To me, chances seem high he had some mental health problems, just like the "psychosis encouraged by ChatGPT" murder case some time ago. Substitute ChatGPT for Russian intelligence services on Telegram and you could get exactly this.
I mean, he tried committing suicide right after the murders. That doesn't sound like a well adjusted individual.
Warum hast du den Shrek-Pustearbeit-Bildtextbuchstabe¹ genommen? Ich sehe die Verbindung nicht...
Der Begriff „Emoji“ stammt aus der japanischen Sprache und bedeutet „Bildschriftzeichen“.[2] Er setzt sich aus den Schriftzeichen 絵 für „e“ (Bild), 文 für „mon“ (Text) und 字 für „ji“ (Buchstabe) zusammen.[2]
Do you mean the asteroids at the Lagrangian points? Every single planet has asteroids there because math/physics dictates those points to be stable. Jupiter has the most at its points because it's the largest planet.
Same with Neptune cleaning its orbit: It has collided with every single thing in its orbit EXCEPT those that synced their orbits to Neptune. An object that is gravitationally dominated by a single planet should not be a planet under any definition.
Sources because I had to read into your claims and I'm no astrophysicist:
PEMDAS (or whatever you call it) is not a law and makes no mention of implicit multiplication. My Casio calculators rates implicit multiplication higher than explicit multiplication and division by the way.
Here's another ambiguity:
Is 2½ equal to 1 or 2.5?
Depending on how you enter it, my Casio calculator returns either.
If you create a normal fraction and then put a number in front (by going left with the arrows) it will result in 1
Only if you use the dedicated "fraction with number in front" button will it result in 2.5
Was bringt eine eigene Währung, die seit 29 Jahren auf den D-Mark (und dann Euro) Kurs festgesetzt ist? Man kombiniert da einfach nur alle Nachteile einer eigenen Währung mit allen Nachteilen einer fremden.
That's fair, I only really glossed over the study.
But still, have they actually collected data to support illiciting these emotions works as a "potential strategy to promote behavioral change"? In the study, I haven't found anything like a pre and post experiment survey showing a different attitude towards catcalling. In my mind that's required to demonstrate the VR experiment is such a strategy.
I wish they had tested all 8 scenarios: Male/female participant, male/female body, catcalled/not catcalled.
Because even as a man I don't feel comfortable being alone at a subway station at night. Nor can I imagine would I then enjoy being catcalled.
I wonder how much your VR body seen in a mirror affects this. My gut says not a lot but more data would've been great.
Now, if your own VR body does affect your reaction there must be bodies which maximize/minimize reactions. That'd be fun to test. You don't even have to limit yourself to human bodies, what if you're, say, a dinosaur (with body height still being the same)?