All Night Laundry - In which you just have to press down hard - 2019 12 19

UPDATE - 1377 - In which there is blood in the footsteps

Maybe Piotyr fought another Piotyr from a different loop?

UPDATE - 1378 - In which Piotyr is persistent

Pff, you can't start a crazy wall and not finish it. That's just not done.

UPDATE - 1379 - In which Kendra scores touch

"Those .. are not relevant to the problems we need to solve."

UPDATE - 1380 - In which Bina breaks the art style

Sexy Fantasy Crazy Wall is a project for another time.

I'm smelling a spin-off adventure here!!

UPDATE - 1381 - In which time kind of does its thing

The possessive of "it" is "its", not "it's", because "it" is a pronoun, and so it conjugates like his/hers/theirs.
(Okay, I'll stop being pedantic.)

UPDATE - 1382 - In which Amie brushes her teeth

Aww K25fF, you can be pedantic all you like. :)

That question can never be answered "yes."

Pedantry:

Show Content

Spoiler
An apostrophe in English always indicates that something has been omitted (a contraction). For example "isn't" is a contraction of "is not." "It's" is a contraction of "it is." The apostrophe+s possessive such as "Charlie's" is a contraction of an archaic form that has not been used in centuries: "Charlie his". Mind thou usest caution around Charlie his ill-tempered horse. What's weird is that we apply the same ending to feminine nouns: Shouldn't "Bina her scarf" be contracted to "Bina'r scarf"? But no. It's still "Bina's" which implies "Bina his" which is just one of those mysteries of the language. (Unless it is the predicate of the sentence, as in "That scarf is Bina's" (Bina hers) ... because her/hers changes form depending on whether it is subject or object. The other two (his, its) don't do that.) We can even talk about the scarf's (the scarf its) properties if we want to. Anyway, this all means that the possessive pronouns (his, hers, its) have never been apostrophised because they existed BEFORE apostrophe+s even became a thing - and they are, in fact, the missing portion implied by the apostrophe in the modern possessive form.

UPDATE - 1383 - In which Amie wants to build a snowman

Huh! I did not know that! Thanks Teg!

Pedantry:

Show Content

Spoiler
An apostrophe in English always indicates that something has been omitted (a contraction). For example "isn't" is a contraction of "is not." "It's" is a contraction of "it is." The apostrophe+s possessive such as "Charlie's" is a contraction of an archaic form that has not been used in centuries: "Charlie his". Mind thou usest caution around Charlie his ill-tempered horse. What's weird is that we apply the same ending to feminine nouns: Shouldn't "Bina her scarf" be contracted to "Bina'r scarf"? But no. It's still "Bina's" which implies "Bina his" which is just one of those mysteries of the language. (Unless it is the predicate of the sentence, as in "That scarf is Bina's" (Bina hers) ... because her/hers changes form depending on whether it is subject or object. The other two (his, its) don't do that.) We can even talk about the scarf's (the scarf its) properties if we want to. Anyway, this all means that the possessive pronouns (his, hers, its) have never been apostrophised because they existed BEFORE apostrophe+s even became a thing - and they are, in fact, the missing portion implied by the apostrophe in the modern possessive form.

You know, had my school taught me that rather than just saying "that's how it works" I might have had an easier time memorizing when I should and shouldn't put an apostrophe in "its."

Bina: It is theoretically possible LATER IN THE MORNING!!!

Bina: It is theoretically possible LATER IN THE MORNING!!!

Seconding.

I don't think...if a past Bina interacts with you, doesn't that lock causality?

Are different loop Binas "past" Binas? Are the loops causally ordered?

I don't think...if a past Bina interacts with you, doesn't that lock causality?

Only for the past Bina. For Present Bina past loops are already "locked" cause they already happened.

Retcons within a loop notwithstanding. (I think?)

I don't think...if a past Bina interacts with you, doesn't that lock causality?

Looking forward locks it in. Looking back doesn't. It gets a bit semantical if you go 2 ways buy whatever.

UPDATE - 1384 - In which Bina is not asleep

You can't fall asleep anymore can you.

UPDATE - 1385 - In which Bina says no

THE BANANA SUIT!

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!!!

UPDATE - 1386 - In which Bina isn't making a great deal of sense