Word for word what I was about to post.

Sit by the bedside of a loved one as they die in agony that can only be even partially controlled by keeping them comatose. You'll likely soon come to the conclusion that we shouldn't be trying to just live 'as long as we can', but as long as we can well.

There often comes a time when the rest of a person's life will consist only of barely managed pain, suffering, indignity and imminent death. It should be up to the person living that to decide if it is worth it, and and up to the medical profession to deliver a peaceful end if that is what they want.

There are plenty of issues that need to be worked through before it is possible, particularly around coercion, deliberate or accidental, and how it is delivered, but they must be worked through if we are to consider ourselves humane. When an animal we care about is suffering, with no hope of relief, we can make the choice to end their lives to alleviate the suffering, we should be able to do the same for ourselves.

It's uncanny isn't it, he's such a copycat that he even copied the original shooter's face!

The 'killer' died in prison, therefore and new incident must be a copycat by someone who happens to look a lot like him. That's a brand new case. /s

I suspect that, for exactly that reason, they'll just lock him up and try to forget about him.

I doubt he cares about actually ending birthright citizenship, he cares about being seen to be ending it. He's all about image, the worse the better. If the courts prevent it, or a later administration undoes his order, that's their problem, not his.

Goats are actually malevolent vegetables.

Clearly what you need to do to avoid the recoil is mount the guns on a solid metal hoop like structure around your chest, and have a matching set in the back to balance the forces. One pull of the trigger and you ruin everybody's day.

As I said, it's an interesting question! I think I've found a paper describing something like the scenario you mentioned (Dhar, A. (1993). Nonuniqueness in the solutions of Newton’s equation of motion. American Journal of Physics, 61(1), 58–61. doi:10.1119/1.17411). It's a apparently shows that for certain conditions (such as the balanced knife you mentioned, or a particle in a field that would accelerate it away from the origin proportionally to it's distance) Newton's equations of motion have non-unique solutions, although I confess that the author rather lost me during some of his leaps in mathematics. The discussion section is interesting, a couple of key conclusions stood out to me: 'In this sense we may say that Newton's equation has a unique solution even for singular forces like x^1/3^ but x(0)=0 and derivative(x(0))=0 in such cases do not uniquely specify the initial state.' and 'Infinitesimal disturbance in position or velocity will change the state and one of the other solutions will become effective.'

From what I have understood from the paper, the author seems to be mostly pointing out that there are certain conditions under which Newton's equations do not have a unique solution, but that in reality a deterministic, but chaotic, outcome will occur due to infinitesimal disturbances. Ultimately, no matter how carefully you balance the knife, it's going to fall over, and the direction it falls will be determined by a multitude of forces rather than pure chance.

@bunchberry@lemmy.world has also made a thoughtful reply regarding quantum field theory and it's implications on determinism, and I need to respond to that too as it's a fascinating, if baffling, topic.

Your question about predicting your own future is interesting; you're making the assumption that a prediction must continue to be true after the point at which it is made, but I would suggest that you can resolve the apparent contradiction by considering that any prediction of the future is only true at the instant it is made. After all, if someone else predicted your future, wrote it down, but did not tell you, you would eat the avocado, however seen as you changed the conditions of your future by gaining additional information the result changed. If you predicted your future a second time, directly after having resolved to not eat the avocado, the prediction would have you not eating it.

If we assume the universe is deterministic, and that we have the ability to perfectly replicate it and run that replica forward in time without time passing in our universe it would seem that we could accurately predict the future of our universe just be seeing what happened in the replica. However, that would involve the replica creating it's own replica as it would evolve in exactly the same way as our universe. That replica would create it's own replica, and so on. I'm not quite sure of what the implications of that are, and it's late here, so I'm going to have to call it a night, but if if could be done it would be a clear way to distinguish between a random or non-deterministic universe and a chaotic one. If the predictions sometimes proved incorrect it would suggest true randomness rather than just a chaotic system.

A dinosaur skeleton in a spacesuit.

Put the side back on your case, and then you don't have to look at it. ;)

Are we truly not all just meat robots, controlled by meat computers? Why must our silicon brethren judge us so harshly?