I can't believe the original Kaban is fucking dead

After giving a more deep thought about the last episode, the ending doesn't seem so happy anymore.
Judging from Kaban's words about having no memories while being trapped in cerulean - she was either in some kind of stasis or not existing in form of human (i.e. dead). The sphere is about her head size, so there's no way she can fit there while being unconscious.
That leads to the only logical interpretation - she was dissolved into that rainbow soup and reassembled later as a perfect clone. This brings a problem similar to "Teletransportation paradox": the original Kaban really died and copy with her memories was born soon afterwards. But it's not the same Kaban anymore. Which is kind of sad and unnerving.

Other urls found in this thread:

existentialcomics.com/comic/1
newscientist.com/article/dn17350-nasa-criticised-for-sticking-to-imperial-units/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

This shit always bothers me. There's no point in making a clone if the original died.

...

Yeah, unless it's for greater good and benefit of other people.
But for the original it's the ultimate form of cucking.

Who gives a shit?

It's a show made for toddlers.

Can confirm

Nuh uh, this is Sup Forums's super deep, big boy show!

Fuck, even the creator said he wanted otaku scum to not lewd the series too much because it was intended for kids.

>not existing in form of human (i.e. dead)
The blob of sandstar that represented her soul was never destroyed so she never died. How can you not understand something so simple. They even spelled it out for you when the sandstar seemed like it was starting to return to nature.

They were talking about her being reverted to the original form.
This sandstar shit isn't some sort of spiritual experience.

No, when Serval is holding the rainball it starts to let off sandstar particles and at that moment everybody says it's too late cause she's returning to nature. It's pretty straightforward.

One one hand, Why must you hurt us ;_;
On the other, the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly is similar, but it was observed that the butterfly "remembers" some experience of being a caterpillar, so unless a break in consciousness = death let's pretend that sandstar magic preserves the "soul" and makes everything ok

>because it was intended for kids.
That just makes them lewd it harder.

I'm gonna explain it to you as if you were retarded just so I don't have to repeat it, but first you've got to understand this:

1. Sandstar turns animals into homos, I'm not joking, they are fucking homos
2. When a friend dies she loses her memories and turns back into the animal it was supposed to be

Now that that's settled, let's explain Kaban:

Kaban was born from Mirai's hair, so she is a friend, a homo sapiens friend.

When she was eaten she didn't lose her memory or turn back into anything because she wasn't fully digested. She just didn't die, Kaban was just damaged.

She did not die, so she is still a friend, this can be proved because she is seen growing her tights and gloves back.

and I guess that would be all.

White tofu.

It's a show for children and adults, but not for teenagers.

>she's returning to nature. It's pretty straightforward
How is that even implying anything spiritual?
Their next phrase was about reverting to the original form. That's what they mean by returning to nature - becoming a beast.

>she wasn't fully digested
She was. The ball can't contain her body in such size. No body means no functioning brain. Absence of brain means physical death. Unless you want to involve some retarded logic like ITS MAGIC I AINT GOTTA EXPLAIN SHIT. The anime was sticking to sci-fi pretty solid. Even the possible supernatural phenomena like 4 gods from the game was omitted.
>she is still a friend, this can be proved because she is seen growing her tights and gloves back
This is kind of plot twist. Buy sandstar logic explained for fossils before she should've been recreated as a normal human, not a friend, and without memories. But for the sake of happy ending - seems like owls were right and sandstar malfunctioned, which resulted her being a friend with memories again.

...

I, as a fucking furry, a fan of vore (and also a biologist), must say that ingestion does not necessarily involve death as long as digestion hasn't taken place.

Also, "sandstar malfunction"? that sounds like an asspull. And last but not least, if she had died she would have turned into a human and lost her memories, none happened.

There is no paradox, what a load of bullshit by academic types just looking to stroke their philosophical dicks. A perfect clone with perfect memories is the same as the original, the end.

Ah, a brainlet.

For a few moments Kaban really was forcefully decompressed into a series of subatomic particles. It was completely deconstructing her physical body.

If they had waited longer, her life force would have merged with the Ceruleans.

>A DECONSTRUCTION OF THE GENRE
Okay, I will stop

Well, from an outsider's perspective, yes. But if I make a perfect clone of you and then kill you (not the clone), are you dead?

