zero.
This isn’t about guys’n’gals.
This is simpky about how people work:
If your peers (friends, colleagues, family) have an opinion (any opinion), their default expectation is that you share that opinion - this is what being a peer is mostly about.
You can demonstrate solidarity by agreeing - this is virtually always the safe option.
You can demonstrate backbone by disagreeing - this can generate respect or animosity.
You can refuse to weigh in - this is mostly a middle ground between the two above.
How it actual shakes out in reality will depend on a myriad of factors, many of which you’re not even consciously aware of.
Thus, this random internet stranger can give you only three pieces of advice:
Trust your instincts on how to handle this. Your subconscious is very well wired to navigate social situations as best as possible.
If you ever change your opinion or “change your opinion”, announce it clearly and give/make up a reason. People disrespect people who are inconsistent, but they respect people who can admit to mistakes / learn.
Sometimes, you can’t win. Sometimes, someone will be pissed off, no matter what you do. It’s no fault of yours, some situations are just not salvageable to begin with.
Thanks, that’s helpful.
Telekinesis. It’s not even a context
Telekinesis (especially at the “multiple tons” level) is an extremely flexible tool, a weapon, and a defense. There’s an endless amount of creative stuff you can do with it.
It can also still be used somewhat discreetly which is important.
Flight would probably be the most fun, though.
Question from someone outside the US who’s genuinely curious about why law-abiding citizens feel the need to carry guns to begin with:
If you’re aware of this, how often are you carrying a gun in the first place? When/Why?
Following what you say, there’s obviously the scenario where you have to defend your life (not your property).
On the other hand, as I see it, the victim in the article would not have benefited from a gun in the car and the odds of a shell-shocked BF turning the whole thing into an actual shootout would’ve been >0.
I’m not trying to argue crime statistics or morals here, I’m genuinely interested in a gun owner’s perspective.
A subjective perspective from outside the US:
If I follow your argument that illegal firearms are the problem, I still believe that the amount of illegal firearms in circulation is a direct function of the legal arms market’s size.
And as long as the threshold for acquiring a firearm is low, so is the threshold for injuring someone with one.
This goes for a criminal using an illegal one in a robbery, a frustrated teenager emptying their uncle’s poorly secured gun locker for a school schooting or even for suicides: An abundance of guns makes these things easier, so they happen more often.
Mandating stricter controls, safety training or weapon-lockup procedures can alleviate this some, but any process that relies on a lot of not strictly organized individuals to be applied will be fallible and permeable by nature.
Selling more weapons to private citizens will always lead to more gun-related deaths and injuries.
The only way to reliably reduce the amount of weapons in circulation is to sell less of them (and keep removing illegal ones).
Naturally, this is unpopular with an industry that relies on selling as many as possible.
(I’m also aware that something like this would have to be a very slow process. Even if the pool of legal weapons were drained overnight, all those illegal guns would still be around.)
I genuinely like this idea, because it would allow to reach both goals.
The problem I see is that this would probably go down the same as the bodycam idea, with inconvenient recordings vanishing due to “technical issues”.
You’d need an independent third party doing life recording and delayed release. Subjectively, the US don’t have a great track record with these.
Easier idea: Just publish last week’s encryption key. Probably won’t happen because some tech supplier will lobby for a more expensive solution.
Except at that point the Mafia are somehow supposedly the good guys?
The ability to extrapolate what something would taste/feel like from mere looks is a learned one.
Toddlers don’t have it yet, which is why they’re stuffing everything into their mouths.
You might not consciously remember licking a carpet, but the part of you that’s holding up the “dusty”, “textured” and “CRUMBS!!” signs does.
All the advances in execution methods haven’t been made to make it more humane to the victim - they’ve been made so it seems more humane to everyone else.
AFAIK, statistics-wise, the execution method with the lowest quota of horrible mishaps is the guillotine. A sufficiently fast 4t weight to the head would probably be even quicker for the brain to go, although it’d also require more cleanup.
(Yes, even overdosing on narcotics has more mishaps - and there are little to no narcotics abailable for executions, because the producers don’t want them to be used for that.)
All of the more reliable methods are… grisly, and civilisation doesn’t want grisly. We want to press a button and the victim goes to sleep to never wake up, because that makes it easier on us.
C3 talks are available online for quite some time after the actual event, so you might still be able to watch it then.
Good thing you’re not.
The only thing you’d achieve would be causing her to have to deal with this BS while her husband is in jail.
If only there’d been a another, good MRI machine with a gun present.
Anyone who hits enter on a dd command without triple-checking it gets exactly what they deserve.
Alien intelligence is not required to follow human reasoning.
The Lords of Alpha Centauri could run a long-term social engineering program on Earth because they believe capitalism, conflict and social darwinism are objectively Good for You and we need to be purged of the folly of humanistic ideology before we can be allowed to join the galactic civilization market.
Or because they find our struggles entertaining.
What I can tell you is that no rational spacefaring civilization would need to resort to social engineering if they just want to kill us. Just toss a bit (or a lot) of spare delta v on a sufficiently large asteroid (or five) and humanity goes the way of the dinosaur.
(Different story if they want us dead, but want to make it look like suicide because of the space police.)
Good to know, thanks.
I genuinely can’t parse this argument.
Criminalizing the victims of human trafficking makes said crime easier, because it creates hurdles for it’s victims to report it.
The problem isn’t straight-out corruption.
It’s wonky incentivation.
Judges that are not measured by how many people they send to jail will always be, on average, less trigger-happy than cops who are.