I’d argue they didn’t, they just changed.

There are 2 groups worth noting. Government and private.

Government assassination is still a thing. Israel has used it aggressively over the last few decades. There are also signs that china has too. That’s just off the top of my head. It’s also worth noting that drone strikes etc can fill the same roll as an assassin.

Private has definitely changed. I suspect the high profile assassinations have stopped. Low level ones just had to get a lot better at not looking like assassinations. The ever classic boating accident being a good example.

The change is mostly from improvements in policing. You can no longer just move to another city to escape the law.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of society has changed. It used to be that a country pivoted on its leader. Now, it’s a lot more reliant on formal structures. Taking out a leader doesn’t have the same, devastating effect it used to. Iran being a good example.

There’s a couple near me. 1 on an arched footbridge, on a busy pedestrian path. The other on a narrow, cut through. It’s near a school and people turn into it around a blind corner.

I consider both completely reasonable things to ask.

You know you didn’t know about the loop initially. Therefore, something you did without that knowledge caused it. Making changes, based on the new info will change the outcome to something different.

You wouldn’t just turn around without cause in the original loop. Doing so, with your only reason being the new knowledge will change the outcome.

Agreed on that. Though in the scale of the UK there aren’t that many cases. The ones there are however, are (deliberately) high profile. It has a chilling effect on the population, without needing to use it much.

They also hamstring the bobbies via the budget assignments. I know a lot of forces would love to get rid of some of the more overtly racist/sexist/other-ist officers. Their budget limits wages however, which limits the selection of replacements. They end up having to try and weed out the ringleaders (to fire or retire) and split the followers up.

The long and the short, most of the police are working class and do the job to try and make our country better. Some are even trying to counter the bullshit rolling down from on high.

I’m playing that balancing act already. They like watching TV, or a tablet, but it’s not their life’s entertainment. They use it to help decompress, before moving on to something better, when they have the energy.

That episode bugged me. You find yourself in a time loop. It’s looped enough times for you to detect it.

“Let’s not change anything.”

… WHY?

Turn around, fly away and contact someone. Launch a probe from a distance. Change the loop, so it doesn’t loop!

Nicotine is a useful pesticide, so I would actually partially agree with you.

Kids watching excessive TV is a symptom of a larger problem. The negative effects mostly come from those problems, not the screen time itself.

So are a lot of scientists.

The UK force has its problems, but it functions fairly well. It also has a lot of people in it who honestly want to do a good job.

The problem is the rules and mandates coming down from the government. (And the political upper management level of the police)

America has “police by intimidation” as its default response. Most of Europe seems to have “police by consent” as the default.

It leads to a different mentality. They might still roll out the whole cavalry, but it will more likely be led by a polite knock at the door, and an initial attempt to de-escalate.

The latest studies seem to show it’s a correlation based on a common source.

What matters is spending time interacting with your child. It just happens that parents that are bad at that bit (or lack time for otter reasons) tend to also dump kids in front of the TV.

Screen time is not inherently bad. It just correlates with other bad behaviours, and can displace good ones.

I thought it was mostly a jamming type effect. The memories are often still here, but become progressively less accessible. They then degrade from lack of use.

It might well be that a lot of memories still exist for longer than it seems. Even if not, stopping the degradation, and allowing new memories to form would allow people to remain cognitive and functional for a LOT longer.

A lot of the big building companies, in Europe, treat solar panels as a premium option and so charge a larger profit margin on them. Installing solar, while constructing the house is a LOT cheaper and easier than retrofitting them later.

The panels have gotten cheap enough that it’s no longer a real cost burden, Vs the cost of the house.

The problem is a race to the bottom happens. Smokers tend to drink more and are quite… militant in their opinions on where to go. Basically non smoking pubs would suffer, and so likely allow smoking, ruining it for everyone else.

It doesn’t help that those left smoking cigarettes, in the UK, tend to be the rudest, most inconsiderate of the original group. The average heroin addict is considerably more polite than the average cigarette smoker now.

A friend had an excellent (but evil) one.

His son had found some more… interesting areas of the internet (aka porn). He collected a selection of his browsing history and sat him down. They then went, video by video, having an open and honest discussion about it. Dad had FAR more tolerance for mortifying embarrassment than his son did. He learnt to clear the history at least.

The 2nd discussion, 6 months later, used the router logs instead.

I’m not sure I would use this particular method. However, it was apparently highly effective at making his kids think things through (for better or for worse!).

Similar mentality here.

I’ve got some basic parental controls in place. They are intended at emergency buffers, rather than to stop a concerted effort however.

The best method is to teach and train. No security is going to be invincible, without being very problematic to work within. Children also learn fast, when motivated.

I saw an interesting thing a few years back (which I can’t now find!). It was a plot of energy usage Vs reproductive rates of various animals. The graph produced quite a linear line (more energy expended==>lower reproductive speed). Humans were wildly off that line. At least until you accounted for external energy usage (burnt fuel, electricity etc). That jumped us back to the line.

I’m still not sure if this was just a coincidental result, or pointed to a deeper correlation.

Just did a conversion. I pay £1.90/litre over here. That works out at $9.80/gallon. You’re still only 2/3 the cost of our fuel, if that.

It was £1.30 before Epstein Fury started.

Both could easily be used for controlling a drone.

This would definitely be mine too. Particularly if it was still jailbroken, as in the book.

In story, it could even cope with a lot of future sight powers. It was only the apex level ones that were on an even field with it.

The only downside is the erosion of your free will. It’s hard to make your own choices when this power is available to make them all for you.