Only to be CEO of a massive capitalist company.

I’ve heard a few tales of some CEO’s (of very small companies) here in the Nordics actually being generous to their employees. Like it’s most definitely a rarity, but I believe it is possible.

Like a CEO who values profits but values employees and paying their fair share more and isn’t blinded by greed and addicted to money. A socialist, literally. A market socialist, but a socialist nonetheless.

Everyone could have their basic needs met, and we could still have rich people. Just not filthy rich, not “rich-to-the-point-no-one-else-has-anything” rich.

So a magical but injured life is possible, but a magical but non-injured one isn’t?

Cool. Cruel, but cool.

I don’t think you understand how posting hypotheticals on forums works; they get elaborated and “tested” by asking questions or positing premises. Thought experiments, as you seem to be aware of the term at least.

OP used the word exactly.

That means you have exact knowledge of it.

Of course having exact foreknowledge of such a thing would affect your life. Would that effect then affect the thing being the exact time and date? If not, then it’s utter gibberish, because by telling you about it, they’ve already changed history and thus it won’t apply anymore.

If however it won’t affect it, then you’ve gained immortality. You could play Russian roulette as much as you want and never have to fear dying. You can perhaps argue that maybe you survive a shot, but how would that be possible from a large calibre revolver aimed directly at the brainstem?

Paralysed from the neck down.

Then how am I gonna run the marathon?

So you’re saying you have no free will whatsoever, but despite whatever happens, the prophecy will be true?

That I could never drive an older car pretty much, because it’s easy to kill yourself with one. Much less a motorbike without a helmet.

I can never hold anything sharp which could cut the jugular. Couldn’t manage to go swimming, because diving deep and inhaling would somehow have to fail?

Either the prediction is bullshit, oooor it gives you magical plot armor (unless it’s extremely vague, but that goes against OP’s description),

C4 is the easiest for this example. I can definitely manage explosives. You can rather easily make things which blow up.

Let’s make this easier then, I go to the woods and set up a huge fucking boulder on an elaborate pulley system (don’t worry about me finding them, I live in Finland were boulders and rocky surfaces are a plenty. My cousins actually operate a gravel business, so they have lots of proper gear for breaking rocks into smaller rocks, and vehicles to do those things with. So let’s say there’s a pit. I lay a ton of harsh gravel on the bottom of it, a proper few meter layer. Then I take a loader full of massive boulders. And another. And a third one. Place them around the pit. Place myself in the pit, and remotely activate the loaders to drop all those boulders on me. Oh and I didn’t mention, but I put a bed in the pit with me. It’s a bed of extremely sharp knives, covered by a thin cardboard so I don’t get stabbed if I easy myself onto it. On top of that, there’ another bed, upside down, also loaded with insanely sharp swords. All of the boulders will fall into the pit, crushing the bed system, which stabs and slices me into pieces while the boulders to the rest of the work. (The bed frames are soft enough so that they can hold knives, but will be utterly deformed by the boulders so they won’t stay in the way.

Then I’ve also paid for a crazy cousin to empty both barrels of a shotgun to my face with a full metal slug right as the stones start dropping.

But… I’ll survive?

And what happens if you buy a literal ton of C4, cover yourself in the pile and detonate?

I have to survive somehow, right?

It is dehydration, just a different type.

Losing mainly fluid is known as hypertonic dehydration – or hypernatremia. Losing mainly sodium is known as hypotonic dehydration – or hyponatremia

In that scenario you can’t die of dehydration but you’re going to die of dehydration forcibly. So what’s going to happen?

Youre going to die of dehydration, because you we’re simply unaware that drinking too much flushes the sodium out of your body which is what makes you able to retain enough water to function.

Ironically people in hot environments and drinking a ton of water can end up severely dehydrated (mainly if they don’t eat anything, as food has a sodium and other electrolytes).

Now if you drank mineral water (or sports drinks but they’re rather sugary nowadays) or just added a tiny bit of salt to the water you drink, then it would break the prophecy.

Similarly ironic is that a lot of people who aren’t used to cold environments and get lost in the woods or something usually end up suffering heat stroke, as they’ve only a massively thick puffy jacket and walking still generates heat, which the jacket traps and your body can’t cool down and overheats. (Layers and breathing materials underneath the top layers is good, as then you can open or remove a layer as needed to regulate your body temp.)

For the sake of the topic of the thread, I’d like to know what happens if I’m told I die in 50 years from a heart attack while running a marathon, and after hearing that I jump out of a window, try to blow my brains out or shove a block of C4 up my bowels and blow myself up? I should survive, yes? And in condition to (attempt to) run a marathon?

Because if it’s not locked like that and can be changed then it’s more of a guess than accurate foreknowledge.

Afaik, high internet speed requires higher frequencies and high frequencies reach less far + have less penetration through/around obstacles. That’s what makes providing “4g” virtually everywhere easy (good enough for phone calls at least), but if they want to provide actual high speeds everywhere, then it suddenly becomes not so easy (nor cheap).

Why are you putting “4g” in quotes? It is 4g. Basic cellular networks cover the entire country, and using 4g speeds has been common for a long time. Hell, back when I was in the army, I had a laptop with a mobile connection. It was 3g back then, but it worked, even from the deepest of woods we were in.

