Ooh, this is rad - thanks for the link!

Pretty easy to find, just search the title.

Barnes and Noble

Amazon

Meta will suffer “immediate and irreparable loss” in the absence of an emergency relief

Well, I didn’t know nor care about this book before, but now I want to read it.

Discounts for loyalty members is the same thing as higher prices for the general public.

I generally agree with you, but I think it’d be very difficult to legislate this. (For example, if you ban “discounts” for loyalty program members, they instead offer “rebates” which functionally is the same effect. If you ban “rebates”, they instead send you a coupon for your next visit after you shop.)

If the advertised price is what a non-loyalty-program shopper pays, I have less of a problem with it, but what gets me is when the item is listed as, for example, “2 for $3” on the shelf, and at the register rings up for $3.69 each unless you swipe a loyalty card. Fuck that shit.

I really hate this shit and honestly I feel like it should be illegal. Like, offer discounts for the loyalty program members, sure, whatever, but the price on the shelf when you pick up the item should not be able to have contingencies attached.

fancy version of piano

The organ? Or did the church you visited have something else?

You’d do very well on a few game shows, too!

This certainly seems like the best out of these options. Start a gravel company. Infinite stock. If you can just create it out of nothing at the location of your choosing, you don’t even have to pay for trucks, which I imagine is probably a greater cost in the gravel industry than the gravel itself.

Great idea!

Good idea - get ahead of the problem. I like it. Make sure to take extensive notes and leave them somewhere you can access at any time.

The problem with this is that if you’re using anything ‘non-standard’, you have to devise this system during your 7 days, and then you have to include in your message enough information to figure the system out anew when the loop resets. You’ve got to be specific enough that next-loop you will definitely figure out the exact same system, or you might mis-interpret your message and if you lose the information that you’re in a loop, you’re fucked.

Basically my point is, you’re wasting prime time that could be spent on some enjoyable activity in each loop. Unless solving your own puzzle is enjoyable, in which case, you do you - you can spend eternity living in your own Memento-inspired personal mystery, if you want to.

deleted by creator

(like action 23 = “mess with the sketchy microwave”)

How much time are you spending devising this system? Because you’re going to have to devise the system anew each week, unless you also store instructions for deciding on a system in the file.

How do you store what killed you? Theoretically you can’t edit the log once you die (you’d just start the new loop, with no memory of what killed you).

More importantly, why do you want to escape? This hypothetical time loop sounds awesome.

You can fit quite a lot of plain text in 1kb; it’s really just a 1024 character message. What you’d want to store would really be dependent on how the day went, but starting with “You are in a time loop. It resets every week on Monday at 6AM” would probably be sufficient to get things rolling; that’s only 61B.

I’d just add information that helped me have the best 7 days possible - really just a schedule of things to do. Did I read a really good book? Note that down, read it every week, enjoy that time. Did I play a great game? Same thing. Once I found 7 days worth of activities that were maximally enjoyable, I’d be happy to just stay in that time loop forever; the memory reset is really a blessing, not a curse.

I don’t feel compelled to answer questions that don’t apply to me or which were not directed at me, so I don’t know.

Thing about Nessy is that it is localized. It started in an area in Scotland. Assuming Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon where sightings are found more than a couple of times a month, it’d be different.

Nessy is purported to be a single creature living in a single Loch in Scotland; why would there be sightings elsewhere in the world? That’s like saying “The Eiffel Tower is only ever sighted in Paris, isn’t that suspicious?”

Given the relatively small number of visitors to Loch Ness vs. the number of people in the world with cameras who could presumably document aliens or ghosts, I’d argue that the sightings per visitor are at a significantly higher rate than UFO or ghost sightings.

You’re horribly mis-using statistics and making claims that are not the logical conclusion.

We know that intelligent life exists, and that one specific, if very rare, set of circumstances can definitively bring it about. We know there are other planets that are similarly capable of supporting life. We have evidence - irrefutable, hard evidence - that such planets can, and do exist, because we live on one.

You have far worse evidence of ghosts or aliens. Having photographic proof of either is a highly sought after thing, that comes with notoriety and in some cases fame or money. Statistically, wouldn’t you say it’s more likely that, given the incentive to do so, the people claiming to produce such evidence are lying to reap the benefits? If not, again, why don’t we have actual, clear, indisputable pictures? Are you telling me that these phenomenon have been occurring throughout recorded history, but there’s not one single high quality picture? How could that be? Surely if you have enough people taking pictures, one of them by sheer chance should come out clear.

Similarly, how is it that modern astronomical or surveillance equipment hasn’t captured evidence of them? Why are we relying on shaky polaroids taken by random people? You’re cherry picking evidence that you feel has the highest likelihood of being true while discounting all of the evidence against it being true.

The point they’re making is that you’re basing your claim that 99% of sightings are false on nothing. It’s a hunch, nothing more. When you start with that assumption, the conclusion is already made. Which 1% are not false? Surely you should be able to point us to some examples? Or are you just making the claim that 1 in 100 must be true out of nowhere?

I will also point out that the first recorded sighting of aliens that I can find is from 1947, and the Loch Ness Monster was “first brought to world-wide attention” in 1933, so your claim of historical evidence falls apart.

In fact, isn’t it perhaps suspicious that sightings of alien spacecraft didn’t start happening until semi-modern technology existed? Why aren’t there cave paintings from neanderthals of flying saucers? Why isn’t there evidence from ancient Egypt or Rome? It’s almost as though modern science fiction bringing such things to mind was the catalyst for these sightings.

A lot of things have been inscribed into historical texts. The problem with your claim is that it can’t be disproven - you can’t prove a negative, so saying “Well, you can’t disprove all of these photos!” isn’t a scientifically sound hypothesis.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe aliens exist, but not the sort that people claim to be taking pictures of. I thought based on your title that your argument was going to amount to “There’s an incredible number of planets out there, so the chance that we’re the only one that supports life and evolved intelligent life is astronomically slim”, and I was ready to agree with you, but this is just a weak argument.

Let me ask you this: If plentiful pictures are evidence, why are there no clear, indisputable pictures? Surely, if these things are as real as you believe, there should be at least one super clear picture that doesn’t leave room for doubt. Unless, of course, the people taking those pictures were intentionally trying to deceive, and didn’t want them to be too clear.