I know in Germany murder is still murder if the murdered person consented to it.

Also, an autopsy isn’t just “randomly cutting someone apart”. The point of an autopsy is to determine a person’s couse of death and doesn’t just involve cutting the dead person open. You being alive means that an autopppsy, by definition, cannot be performed on you.

What you want is someone to mutilate and kill you. I’m pretty sure you can find someone willing to do that.

Side note: I think you overestimate how long you will stay conscious when the blood starts flowing, painkillers don’t fix your brain running out of oxygen.

So punish everyone anytime they do something dangerous or unhealthy? Riding a bike or driving a car also carries risks, as do most forms of sport. Going into the sun? You might get sunburnt, please pay this fine. Kiss someone? That’s how diseases spread, straight to jail.

So how is straight incest different? If lesbian incest is harmless, how is straight incest not?

Humans have other senses besides sight you know? Taste, touch, smell and sound are all heavily involved in sex. And if you can sense them, you can imagine them. Do you need to see your partner to get aroused?

(Also, a majority of blind people have not always been blind, so I imagine many of them still also imagine what someone looks like)

The people complaining about that are mostly the same as the ones who complained that the masks were “suffocating” them during covid.

Do they? I’m pretty sure only about one in three humans works in food production. I think it is reasonable for them to expect the other two to give them something for their food in return.

It’s nice to have something to eat.

No, I just have very different ideas what progress is.

Progress in my eyes is made when a society becomes more democratic, and when we solve conflicts without bloodshed.

In that sense, sure, the GDR was a step in the right direction, but nazi germany didn’t exactly set the bar very high.

The idea of socialism is nice, but you hardly have any progress if the system (be it built on free markets or planned economies) doesn’t work to improve ordinary citizens’ lives, but only to keep the powerful in power.

Personaly, I don’t care much about free markets or planned economies. I think the best approach, as so often, is a kind of blend, a social market economy that allows independent companies in a framework that protects workers, consumers and the environment.

Thing is, the specifics of the economic system aren’t important. What matters is that the people are the ones who decide them.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing a utopian society, but ultimatly you have no control over what happens in the far future (neither should you, future societies need to be ruled by future people).

The only thing you can control is the present and the near future, so what really matters aren’t the ends you strive for, but the means you employ while doing so.

Ah yes, my grandparents, the landlords. Wait hol’ up, they were working people, not landlords. GDR fucked them regardless.

“bUt tHAT wASn’T rEaL ComMunIsM” If neither the USSR nor China could achieve true Communism, then maybe it isn’t so much a realistic goal as a utopian ideal, a convenient justification for all kinds of crimes against humanity that occur in its pursuit.

yup

Technological progress reduces the amount of work required to perform certain tasks. In any just system, this would improve the lives of the general population, either by reducing the amount of work required to make a living, or by increasing the amount and range of products and services.

If technological progress does not do that, and instead makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, the problem isn’t technological progress, but the system in which it is applied.

So what I’m saying is this: AI isn’t the problem. AI replacing employees isn’t the problem. The problem is that with a class divide into investors and workers, the ones profiting the most from technological progress are the investors.

I compared these numbers to the general population (Source: https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ )

Support for the far right AfD is about 5 percentage points lower than among the general population (12% vs 17%)

For the conservative CDU/CSU it is 10 pp lower (20% vs 30%)

For the Social Democrats it is 3 pp lower (12% vs 15%)

For the liberal FDP it is 4 pp higher (8% vs 4%)

For the Greens it is about 4 pp higher (18% vs 14%)

For the Wagenknecht alliance, a weird mix of far right and far left, it is about the same (5%)

Unfortunately this article doesn’t mention the socialist left, which for the general population sits at around 3%

So, to conclude (and from my own experience) youths in Germany don’t deviate that much from the general population in terms of their political views. They tend to be less conservative and xenophobic. Most of them are somewhere in the center, having slightly more liberal tendencies than the general population.

Most spiders.

Octopi are mostly solitary I think.

With π=5 maths break down completely. If π=5, then e^(5i) = -1, meaning -1 = cos(5) + i * sin(5), or -1 ≈ 0.284 - 0.959 i

deleted by creator

Sounds like something one of my great grandparents would have said 5 to 10 years before being sent to a concentration camp.

I usually just get PigPoopBalls and a bunch of insults.

If this surprises you, you never had to worry about how you are going to pay next month’s rent

The title says “There’s more people who wake up at the same second than people who fall asleep at the same second”. One could (and most people seem to) interpret this as “the maximum amount of people waking up at any given second is higher than the maximum amount of people falling asleep at any given second”, which is a statement I agree with. I interpreted it as “The amount of people waking up at any given time is higher than the amount of people falling asleep at the same time”, which is of course false.

It seems we just weren’t talking about the same thing. You were talking about the maximum values of both distributions, for which the statement is true, while I only considered the distributions’ median and mean values, for which the statement isn’t true.

I disagree that the post makes clear OP is referring to the max values, but I guess that’s because english is not my first language, and my statistics background likely made me over analyze the statement.