You don’t have to use those apps.

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.

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

It is quite different.

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

What enemies?

Not sure if you are referencing Conan or Khan…

Of those particular 3…a good mustard I guess. I don’t really use any of them.

Soy sauce

Chilli oil

Tomato sauce (fish and chips)

Little red riding hood - wolf eats your grandma.
Hansel and Gretel - forced out by stepmother, forced to kill a witch to survive.
Three little pigs - wolf kills your brother’s.

The “classics” are really bad

You may have a specific deficiency, but your story does not constitute data.

There have been many studies that have addressed this specific issue. Literally billions of dollars are wasted every year on these supplements. If you have a healthy diet, you are very unlikely to need supplementation.

This is the availability bias, because your experience is normal for you, you unconsciously think your experience is more normal than it is.

Great!

The early over the top hacker aesthetic, the ridiculous adversarial hacker battle, the complete misunderstanding of what hacking actually involved (the world has changed). It is all awesome.

Some of the stuff they got right is also cool, the social engineering is still a thing.

Also because of my age when it came out (1995)…I would have seen it in 96/97, I was in my late teens.

Yes.

It is a really cool take on time travel, really mind bending on the first watch. Once you have seen it a few times and understand the way things work, it kind of loses some of the entertainment value.