Interesting. Is he really counting on his wife's resuscitation, or is he just a widower with baggage?

I wonder whether the "utilitarian" perspective he has now will fade over time. He's being a bit of a dick right now, but if his new partner is okay with it, then I'm not sure we can argue.

I didn't see anything about his dating profile in TFA, so I assume that's your speculation.

Cryogenics preserved his late wife's body. It did not guarantee that she could be resuscitated. I doubt she can anyway. Even if she could, how long would he have to wait for it to be possible? Would he even live long enough to see the technology created?

In short, his wife is dead. Let him get back on the market.

You ignored what I wrote.

You (essentially) said all religions are cults and all cults are religions, by wrapping them in circular definitions. I claim that not all religions are cults, and not all cults are religions.

Religions are like clubs. There are certain rules you need to follow in order to join. A religion (or any other organization) is a cult when those rules become abusive. The BITE model identifies what sorts of rules might be identified as abusive. The point at which you consider a group to be a cult is somewhat personal, but usually happens when you consider the collection of apparently abusive characteristics to pass a threshold you decide on.

You pointed out some existing religions as having cult-like characteristics. I agree that the Church of Scientology is a cult, and that the Church of Mormon certainly shows some cult-like aspects -- particularly with its strict rules on tithing, missionary work, behavioral restrictions, control of access to worship spaces to those deemed worthy, and so on. However, those are just two examples. There are plenty of religious groups that don't apply that kind of control on their members, allow them to leave the organization if they wish and suffer no exit-cost, and generally provide fellowship and encouragement, not punishment and judgement.

And there are plenty of cults that are not religions. They can be: political; self-improvement, therapy, or personal-development organizations; pyramid-marketing schemes; and so on.

And for the record, I'm not religious. I just object to painting groups with a broad brush.

No, I "got" what you were saying. I just didn't agree with it. Not all religions are cults, and not all cults are religions.

The characteristics of a cult are more complex than you claim. See the link I provided.

There are more detailed ways to measure whether a group has cult-like characteristics. See the BITE model, for example.

I hope you never turned in a handwritten essay.

I used to grade such things. Any paper with bad handwriting was an absolute horror. It did not save the author from a poor grade.

At the very least, you should be able to read your own handwriting. If not, you are a Lost Boy.

I'm inclined to agree. I think it's more like 90%.

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: two neutrons that collide will just bounce off each other (if the energy is low enough) or create new particles (if the energy is high enough.) But in both cases, the net spin will not change, because spin is intrinsic angular momentum, which is conserved.

But they do have spin.

Look, I'm not trying to defend technobabble. I'm just saying that plausibly there's something to reverse in a neutron flow.

Wait, I think I have my own answer. Maybe they were referring to the number of states 300 qbits could represent simultaneously. Yes, that would be 2^300, well over the number of particles in the universe.

I read that and decided it wasn't worth reading any further, not because it's delusional, but because it's meaningless.

How much information is contained in "the number of particles in the known universe?" Thant's a number between 10^80 and 10^82, or about 2^265 to 2^273. That number can be stored easily in 300 ordinary bits.

Or maybe they mean something else?

TFS is about people getting tired of waiting for a government-supported solution and finding their own.

Your post is about encountering municipal bureaucracy when you had it in mind to do it yourself in the first place.

I'm no fan of bureaucracy for its own sake. But there's a reason you need to jump through some hoops when you want to change something on your property. Those trees you want to cut down might be crucial for flood mitigation. That room you want to turn into a spare bedroom might be a fire-trap if it lacks a window or quick access to an exit route. Digging on your property might disrupt buried pipes or cables.

Like it or not, we do need rules, even though sometimes they may seem silly to you.

I was not aware you could tell whether someone was gay from their urine.

Maybe it's not the CO2, but the methane from cow belches. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, although it breaks down more rapidly in the atmosphere.

Fine, but let's not stop planting trees.

By "efficient" did you mean technologies for hydrogen harvesting that have a net carbon footprint that is lower than using fossil fuels in the kilns? Because it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Actually you can deduct losses, but not more than you have in winnings. Just like gambling.