In ten years there will be a bold imitative to embrace history, return to the roots and past culture of excellence. It will be re-branded to Athletics Australia.

Maybe, but I have had all of my family on Signal for close to 9 years now. Inertia and the network effect is a big part of why platforms stay around.

It took me saying to my mum, that I would ONLY share pictures of her new grandson on Signal to get her to install it. Once mum was on board, the rest followed pretty quickly.

The thought of getting mum to install a new messaging app now, and she is nearly 10 years older. Well it isn’t worth the effort. My threat threat model is low enough, to choose the convenience/security slider at Signal.

As a side note, every month or two; another of my contacts shows up on Signal. I have around 50 contacts using Signal now, as I said before around 98% of my messaging is through Signal.

While there may be better options out there, from a purely security standpoint.

The real world, with non-tech people needs solutions that are easy, fast and as close to foolproof as possible.

I choose Signal, because my mum, my sisters and brothers (none of which are tech people) can all go to their app stores and install Signal, it works and it is easy. Signal is private BY DEFAULT, I don’t have to remind them to turn on security for each chat, there is voice and video chat for individuals and groups, I can use it to send files. It is really good. Secure communication is their primary goal.

I have been using Signal since it was called TextSecure and I only had one contact using it.

Yes it sucked when they dropped SMS support; but these days about 98% of my messaging goes through Signal. Any SMS is usually from my doctor/dentist/bank.

I never really trusted Telegram, too many compromises. Secure communication is not their primary goal.

A kugelblitz power station. With a full set of plans to build another.

Something in the order of 10GW power output. Solve energy generation and have a viable spaceship drive in one go.

That is not how time dilation works.

That is not the adrenaline, that is the endorphin rush, your brain is rewarding you for surviving.

Get a boox, runs android.

You can even install the Kindle app. But seriously, there are bunch of good ereader apps.

It only seems compelling, there is no base rate of non-similar twins separated at birth. Is this 1 in 2 sets end up like this, every one, 1 in 100,000?

The neuroscience is interesting, but it is not in any way predictive. It is all post-hoc rationalisations of what did happen.

As I said above, I’m an engineer and look at this from a physical sciences point of view. There is no model (as far as I’m aware) that can predict what will happen except in very specific psychological experiments.

Yes, I am 100% on that.

If A causes B, that is true for all observers. Otherwise you get into causeless actions.

Imagine observer 1 (O1), sees one rock (A) crash into another (B) and it changes it’s direction of travel. O1 has on opinion on the sequence of events.

How imagine observer 2, (O2) watching the same events from a different perspective.

There is no situation or perspective O2 can take which would have B change direction before the collision with A.

Therefore no matter their perspective both O1 and O2 agree on the sequence of events. Thus causality is fundamental.

The two men had married wives with the same first name and had similar interests and hobbies.

Similar <> identical.

This story has little to add to the debate about free will. How many identical twins separated at birth didn’t have similar lives?

You can have situations where person 1 sees an event happen as A B and person 2 sees that same event happen as B A.

This is only true if A and B are not causally related. If A causes B all observers will see A causing B.

That is all well and good.

I’m an engineer, so I look at this from a physical sciences point of view. The main problem with the “no free will” argument is it provides no predictive power, there is no model that can say person X will do Y (instead of A, B, C or D) in situation Z.

What is possible is giving probabilities of Y, A, B, C or D in experimental settings. But in the real world, there are too many variables interacting in a chaotic manner to even give reasonable probabilities; this is why we can only use population level statistics rather than individual level predictions.

Sapolsky’s perspective ignores reality to generate talking points.

Just because a person has a limited set of choices, mostly determined by upbringing does not mean that we can predict any future action based on previous actions.

At best you may be able produce a chaotic model that gives probabilities of potential actions in any situation.

1. The universe is almost definitely not infiinte, but we will never be able to prove it.
2. Have you heard of vacuum decay?

The guy seems fine after treatment… Not a great experience though.

This is a wand of friends (with benefits)

Don’t forget the 15 minutes of inexplicably staring out the window, when you sent them to put something warm on.

Outside your comfort zone / different culture: The Last Ringbearer by Kirill Yeskov. It examines the events of The Lord of The Rings, from the perspective of Mordor and the orcs. Written by a Russian author. Super good, almost better than LotR.

As a suggestion form me (a random on the internet) ultraprocessed people, the science of food that isn’t food.

Now imagine they’ve got stocky muscles, spikes, and they want to kill you.

You mean like a pissed off 3yo when you are trying to trim their finger nails.

It is quite different.

As least here in NZ, ketchup has a vinegary component to the taste, tomato sauce is more sweet.