Well, given the fact that the "original" wasn't even the original it wasn't too much of a loss

>The anime was sticking to sci-fi pretty solid
>magical volcano dust turns animals into kemonomimi

>The anime was sticking to sci-fi pretty solid.
>magic volcano substance turns everything it touches in cute animal girls

But why would a clone retain all her memories?

Only if going to sleep is also the same as dying.

Your brain doesn't stop when you sleep user.

Furthermore, how do you know that isn't true?

What the heck am I reading?

autism

and is a hell of a drug

Sometimes I'm afraid to go to sleep because of this. Like what if it's isn't me who's gonna to wake up tomorrow?

>implying you are the same you from yesterday
you should be afraid

Do what I do: every so often, ask yourself "Is it me who's existing right now?" If it is, you haven't died yet!

They explained it pretty well. Sandstar turns animals into friends. It can also turn (dead) things that were once animals into living friends. Sandstar Low (the black stuff) turns inorganic material into Ceruleans and returns friends to their original animal. Animals don't have the same memory capacity as humans, so they lose their memories. Kaban, being a human, kept her memories when she returned to her original animal.

Literally everyone either thinks this or doesn't matter.

>But if I make a perfect clone of you and then kill you (not the clone), are you dead?
Of course not. A perfect clone is me. Clone just makes the whole ship of theseus thing more explicit, over the course of your lifetime, of any human's lifetime, most/all of the atoms in your body and going to get swapped as stuff breaks and repairs happen. Having the atoms swapped all at once doesn't change that at all. An atom of a given element/isotope is literally identical to any other, and any construction of them in the same configuration is the same as any other. This isn't some deep complex thing, seriously.

There is no Sandstar Low. It's a mistranslation of rho, meaning density. The rest is pretty accurate. It's also worth noting that a friend born from a part of an animal, such as a hair, will always be transformed into a whole animal if they're reverted.

>It's also worth noting that a friend born from a part of an animal, such as a hair, will always be transformed into a whole animal if they're reverted.
Yeah, it's interesting that the Sandstar is apparently doing a full on generation from DNA such that the result is a full being, powering up to human form. I guess by the same token Ceruleans that are changed to basalt don't lose mass even if they started from a small rock or something.

>There is no Sandstar Low
Well, there are different types of sandstar. And black sandstar is different than regular sandstar.

Except the 'you' that currently perceives the world is dead, you would not experience or even be aware of the existance of your perfect clone.
Its only really the same from the perspective of others and from the clone itself.

>Kaban, being a human, kept her memories when she returned to her original animal
Have you missed her gloves regeneration? She's clearly not a human in the end.

Sandstar creates clothes along with a friend. All the friends got clothes when they were turned into a friend.

Nope. You're inventing a distinction where none exists. There would be no "clone and me" there would be "two of me" so if one dies then there is still just "one of me". Seriously what the hell user, the whole point of a "perfect clone" is that it'd be literally impossible for anyone, including the clones, to tell which was the "original", so how are you even pretending there is some distinction when by definition there isn't? Even multiple instantiation is not some high intellectual topic, I deal with it every day at work. Forcing it to be single instantiation eliminates even the minimal issues multiple can bring.

Yep, to the point where it was a plot point that it didn't even occur to them to actually take their clothes off. To the Friends clothes were just their current fur, the whole concept of them as distinct objects was non-existent (hence the whole bath bit).

Okay user if I made a perfect clone of you, there would be two of you, right? Do you share a consciousness with this perfect clone? Of course not, this perfect clone is a different being completely. So if I kill you, and the perfect clone remains, then you are just dead.

You don't share consciousness with the you that wakes up tomorrow. Therefore, you are never the same person as you used to be. The results of being resurrected would be no different than waking up from a coma.

Congratulations, you just won the retard of the week award.

>You don't share consciousness with the you that wakes up tomorrow

Explain, please.

You cannot prove that you are the same person whenever you wake up. You have the same memories, sure. But if you were someone else in the morning, you wouldn't know, since the only way to know who you are is from your memories. Consciousness is really just a collection of memories. If you lose them to a significant degree, you become someone else. Which is why people that undergo severe memory loss often have personality changes as well.

