Firstly- there is danger in putting live animals together. Especially when survival is on the line. It’s entirely possible, and happens- if one leaves the snake and mouse un supervised- the snake can be injured or killed by the mouse. But to argue against nature is faulty logic. The very nature of keeping a pet in captivity goes against nature and is outside the bounds of a nature that lacks human intervention. In nature you’re unlikely to find a heat lamp and climate that is optimized through direct control. It’s unlikely to find veteranians and medicine. You’re also unlikely to find large groups of mice being frozen or dying on a regular basis where a snake happens to live all on their own. There’s no precident in nature. Although it is possible if unlikely that the two animals may be effectively trapped together in nature through circumstance. Simply one can not argue “nature” when the whole point of pets is removing them from nature and making them part of human of human life.

It’s understabdable one might not feel comfortable feeding live mice to snakes. My advice would be the same as I would give a vegan uncomfortable to feed a cat meat- don’t get one in that case. I like mice more than snakes, but both are living creatures. Snakes eat mice. Buying dead mice isn’t humane to the mouse, it just saves the owner the guilt of knowing they were directly involved in its death. The guy who gives the order to kill someone is no less culpable than the one who pulls the trigger, they just don’t see the last moments of the victim. The company that sells frozen mice wouldn’t kill mice if people didn’t buy dead mice. Then again that mouse likely wouldn’t have been born to begin with, pets, animal experiments, and feed are basically the only reasons mice a bred- all end in death, and even a pet mouse will not likely have a family, and open territory. It will have a small cage and food, hopefully a friend or two that it is stuck with until it dies. It’s what it is.

@guest- thank you.

If we keep it hypothetical- it’s still unknown wether it works. The ability to predict future events with certainty relies on the assumption that no true randomness exists. It relies on an assumption that all effects have a chain of causality that could be traced. It becomes a phillospolhical question of wether there is such a thing as free will or destiny. It assumes that by observing or predicting events we don’t alter them. Beyond these and other predestination paradoxes, it also assumes therebarent multiple simulataious realities or “timelines” or that all these things don’t occupy a single moment. So the theory is possible, but we don’t understand enough about the universe to say for certain.

A blind poll confirms.

It was sarcasm- just to be clear.

Specifically you said perfect information about events that had occurred. I understood that to mean the events themselves and the chains of their outcomes- not the events as well as their underlying mechanics. For instance- in chess, “perfect information” doesn’t necessarily imply a complete understanding of the quantum physics beneath the world the game occurs in, not the bio chemical processes of thought and consciousness- just that information directly relating to the game. So to be more specific if I understand- you meant: “if one has knowledge of every event on every level of reality to have ever occurred- as well as the fundamental processes which relate to those events, and anything tangentially related to aforementioned information.” Or in short- if one were omnipotent over all events in the past- one could predict the future?

In theory. It’s a fun idea that can (and has) been explored in sci fi and speculation. There are some holes though. You need more than just information- you need a model. You’d need a complete understanding of physics, and how the very universe itself operates at a fundamental level. You’d need not just to know everything which has happened- but also to know what COULD happen. Since any event that occurs which hasn’t occurred in your previous data, or is unaccounted for, would invalidate your model as perfect. Even at that you could likely only predict probability of possible outcomes and not certainty- and that ignores things like chaos theory, any theories of a sentient force manipulating things, or of a consciousness to the universe itself. It also ignore the possibility of things existing outside our universe, and assumes again that a “traditional,” linear model of time and understanding of cause>effect are correct.

I look at it like a laser pointer or pocket knife. People have gotten by without a looong time. People who actually have uses for it can be benefited by having it, and those who don’t can just not worry about one more thing to carry. You can use it for utilitarian reasons, or for amusements and frivolities. You can be responsible and sensible in use, or you can be irresponsible or even dangerous. It is a tool to some, a distraction or amusement to others, and to some a necessity to the way their life is structured. Due to versatility it simply is what you make it. Are you carrying a newsapaper? A library for your thesis? A self help or therapy tool? A game boy? A life saving device? A level, calculator, or day planner? Are you carrying a walkie talkie or pager for work? It’s just a little box full of chips. To some a box holds shoes, to others it is a fort, to others it’s just trash.

Or lime and some other trace minerals.

Beat me to it. lol

@scatmandigo- sort of. Cross bows can have an incredible force for their size, are compact, but most important were far simpler to use than a long bow. Like guns they require less skill, especially close up, and so could be deployed readily and used effectively by less elite troops. The effective increase in numbers of a capable army is invaluable. A hoard of even unarmed people, if sufficient size, will take out a small band of well trained and equipped soldiers in full armor.

@yimmye- guns can damage plate, but fun facts- Well made plate can even stand up to many modern small arms. Armoreres of the day did create bullet resistant armors as well. In fact- bows and arrows actually compare as well or better in penetration to even modern guns. However the kinetic energy of a hit still can injure or kill the wearer, even with padding. The armor would also be damaged, and not likely to stop many more direct hits. The battle field changed towards ever more mobile and spontaneous combat, over longer ranges. Weapons like guns could be made cheap and fast to a spec, and required less skill and less skilled workers to build and maintain. Cutting down on specialists and special tools required for “old” warfare included armorers and their trade. Full plate was always very expensive, not practical for mass deployment. In most mass battles it just stopped being worth it to use.

Eloquent- beautiful- true. I wish more people saw this philosophy.

It goes against reality. You will not find communism in nature. The food chain by its nature is not communist. Organisms eat each other for food, parasitize each other, use force to fight for territory, mates, food, etc. The watering hole on the savanah is peaceful and all the creatures share it until a lion gets hungry, or a hippo gets upset someone is standing too close. Until two male antelopes both see the same female in heat. Even insects who are often held as examples of communism- they have class, they have a queen they serve and they war against rivals of their kind over supplies. When there is enough for everyone to have whatever they want we don’t fight over what there is. When we live on a world with only so much space, so many beaches or “prime” real estate, where clean water, fuel, minerals, fertile land, are all limited- we will fight. It’s not human nature, it’s the nature of life. Organisms compete to survive.

The head of salesforce made an announcement at his bulldog dedication down town. Didn’t you hear? He’s going to collect $200 million dollars and “end homelessness” in San Francisco. So no worries. When has a massive corporation ever done wrong or not delivered on lofty promises of social good?

While I am curious as well to what if any study went in to this, I think it doesn’t matter much. What I mean is that I’m sure a lot- maybe most men mistake being friendly for flirting at least once. My question is: and...? See- it’s an evolutionary imperative. It makes sense for this to be true. “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” The opposing example are the green texts where person A wrote off obvious interest from person B until later when they realized they messed up. The behavior applies to more than romance. The promotion or achievement we never even try for because “we have no chance.” Very successful people tend to have in common the fact that they thought they could do it, and so they tried. There is nothing wrong with mistaking things as positive signs- a small dose of dillusion is healthy for us and our self image. So long as we push boundaries slowly, read signs to back off, and respect “no,” that non flirting woman might actually accept a date, just have respect.