"Ay, cross?" "Nay: Tick!"

Each shot of vaccine on such terms makes the recipient much safer, and simultaneously more dangerous to everyone else except others who have had that vaccine. If you pay up, show your papers, give your body metrics and family history, then you can take an injection to be merely be a carrier with less-visible symptoms. How about your whole family become carriers-only? Ah, how about all the richest first, then strictly all of the other priority people and whatever minorities there's schemes for... (Then next year, NEW, the actual vaccine). You can't expect people to be as cautious if they've had a vaccine but they'll be toxic to others. Gross.

"Master/slave" hasn't been banned. You can even make Python games explicitly about either of those concepts, just nobody is forced to loosely bring up heavy history when they're writing an app with nothing to do with it. When dealing with slavery today, neither are we indebted to recognise those who called themselves "masters" masters of anything. We can write "slave-owner" and that is more direct and descriptive than "master". I find by translating "master" with "slave-owner", our writing on the slave-owner/slave relationship will be no less accurate and defensibly more accurate. Also, when I master an audio recording there is no slave. When I master my skill of mastering audio there is no slave. When I get a Master's in mastering (having just about achieved mastery in mastering) we still have no slave. If I mention master/slave... I mention a specific historical dynamic which played out only between humans where one was deemed to be subjected and inferior in regard. I can talk at length about rape whilst speaking only of bodies and consent... There are no particular acts common to all rape, nor body parts common to all rape but not common to all other human movements.

I agree with all those things and wanted to add that as important as words are, that is how important it is we don't reimagine "slavery" as a racial term. In fact, if I may, I find that quite racist. More certainly: warping our language to represent a false history isn't how anything needs to happen. No race means "subjected", no race means "property", but if slave is a "racial" term I know who is meant and it is false. If it helps programmers, cool. Now let's respond to what's systematic, will we?

I see a difference because it's fine to have a government which neither contains nor consults with novelists or carpenters, but a government with no scientists and which does not consult with scientists would be preposterous. Albeit "scientists" is broad, and a government void of relativity theorists and astronomers would be preferable to the one with no environmental scientists, and even then, they needn't be experts on ecosystems on other continents. They should be confident enough to read medical reports. In that light, whilst large-scale applied decision-making begs for science in it somewhere, it's not "science" in general we care about so much as general literacy and those principles of the world they agentially interact with. Ideally I'd want my politicians trained in intuiting large numbers, reading academic papers, a review of cause-and-effect as it has pertained to policy-making, and just enough science to understand the world we live in regards the atmosphere, fuelology, stuff about interdependency of species who share habitats. I'd want all of them trained in it, instead of "ask Jim, he's the one with a really good grasp on big numbers". There could be one really neat book "Science for Politicians" which might help lots just to exist for its availability. I'd rather use the Internet to replace the representatives. Humanity is one patch away from greatness.

They just evolve. Donald Trump would take to skywriting. You'd see it in the sky one day without any context but you'd know straight away, emblazoned in the sky in purest vapour: "I'VE GOT THE BEST SKYWRITERS"

(There's a window one or two reflex-widths before death where things are true, you are alive, you occupy space, your body is doing stuff, but ethics aren't applicable. "There is no morality without consequence", I say, and... Damn, no, that's an ethic!! There we go. I didn't quite know how to relate morality and ethics. But during that window, morality (decision-level) doesn't apply but ethics (the necessary framework by which to guide moral decisions) applies because ethics makes judgements on morality. Then I totally agree with you and I got a piece of understanding, Thanks. Ignore me.) Have a good day.

Something something Hilbert Curve...

It's definitely said that copyright helps artists but I don't think it was ever, ever true. Copyright gave publishers a way to own music which artists made, and then take most of the profits. If I buy patents from other people and then employ people to hunt for incursions on my patent rights... Behold, I'm a patent troll. If it's music, I'm a publisher. I'll take $10 from a fan and give pennies to the artist from that transaction. That doesn't help the artist who's signed up, and we have these strange huge entities dominating stores, charts, and radios who make it very difficult for independent artists ever to get a spot. Anyone who loves recorded music loves musicians who have been famously, royally flipped over by their record company. We've got a few cute stories about big clashes beside just so much combined misery imposed on artists who were forced to be subject to publishers. The only leverage the company ever has is that they can own the stuff you made (even before you've imagined it!!) copyright. Has an artist ever, ever praised copyright? No. Never. Barely any have even criticised piracy - even as it became normal and overhauled the landscape. YouTube must make $$$ each day from hosting music whilst not paying anyone to do so which is like white-collar piracy which doesn't involve the love of music. All this is fine, it's good the more people who can hear music. (Denouncing piracy, that one time with Metallica, isn't the same as advocating copyright is good. As a musician, I think it's silly to pay anything for music, ever, if the big cannibal corps take 95% of the profits... That's really not supporting artists imo. Maybe there's a version of copyright which would be good and fair but we don't get nearer it by paying the not good, not fair system.)