>Okay user if I made a perfect clone of you, there would be two of you, right?
Yeah?
>Do you share a consciousness with this perfect clone?
There you go again with the "clone" strawman retardation. There are two of me, not "me and a clone". Both of us share the exact same starting point by definition. If we're both active at the same time, then our experiences will start to diverge mildly, so each one would be a me that went through different bits of life. I'm now in my 30s though, way way past the age of any significant brain changes due to experience, so even if a decade passed I'm sure me would be me, just a me who basically lived in an Alternate Universe and who I could chat with. That's multiple instantiation. Alternatively if there is syncing of deltas on a regular basis then no matter how many of me we'd never diverge much at all.

Like I said, I deal with this at work every day, it's called software development. Every developer checks out a copy to work on. They diverge a bit. We merge the differences. Releases happen. It's still all the same software. This is not hard go read up on SCMs. And that's with a team which we're not even talking about. In single instantiation where one of the copies is eliminated before any divergence at all none of this even comes up.

>Of course not, this perfect clone is a different being completely.
No it's not you dumb faggot it's me. There is no "clone and original" because there is no distinction between them at all that's the point. How dumb are you to not understand something that literally tens of millions of people, even dumbfucks who barely manage to squeeze their way through some diploma mill in a 3rd world country, deal with every day.

But you see, I also can't prove that I am who I was two seconds ago. Sure I have the same memories as me from two seconds ago, but if I spontaneously developed new memories and developed a new consciousness in the span of two seconds, then I would have no way of knowing that I am me. Following this line of logic, this span of time (2 seconds, 1 day, etc.) can be represented by an time interval "t." Since I can't be sure of my own existence after any time interval "t," then that must mean that the number of time intervals in my life in which I lose track of my existence is equal to lim t as x approaches infinity, which obviously equals infinity. Therefore, I am infinitely unsure of my existence. I have just proved that I don't exist, and neither do you.

But I think therefore I am. Right, user?

>I believe that only vintage organic 1s and 0s carefully harvested from free range floppy disks from the days of yore constitute original software!
>I'm a faggot hump my rump
That's what I'm getting of your posts.

What the fuck are you talking about?

>But you see, I also can't prove that I am who I was two seconds ago.
Right.

>But I think therefore I am. Right, user?
Not necessarily. Memory exists as a state. It's not a physical thing. That's why brain death is permanent. Once your brain stops, there is no way to recover the previous state of mind. And you are also only the culmination of your memories. So while you do exist, as I said before you are never the same person.

If you think about it differently, the choices you make are a function of the exact state of your mind at the time the choice is made. That state will never be the same. So an choice will never be precisely the same across any arbitrary period of time, even if the difference is incredibly infinitesimal.

existentialcomics.com/comic/1

Not that user and I can see where you're going over all, just want to clarify one bit:
>It's not a physical thing.
Yeah, "memory" is absolutely a physical thing. Our memories at any given moment are encoded in a specific physical configuration of axons and dendrites connecting a matrix of neurons. Current state of the art MRI tech can already image brains down to the axon level in real time and while state does of course change in response to stimuli over time, it's not as if in principle a snapshot couldn't be taken at any instant that wouldn't represent the full 3D state of the brain. It's beyond anything we can currently do or will be able to do in the very near future at least, but we're getting there, and when we can (and then actually get any ability to do anything with it) it'll be off to the races. Hopefully with lots of good Friends someday.

>This isn't some deep complex thing, seriously.

And yet you are getting it so damn wrong.

>So while you do exist, as I said before you are never the same person.

So, if I'm never the same person I was x amount of time before. My clone wouldn't also be the same person. And there is no way to predict (as in probability function of n variables, or a bit more simple, thinking about circumstances.) what new form my clone would assume, making us both completely different.

So, you are retarded.

>Our memories at any given moment are encoded in a specific physical configuration of axons and dendrites connecting a matrix of neurons.
Right. But just having that configuration isn't enough. Those neurons are taking various actions at any given time. And those actions are a result of other actions. This is the state of your mind. Your mind operates as a continuous reaction. If the reaction stops, it will never be the same reaction. No matter how advanced technology becomes, the uncertainty principle says that you will not be able to recreate that state.

