Cuts both ways. They have included both, but they treat them the same. This allows them to handwave away any reasonable objections that they are not the same thing, because it doesn’t make a difference to them.

I think, since future Bill and Ted appear to the earlier Bill and Ted, and Rufus directly assists in creating his future, I think we have to assume that all of those historical figures always experienced those things, and then returned to their timelines with knowledge of the future. Napoleon rode the waterloops before Waterloo. Socrates played catch with Billy the Kid. Those are historical events, as much as Rufus and Future Bill and Ted helping present Bill and Ted pass their classes.

OP might have massive hands.

This is always my concern. Actually frying something takes minutes, but heating, cooling, straining, and storing significant volumes of oil just doesn’t justify the convenience. If I want fried food, I’m going to a restaurant.

With one linear timeline, you basically have Back to the Future rules. You can go back and change things, even if it rewrites you out of existence. Of course, there are some logical paradoxes that arise from that theory of time, so most versions rely on some delayed repair mechanism, like how the photo of Marty slowly disappears, or how The Ancient One explains the Time Stone to Professor Hulk. Time Cop, Butterfly Effect, and Looper do the same, with changes going into immediate effect like old injuries becoming later scars in real time, but erasing yourself really ought to be devastating to spacetime itself. I liked the concept in Butterfly Effect where the time traveler experiences all the memories of their new life in the altered timeline with every new change, but then they abandon the hard sci-fi aspect to get cute with stigmata. Donnie Darko probably handles it the best, where time travel itself creates a universe-ending paradox that requires the destruction of the time traveler.

Essentially, you jump from now back to another location in spacetime where you didn’t exist the first time around. If you overlap with yourself, you’re either going to gain a new retroactive memory, or there’s some magical maguffin that erased the memory (like the Tardis does for the Doctor), or some universal force reconciles the timestream and eliminates the paradox.

It depends on how you imagine time travel and causality. Is it a stable time loop? Or do you visit another version of reality with different outcomes? When you travel, are you unraveling the course of history to be redone? Or are you visiting an unyielding etching of the timespace continuum? If time is a set of dimensions, as all modern physics supports, then theoretically it wouls be possible to move through those dimensions in all directions. Special relativity confirms that movement affects how you move through time, but if you go backwards in time, you are still moving forward from your own reference point. That’s the only way to retain your memories.

If something is free, then you’re the product. Your data will be used for whatever the storage provider would like. For example, Google Photos was initially very generous with storage, because they were using your photos to train their recognition software. Gmail is reading your emails to build out your advertising profile. Your data is a commodity, and your privacy, if you protect it, is valuable.

The best way to do what you’re asking for, to ensure privacy and security, is to self-host. There’s an initial cost, and some maintenance fees over time, but you’ll also be investing in learning valuable skills in your free time.

Not for nothing, but those reality shows are often staged. If they “find” something interesting and potentially valueable every episode, you can bet it was probably planted. Most people store old furniture and clothing in storage units, and people probably wouldn’t even recognize their own stuff. A box of old coats? A generic cherry armoire from the 1980s? Old documents? Even bulky sporting goods like skis and golf clubs don’t have any actual value.

That’s not to say they never find something valuable, but they might obfuscate where exactly it came from to try to reduce lawsuits. If they find anything that could be easily identified by the original owner, especially if it is extremely valuable, they aren’t going to put that into the show at all.

If you look closely, when Trump opens his mouth wide enough, you can see the palm of Putin’s hand.

Yes, obviously.

So is Matthew Lillard. The whole thing feels oddly personal. Like if he had said “I didn’t like Dano in There Will Be Blood” you could understand that’s just a professional opinion. Maybe he thought someone else could have done better. But making it insulting undercuts his credibility as an impartial critic.

Criticism is fine, when you’re talking about someone’s work and how to improve it. Calling someone “weak” and “the worst actor in the SAG” is deeply personal and insulting.

Revealing a personal bias in a professional setting belies unprofessional attitudes and prejudices. Tarantino isn’t a critic, he’s a filmmaker and an influential voice in the industry. Taking pot shots at a couple of B-list character actors is hurtful on a personal level, and wantonly destructive on a professional level. The power dynamic between producers and actors is massively unbalanced. It would be like the CEO where you work talking shit on LinkedIn about project managers at a rival company. If he’s saying this publicly, what is he saying behind the scenes? Is he trashing actors to casting directors to influence their careers?

He has every right to say “I don’t want these people in my movies.” It would also be professional to say “I did not like this specific performance for these specific reasons.” It’s extremely unprofessional to say “I hate these people because of who they are and anyone working with them is on my shit-list.”

He also took some totally unnecessary shots at Paul Dano, saying he was the worst actor in the SAG. That’s a bizarrely personal attack out of nowhere on a guy you never worked with.

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.

I oppose it simply because it doesn’t work. It is not a deterrent, and it does not serve justice to put people to death, and it costs far more to execute someone than it does to rehabilitate them (the most expensive alternative - I’m not suggesting rehabilitation is an option for everyone).

And sometimes we execute innocent people. Like, how many of your family members would you be willing to put to death to keep the death penalty? Every innocent victim of the death penalty had a family, and that family never imagined it could happen to them.

I would argue that it would impact the effectiveness of the effort, but the intention is just as important.

Like if you want to make the world a better place, you can pick up litter in your local area. You could volunteer at the library or conserve energy in whatever way is easiest for you. The desire to move forward is critical, because nobody has all the information. Nobody can know all the angles, and be aware of every impact. Everyone is just doing the best they can with the information they have.

Wanting to be better informed is also a progressive ideal. Know better, do better. We might discover that something we thought was beneficial is actually harmful. The difference between a conservative choice and a progressive choice is that when new information demonstrates that behaviors conflicts with values, the progressive changes their behaviors while a conservative changes their values.

I don’t think it’s helpful to think in terms of left and right. That presumes that each side is roughly a mirror analogue of the other.

Think in terms of forward and backward. Will your ideas and political leanings push society forward? Will you be making the world better than you found it? Or are you trying to resist change, fighting against progress because the status quo, or the recent past, benefits you in some way?

Yes, but will they be able to capture the true narrative complexity of asking a desk toy to provide randomized platitudes and admonisitions? How can they please the built-in hardcore fans without alienating the newcomers who don’t have an encyclopedic understanding of the extensive lore? Will they tackle some of the more problematic canon events that have aged poorly in a more enlightened society? Or will they gloss over those moments and modernize the deep mythology on which the intellectual property is based and risk abandoning the edge that made it popular in the first place?

Concentrate and ask again

Fuck.