Silicon’s conditions would make it difficult. It has far less inorganic precursor molecules to work from. It might work under cryogenic conditions, but that has a bunch of other problems.

The titanium one is new to me, and potentially interesting. My concern would be an abiogenic pathway. It might be able to form interesting molecules for life, but if they don’t appear naturally, then getting life started gets massively more difficult.

There’s also a hell of a lot of options with carbon based life. Earth life is VERY locked into a few variants with our base biochemistry. E.g. there’s no reason for particular RNA sequences to match particular Protein peptides. Yet it’s basically a universal thing. Even chirality is fixed, for no particular reason other than mixing causes issues.

I could potentially see a dual based life system working, effectively a more advanced version of how some creatures use metals to make shells etc, or how horns and hair grow. It could also provide a viable (though extremely convoluted) bootstrap process for titanium life, or something more exotic. Forcing life to change its core functionality however is apparently quite difficult, since no life on earth seems to have done so and survived to be detected. Rocky, in Project Hail Mary, would fall into this group (a carbon life core basically piloting a stone and metal mech).

What combinations are you thinking of?

Life on earth is based around Carbon chains. Carbon’s 4 bonds allows for a low of complex structures that would be hard/impossible for less bonds.

The only other viable option I know of is silicon. Unfortunately its chain equivalent has an extra reaction pathway with water. It would degrade rapidly if exposed to water, which is very common at the energies it would work at.

I’d be curious to look up any other viable options.

The uncanny valley is FAR stronger with moving things Vs inanimate ones. It’s likely modified from a revulsion of dead things, but seems to be distinct now.

Most diseases don’t show strongly enough to trigger it, most of the time. Historically, the exception has been leprosy. I’m honestly curious if it’s evolved to keep us clear of leppers specifically or not.

There are 2 parts at work. The focus reflex and the blink reflex. The window between them is the dangerous part. If the pulse is fast enough ( a few ms) then the eye can’t focus, and it’s fairly safe (unless you were already focused on the emitter). If the pulse is low enough power then the blink reflex kicks in and protects your eye.

Hitting a mosquito is a hard task, tracking one is even harder. It’s better to use an ultra short pulse, with a bit more power. You can also shift the frequency. If it’s an infrared laser then the eye won’t lock onto it, and will struggle to focus it dangerously.

This idea was tried previously. If done right, it doesn’t take much energy to damage a mosquito’s wings.

Secondly, a laser is only a real issue for vision if the eye focuses on it. With a continuous beam, it would be instinctive, making it dangerous. If the pulse is short enough however, the eye won’t have time to focus and so the power will be safely spread out, even inside the eyeball.

I’d also be fascinated if we figured out a way to do it

I personally suspect it’s not common in the animal kingdom. It’s quite likely a defense against leprosy, a disease that is most dangerous in larger society type communities, without outside predators (to pick off the sick).

That theory might be wrong however. Its distribution would tell us a lot about what it defends against.

I’m pro suicide. However, a lot of times suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

There should definitely be at least a couple of doctors in the loop for an assisted suicide. There also needs to be a lot more in the way of support for people in that hole. Both the emotional support, and more practical guidance (it’s hard to break out of the cycle when your life is objectively shit and all you can get is “there there, it will get better”).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

Basically, an “instant” communication device can create paradoxes.

E.g.

Earth sends mars a instant message. Mars the relay’s it via normal radio to a passing ship/probe moving at 0.99C. That probe then sends an “Instant” message to Earth.

The final message will (depending on alignments etc) arrive before the original was sent. If the message the voids the reason for the original message to be sent then a paradox happens.

You can make similar things happen with any form of FTL communication. C isn’t technically the speed of light, it is the speed of information. It just happens that light has no other speed limiting, and so moves at maximum speed.

ADHD could have some bearing, if it was something quick and impulsive. Premeditation makes it even more damning however.

Either way, it’s not an excuse, just a factor to account for in corpus mentis decisions.

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.