A simpler example would be to think of fire. You start a fire. Over time, the fire is gradually different. It has less fuel, it's burning in a different pattern, and so on. But people still consider it the same fire. But it's really not. Every second that fire is different. People only recognize things as different if there is a gap in a reaction. So if you put the fire out, and restart it, you would easily accept it is a different fire. But that's not any different than taking the previous fire, shrinking it, and letting it grow again. One just happens as a gradient, so it's harder to notice the difference.

I think you're confusing linguistics with actual philosophy. Mostly nobody would argue that we are exactly the same in our states of mind all of the time and that's what makes us us.
>
If you think about it differently, the choices you make are a function of the exact state of your mind at the time the choice is made. That state will never be the same. So an choice will never be precisely the same across any arbitrary period of time, even if the difference is incredibly infinitesimal.

That's all true, but it's besides the point. Humans are certainly in a constant state of change, and are never precisely the same, however, that doesn't mean that we aren't ever the same people completely. Let me try to break your argument here down into standard form:
Humans are constantly changing mentally
Humans never are exactly the same
Therefore, humans cannot be sure if they are ever really themselves.

The problem with this does not lie within the premises, but in the conclusion. It's a bit of a logical leap to assume that, just because humans are always changing in infinitesimally small intervals, we can't be sure that we are even the same person entirely.

I suppose you could make the counter-argument that we can't be sure if those changes are infinitesimally large either, but that would be a serious sensory problem within humans. Since both of us humans can logically create a situation in our heads that describes a clean flow of time it shows that there must exist some common ground between us beings. If there is common ground between unconnected beings, then reality exists. And if reality exists, then we must exist, since we would have nowhere to be if there were no reality.

Since we exist, we have to have some definition of what we are. If we can't define ourselves at all, then we can't properly exist. However, we, as humans, have defined ourselves, and with great consistency too. It's true that your situation is a possibility, but accepting it as anything more than an afterthought would not be consistent at all with reality itself as it is.

And I just realized this guy's argument is probably better than mine.

>And yet you are getting it so damn wrong.
No I'm getting it perfectly right because I have an IQ above room temperature. I'm sorry that's tough for you. Like I said though everyone like you already agrees with me in reality or else won't matter so it's all kind of a moot point anyway.

Neurochemical firing state is also just a physical state user. And this
>the uncertainty principle says that you will not be able to recreate that state
is almost certainly wrong. There is no evidence brains operate at that low a level. All of our electrical stuff is mediated by the actual physical action of neurotransmitters moving around and bulk ion flows, which are easily observable. Even subatomic precision is completely unnecessary. Current state of the art in integrated circuits is already dealing with small scales.

Ultimately humans (and life in general) just aren't that fucking sensitive out of pure necessity, otherwise any old random cosmic ray would fuck us over. I mean hell user, people can often recover almost entirely from having actual chunks of their brain matter removed completely. They can forget a bit but still be the same overall and everyone in society thinks of them as the same (including the law). It's a mistake to get so far down into the weeds that you completely forget the forest.

>The problem with this does not lie within the premises, but in the conclusion.
It all has to do with gaps. You accept that you are the same person you were a second ago because the change was very, very gradual and you were conscious of it. But if you were unconscious for any period of time, you cannot be certain of that change. You just take for granted that you are the same person because the memories are there. If you were in a coma, suffered severe brain damage, and that damage was healed, would you be the same person when you woke up? No. But that's easier to accept because there was a gap in consciousness. It's really no different than the gradual change you are already undergoing.

It's really not, but I'm not going to bother responding to it because he's needlessly hostile.

>There is no evidence brains operate at that low a level.
Everything operates at that level. Even if it's just the electron state of the matter that comprises your neurons. They will never be exactly the same, which means you cannot reproduce exactly the same state. You can make it similar, but similar will still have differences.

To expand on this just a bit more: If those minute changes in electron configuration causes a thought to transmit over a different pathway than it would have in the original state, then it is not the same thought, and thus not the same state of mind.

Why is this a discussion? A clone is not you, period. If you die, you are dead, your conscious is gone and replaced by a perfect copy which you do not share the consciousness with.

It is also not similar to sleep or the slow replacement of atoms in our body because those don't stop your brain from working continuously.

Unless there is such a concept as an ethereal soul, the original is dead from his own point of view.

