I'm sure it's coincidence that 2.5 ♂ and Survivor just happen to be on the same network.

If Keith had played his first, and Jon had played his in response, would that affect the scoring?

But wouldn't it be awesome if they managed to convince the other survivors that they did break up? That would be top level Survivor gameplay.

And I'm no expert on nutrition, but my understanding is that simple carbohydrates (ie, sugar) are the worst for that. Also, if you gorge yourself after your stomach has acclimated to not getting much food, that can cause serious distress.

I'm not sure if Jon not kicking her to the curb outweighs the fact that it occurred to him in the first place, and the fact that he seems to think that not doing so is a noble act worthy of special note.

In a Turing Test, there are several testees, and the testers try to figure out which ones are computers.

The other species have been much more specialized than humans. The mainstream projections for climate change are a few degrees per century. I don't see that leading to mass die offs. And there's a negative feedback loop in wars: the more people the wars kill, the fewer resources are needed to keep the survivors alive.

Also, Chandler, Fletcher and Thatcher.

Australia is now hot during November? Wow, that's astounding!

Plus, he let the guy who stole the program off with "Tell me you destroyed it". Huh?

With that recent movie, I'm starting to wonder whether "Annabelle" is the go-to name for creepy dolls.

I find the idea that climate change-cause human extinction is at all likely to be ridiculous. How would climate change lead to extinction?

But that's not what you said. You said that someone thinking that AI is an extinction risk is absurd, not that someone murdering people to stop it is absurd. And there wasn't a shadowy thinktank, there was one guy. There was no evidence that the rest of the thinktank was involved.

Can you tell me more about I don't understand?

Also, my understanding is that when the show said that it fooled some of its testers, the plural was inappropriate. I may be mistaken, but as I recall, there were three testers and one of them was fooled.

"I was wrong. The murder in “Bella” ends up being one motivated by ideas, and by a professor who believes that artificial intelligence will result in the apocalypse. It’s something of an absurd premise"

Although I found it interesting in the episode where they caught the ersatz Snowden, and he was blackmailing them into letting him go, they didn't even consider calling his bluff. I can see them deciding that it was too big of a price to pay, but to see them all just take for granted that they didn't have any choice…

And what would acting on his threat do? He says his dilemma is whether to let a guy get away with murder or to send someone away for an unrelated crime, but would turning the brother in accomplish anything?

I really didn't understand that Turing Test. The whole point is to see whether a person can tell the difference between a human and a machine. It's a completely objective test; either the computer fools the humans, or it doesn't. I'm not clear on what Sherlock was doing, but it wasn't a Turing Test, because he already…

Does anyone who has one day left until retirement get assigned to him?