The terrain of Finland probably makes this easier for us, as this is a rather flat country. We have literally no mountains. A few fells (=large hill, essentially) , but no mountains.

I wish I had a good answer, but I don’t, really.

Probably a combination of just providing a service and having good technology to do so and companies which want to sell said technology, I guess?

Everyone enjoys the internet. I might be assuming, but the sort of “if you want services, move to a city” sort of rhetoric that might exist somewhere in the US doesn’t really exist for us Finns. We understand wanting to live in the middle of the woods while still having access to basic services.

The Northern part is very sparsely populated, yeah (well not compared to some other places in the middle of huge states in the US but) something like two people per square kilometer, but rural living is pretty common throughout the country, so the whole country understands the need for them, perhaps?

Also, I think a lot of the towers are older towers for just 2g, going back from GSM to NMT, those towers always just being updated with newer technology, again perhaps? (I’m too lazy to research this now.) And the need to have just cellular networks to be able to call emergency services if you’re lost deep in the woods has always been a pretty high priority, I think?

The only places you maybe can’t get cell reception in Finland are some places in the middle of a few national parks in Lapland.

Yeah since most people don’t live in the parts of the country no-one lives in, when looking at how many people are covered, it gets pretty good. And we didn’t take long to get 5g to a lot of people.

Here’s a coverage map from Elisa. https://elisa.fi/kuuluvuus/

Huh. TIL.

But these are sort of not that good indicators, because the US has huge population centers on the coasts, and nothing in the vast center.

Might I enquire as to where this remote location might be?

Like on a general basis, no need for addresses.

As a Finn I’m forever spoiled in terms of wireless coverage. We got tons of solitary forests. But you can get an internet connection in literally all of them.

97% of the country gets 4g. And not of the people. The country.

Dat owl looks jacked

Military expenses, the only socialism acceptable to Americans.

Americans will do anything to avoid using proper cheese.

Trousers are what Americans call pants, pants are underwear.

More context?

You got it, mister.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZz0Rfp97rU

'SOCKS BEFORE OR AFTER TROUSERS, BUT NEVER SOCKS BEFORE PANTS - THAT’S THE RULE.

I probably would, yeah.

You might, if the context really called for it. Like when talking about the difference between morning wood and actual arousal. You know the difference right? But you don’t have enough empathy to understand women also get aroused, and it’s not just about “vaginal wetness”. Which is why describing a man getting horny as “getting penile stiffness”.

But you’re having trouble being honest, so that’s just another example of it. More with yourself than with me.

So I’m the misogynist while you’re over here like “Have you considered that women are shallow cheating sluts?”

I’m not the one slut-shaming someone. It’s none of your business who someone has sex with, and the fact that you instantly go to “slut” instead of say, abusive, uncaring husband whom the woman is no longer in love with, says a lot, doesn’t it?

The first comment of yours I replied to had “ugly chicks” in it. First off… “chicks”? Second, saying things like that is exactly why women perceive you as incredibly unattractive. Because unlike for you, women aren’t interested just in physical attractiveness. It is one of many factors that come into play as to whether a person is attractive or not. A woman might say they’d have sex with a person based on their physical attractiveness, but if they had to do it based on talking to someone for a minutes, being a shallow misogynistic dick would override even the best looks. Because despite your delusions, women do actually have thoughts and feelings.

I’m not the problem here. I live in a world where most employers would pay you in company scrip rather than USD if, nay, when they’re allowed to get away with it again. I live in a world where 100% of the phone calls I get are scams or reminders of doctor’s appointments. I live in a world where packages of food labeled 12 ounces have 9 ounces of food in them. Everyone is out to scam you. EVERYONE.

“I”, “I”, “I”, “me”, “me”, “me”, “me”. “I have no friends, I don’t get anything but scam calls, people don’t like me, everyone is out to scam me” … “I’m not the problem”.

No, you’re not the problem. You have a problem. You’re depressed. Get help for it.

Yes, problems exist. Yes, shitty people exist. But “only the Sith deal in absolutes” and so-on. You definitely need therapy.

Do you know what also exist? Difference in physical attractiveness between men. For instance, you seem completely incapable of making women or anyone like you for that matter. I’ve never had a problem with it. Actually, I’ve had a problem making friends too easily, and women fawning over me too much. Even to the point I’ve realised I could actually abuse them, just like all the good looking assholes in the movies. The problem is, that’s the sort of assholery I’m really not into. So I don’t.

People might not really love you, but how deeply fucked up do you have to be to think that your situation is extrapolated to every single other person?

So I guess you may have just never really even experienced love. And that’s why I honestly suggest you look into psychedelic-assisted therapy. Jokes aside, it fucking works. No-one wants to be around a misery like you, but don’t think that means that no-one wants to be around anyone, that friends don’t care for each other, that you can’t love someone or have meaningful relationships. It’s weird how you keep pretending women are some sort of parasites, but yet you never address the implication that it works both ways, which means you think men “actually” love women, but that women just don’t have the ability.

Which is loud as fuck for “I had a bad relationship and never had the coping tools to get over it so now I’m nearing 40 and I’m alone, sad and scared, so I lash out and pretend caring isn’t real like some sort of teenage incel”

So you’re still saying that there’s no difference in physical attractiveness between Brad Pitt and say… you? ;P