If someone throws a hat in the air, you take a picture of it before it lands, and you don’t know what it is you’ve seen and photographed, technically you have taken a photo of a UFO.

The planet would survive, sure, but why should we care that it does without us? Meaning is something that we invented, without someone to assign it, an ecosystem is little more valuable than a rock.

Climate change is an ongoing process that takes decades to centuries. That’s very fast as far as evolution and natural climactic shifts are concerned, but on a human scale long term. Given that it’s not stopping within the lifespan of one person, and contributes to virtually every health problem in subtle ways, it’d seem a bit difficult to say if a given person has “survived it” or not, even if they live to an old age.

Or people would simply be divided over what race they used to be.

We can print DNA iirc, and I’d imagine that tech will only improve with time, so if we really needed to keep some DNA from before some event that degrades all DNA afterwards, it might just be kept around as a computer file and synthesized as needed rather than frozen in living cells.

I wonder if neanderthals would’ve liked casu martzu cheese then.

Romance. Like I get on an intellectual level why people couple up and all, evolution and all that, and that people strongly desire it, but Ive never been able to imagine exactly what it feels like to want that close of a relationship with someone, let alone a formalized and exclusive one.

I think the reasoning is something like this: these companies employ such call center employees for a reason, either they legally have to for one reason or another or they’ve determined that in some way, it is more profitable to have the capacity for people to call them than not. If the call centers are swamped, then they still cost the company money, but their benefit to the company is reduced, because the “real” calls can’t get through in a timely fashion. As such, it’s in the company’s interest to avoid having people spam them, and if the policy those people want changed won’t really cost the company anything to change, then just doing that might be the most profitable option for them.

The Netherlands probably, but with the massive grain of salt that I suspect that choosing a “ideal place to live” without actually having been to that place is likely to result in a skewed idea of what a place is truly like, and as I’ve never been outside the United States I have that issue when thinking about any other country. I also doubt they or anywhere else that might make my list of ideal places would want me, seeing as I’m just some random factory worker without any especially rare skill.

Hard to say that theyre really safer, when the primary safety incident everyone thinks of, occurred during the 1930s, a time whose airplanes certainly wouldnt have been as safe as modern ones either