>Everything operates at that level
No. Low level quantum effects level out in aggregate. Wave functions collapse. Low level effects can matter in specific instances but not in the macro world. Think user: by your logic it's impossible to have "the same state" of all sorts of things like, for starts, the software you're using right now. Obviously that's not true. All that's necessary to have something be "the same" is to match it AT THE RELEVANT LEVEL, and for both life and electronics wiggle room and error correction and so forth is built in for precisely that reason. In a brain one atom being slightly different in one neuron doesn't actually amount to any difference in the state of the brain at the level any of this cares about: ours.

>No I'm getting it perfectly right because I have an IQ above room temperature.

Yeah no, yeah even if you have a hot room temperature of 40-50 degrees C, that's below retarded. I going to try to explain it different.

At the start you have to identical clones, same memories, same experiences, etc. Depending on the circumstances the clones get to live they are going to experience new things, that are most likely going to change bit by bit their outlook on things. As I said, a probability function of n variables, where a sightly chance will produce a different result. As you accumulate this changes the individuals growth different.

>he's needlessly hostile.

So? this really needs a "welcome to Sup Forums fag" image. Shame I don't have one.

Ah, naruhodou. Gomen, gomen.

Just caught up.

Did Kaban-chan just fucking die?

O sleep! O gentle sleep!
Nature’s soft nurse, how have I frighted thee,
That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down
And steep my senses in forgetfulness?
Why rather, sleep, liest thou in smoky cribs,
Upon uneasy pallets stretching thee,
And hush’d with buzzing night-flies to thy slumber,
Than in the perfum’d chambers of the great,
Under the canopies of costly state,
And lull’d with sound of sweetest melody?

>Why is this a discussion?
Because there are idiots like you.
>A perfect clone is not you, period.
Yeah it is. You can't even say which is which.

>If those minute changes in electron configuration causes a thought to transmit over a different pathway
They don't. Not at the level the uncertainty principle applies to user. A firing cascade doesn't happen from some single electron moving around, that's not how it works. This isn't a matter of speculation or philosophy, this is literally high school bio class and that was back in the mid-90s when I went to high school, who knows what level modern high schoolers are on. Actual brains have nothing like the kind of precision you're imagining, the whole process is messy and redundant as hell. That's one of the coolest things about neuroscience actually! Brains are not remotely the most efficient or effective or reactive or bug free things but they are damn tough bastards and get shit done.

>Did Kaban-chan just fucking die?

Well, that's up for debate. I personally think that her corporeal body somehow died, but her essence, that rainbow colored ball still remained, so she revived making all the suffering moot.

>40-50 degrees C
Sorry user looks like you think in metric while I think in the measurement system that took man to the moon and is used by the people who built the modern world you're shitposting on.

From your point of view, you can tell. And if I shoot you, you will still die even if there is a perfect clone of you out there.

>Think user: by your logic it's impossible to have "the same state" of all sorts of things like, for starts, the software you're using right now. Obviously that's not true.
It's actually very true for software. Every so often solar radiation will cause a very subtle bit flip, but it ends changing intended behavior drastically.

>All that's necessary to have something be "the same" is to match it AT THE RELEVANT LEVEL
Absolutely not. Everything would need to be in the same state. Otherwise maybe, just maybe, something will react differently. It might not be noticeable. But it could cause one neuron not to fire and a different one to fire instead. Which would mean it's not the same state of mind it originally would have been.

>In a brain one atom being slightly different in one neuron doesn't actually amount to any difference in the state of the brain at the level any of this cares about: ours.
It doesn't matter for you because the change is small. Think of state changes as limits. As the the difference in state change goes towards infinity, there will be more differences in how two reactions would occur. As it approaches zero, there will be fewer. But it's asymptotic because of the uncertainty principle. There will always be a difference.

Did Sho die in Guyver?

really appreciate that spoiler op. I hope you get hit by a truck.

But I'm not Minky Momo or Fuuka

What a baby.

>A firing cascade doesn't happen from some single electron moving around
That's the problem, you're thinking too small. It's not just one electron configuration that will be different. It's every single electron configuration in every single atom inside the reconstructed brain. And that's even if you can structure the brain so that it has exactly the same atoms in exactly the same locations. Which isn't possible.

fuck you for those spoilers as well.

