Imagine if the whole show was like that. Maybe not every song, but maybe after a 45 minute set, the band walks off, and if the crowd is still into it, they come back out. As a fan, you remember all the shows where everyone was disappointed that the band didn’t keep playing more encores, but I bet the bands remember every show where the crowd couldn’t care less.

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.

So the arc speed increases as the radius decreases, both in cutting and reading.

I always assumed that the initial cutting of the record accounts for the variation in speed as the needle moves towards the center. If that’s the case, the information density would be relatively consisten, because the size of the bits of information would get smaller as the speed increases. Like a second of the song could be measured in radians, with the centimeters on the arc getting smaller. But I don’t actually know if that’s how it works.

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.

You don’t need to be particularly intelligent to see it. Case in point, I can see it.

Right? Like, figure out how to sort and fold laundry.

The difference between path and pathos is metaphorically indescribable.

deleted by creator

His new moniker is Lapp Dogg

I would just think you’re trying to be funny. If you keep a deadpan face, you might succeed.

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?

See, that’s the thing about pride. It only bothers people who don’t think you should be proud.

Now, if she had said “I hate corporations using pride to market their shit,” or “I hate empty virtue signalling,” then that’s a horse of a different color. But it bothered her when you posted it.

There’s no respectful disagreement with someone who wants you to hide who you are.

Sure, it’s fiction, and Superman’s powers and limitations are whatever the plot demands.

But if he could move that fast, and he was in a real major city with real people and real problems, then he would be saving people nonstop. Because he could. If he’s faster than light, he could go save everyone without anyone noticing he left the room (setting aside physics, of course). But he’d never be able to stop, and he would never run out of people to save.

And none of it would be supervillains and giant robots or space lasers.

But then, applying any sort of real world rationality to Superman never ends well.

He has super hearing and super speed, and can hear everything across the city. In NYC, an approximate analog of Metropolis, there are over 37,000 car accidents with major injuries or fatalities every year. That’s 100 car accidents each day, every day, just car accidents. If he were to actually try to save everyone he could, he would never have any time for anything else, not even sleep. It’s one thing to go take a sudden bathroom break when Lois is dangling from the ledge on the roof of a building. It’s something else to leave the room every 15 minutes of every hour because people can’t stop texting while driving.

What the chicken fried fuck are you talking about?

Fridging is a form of reductionist misogyny. It’s not just that somebody died, it’s that a woman existed only to die in a brutal fashion.