And many other chinese commies look "off"? And why do they even behave in a very jewish way?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2012-mapping-chinas-red-nobility/

We are never going to have ftl travel are we

https://www.sunherald.com/news/coronavirus/article252748863.html

The antivax tards and their offspring are about to be wiped from the earth.

SQRT(-1)=(-1)^(1/2)=(-1)^(2/4)=((-1)^2)^(1/4)=1^(1/4)=+/-1
What's wrong with the above calculation?

Personal experience and info on new nanotech being used by NATO that was created during the pandemic last year got caught doing something illegal and have had to deal with these since December last year (proven innocent months ago). TL:DR version of the link is there's nanotech that is based off the neuralink from Elon Musk that government uses to scan brains for signs of illegal activity, send you subliminal messages using that yanny/Laurel sound trick ( https://youtu.be/7X_WvGAhMlQ ) they interact with your brain using a VR environment as the UI. Have the ability to record mimic and manipulate sound and emotion. The way it all works is by rerouting the current in your brain around a certain area so over time it just naturally takes that path (nanotech acts like lightning rods). It's pretty simple to grasp it's basically set up like a motherboard is but instead of a green square with metal all over it it's tiny nanotech in your brain. Tech is hidden in plain sight in carriers that look like fruit flies, the fly is hardened nanotech and once it flies into you it turns back into liquid and enters your body. Currently in Brisbane City and some of the operators names are Sophia, Robert, and Michael, and possibly Madelaine. this link is a text dump but it's all over the place though. Hard time keeping notes at the moment https://textsaver.flap.tv/lists/46gi

Trying to leak brand new military tech info spread around as much as possible. Lots of this is scrambled as fuck but... It's just the power they've got over your mind. So just take everything with a grain of salt.

It's over

This is all hypothetical because it would involve technology beyond human ability as of now or the near future, so it's more about the physics of it.
If I were to rapidly travel an amount of light years away from earth (by faster than light travel, teleportation/wormhole, etc. the method isn't really relevant to the question as long as its faster than the travel of photons from earth), and I had a way of perfectly viewing earth somehow, would I see into what would be our past? At 4500 light years from earth could I see the construction of the great pyramids? Or dinosaurs at 70 million light years?

A 'mentor' of mine told me to consider this, and this is what I have arrived at:

Disadvantages
a) Finding a girlfriend takes time, and forces you to do things you normally wouldn't want to do
b) A girlfriend requires attention, so unless you can spend time with her by discussing some useful matters (such as common professional interests/you both spend much time studying some engaging subject such as philosophy), it diverts your attention from far more interesting things
c) Having kids doesn't make any sense for obvious reasons (there are so many of them that even considering this is pointless). Not having kids makes it more likely that your relationship will fail
d) By the virtue of there existing a female privilege, they have been conditioned to act in ways detrimental to you
e) Women that are as intelligent as you are/more are far less common, so it's likely that you will have to spend time on dealing with a retard (nobody enjoys it, so doing this every day with a person that you are in close contact with would be a nightmare)
f) By the time you actually are 'attractive' enough for them to even consider you (since they mostly date upwards), they have already had sex with a number of men, which makes your relationship statistically likely to fail
g) Their hormones apparently have some kind of influence on you, so you are making yourself susceptible to manipulation
h) They are females so you are already incompatible at the outset, as you will never understand some of their behaviors (high EQ, greater connection between the two hemispheres of the brain, etc)
i) Other factors, such as them having stupid political beliefs, that will lead to strife.
j) If it fails, you will get fucked by courts

Advantages
a) Some brain chemicals making you feel good about yourself for having a girlfriend. Not like it's relevant since I'm completely happy reading PDFs on my Thinkpad™.

>inb4 people calling this bait and angry femoids screeching

Well, /sci/? Because I know STEMsters with masters in field who'd have a hard disagree with this.
>It can't supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer

>The COVID crisis has led many scientists to take up arms (or at least keyboards) to defend their enterprise - and to be sure, science needs defenders these days. But in their zeal to fight back against vaccine rejection and other forms of science denial, some scientists say things that just aren't true - and you can't build trust if the things you are saying are not trustworthy.

>One popular move is to insist that science is right - full stop - and that once we discover the truth about the world, we are done. Anyone who denies such truths (they suggest) is stupid, ignorant or fatuous. Or, as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg said, "Even though a scientific theory is in a sense a social consensus, it is unlike any other sort of consensus in that it is culture-free and permanent." Well, no. Even a modest familiarity with the history of science offers many examples of matters that scientists thought they had resolved, only to discover that they needed to be reconsidered. Some familiar examples are Earth as the center of the universe, the absolute nature of time and space, the stability of continents, and the cause of infectious disease.

>Science is a process of learning and discovery, and sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong. Science can also be understood as an institution (or better, a set of institutions) that facilitates this work. To say that science is "true" or "permanent" is like saying that "marriage is permanent." At best, it's a bit off-key. Marriage today is very different from what it was in the 16th or 18th century, and so are most of our "laws" of nature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/