Yeah and it was replaced by a superior system. So ergo, you are inferior.

Do you seriously think rocket scientists measure in body parts like fucking toddlers?

Fuuka didn't get truck'd in the anime though.

Sandstar is magic

...

>Every so often solar radiation will cause a very subtle bit flip, but it ends changing intended behavior drastically.
No user, just no on a lot of levels. First, that only happens more in modern ICs because we're getting down to a few dozen atoms in process size, which again is way WAY smaller then what happens in the brain. Second, that's why we have ECC and checksums. Or CPU voting, or other such systems when the level of radiation demands it. Bit flips generally are detected or result in corruption or crashing. "Changing intended behavior" as in some non-obvious thing can be made improbable enough that it's irrelevant. Biological is the same thing but more so, it has to be. There is massive redundancy in everything. A "bitflip" there translates to DNA mutation not messing with thoughts, and then either gets repaired, or cell suicide, or a lot of other stuff and if eventually all that fails we have a name for it and that name is "cancer".

All your software, instructions, and information is operating the same and can be copied around and verified as perfectly duplicated to a sufficient degree in our universe.

>Everything would need to be in the same state
No. Or we wouldn't be able to function at all. Life and consciousness is just not that fragile.

>It doesn't matter for you because the change is small
No, it doesn't matter because literally no single change on that level matters. Brains operate on aggregates. Random noise and radiation events is an assumed, constant part of the process at all times no matter what. But random stuff by definition cancels out enough of the time if you go bulk enough.

You're inventing lots of nice academic stuff in your head here which is fun, but actual life operates in messy reality and you can't actually separate theory from that. It's like security, all security is 100% an economic equation that is defined purely actual real world physical limits. If you divorce yourself from that you start getting into silliness

The camera off or something?

>Do you seriously think rocket scientists measure in body parts like fucking toddlers?
Do yurops seriously think they know anything about rockets?
>newscientist.com/article/dn17350-nasa-criticised-for-sticking-to-imperial-units/
And that was in 2009. Back in the Apollo era imperial was universally used in engineering (it's actually still common to this day though no longer universal). NASA started trying to transition to metric in the 80s and 90s, Shuttle was still on imperial units for example. Have people already forgotten that Mars expedition that was lost in 1999 due to a metric/imperial mixup?

In all seriousness metric is used universally in some fields and there wouldn't be anything wrong with having it be everywhere necessarily, even if people could reasonably wish that the arbitrary choices of the metric people had been better informed by science. Even now though in a lot of more conservative fields including aeronautics there are still lots of echos and active use of past stuff.

Literally the only thing they need to add in S2 is some decent lightining.

>Second, that's why we have ECC and checksums.
Right, because it actually happens. And your brain doesn't have those.

>"Changing intended behavior" as in some non-obvious thing can be made improbable enough that it's irrelevant.
It's taken advantage of maliciously all the time. Read up on bitsquatting.

>No. Or we wouldn't be able to function at all. Life and consciousness is just not that fragile.
Okay. Let's try a different way of looking at this:

1. You claim that minute changes in state do not impact consciousness
2. At some point a change in state will impact consciousness.

At what point is a change in state enough to impact consciousness?

The answer is that at any given point, any single change will impact it. It will cause something to happen differently. You may not perceive the difference immediately, but it will result in a difference.

>Brains operate on aggregates
If that were the case it would be trivial to restart a brain, wouldn't it?

Humans are special. The end.

Now I wanna rewatch the series.

I mean, Precure of all sorts, PriPara, various shonen series girls (One Piece, Yugioh, etc.)...
The list is endless. If anything, porn is skewed towards shows for kids because the girls inadvertently are more interesting (and sexual for somebody somewhere) than seinen or any other show meant for older audiences.

/Kemono Friends/ - Metaphysics and Psyche

>And your brain doesn't have those.
Ok, you seriously need to actually study some basic brain science or this conversation is pointless. No shitposting or insulting, I genuinely think you'd find it really fascinating, it's cool as hell to see how we actually work. A good starting point might be a used (or pirated) copy of "Neuroscience – Exploring the Brain" by Bear, Connors, and Paradiso. That's the one used at places like John Hopkins and MIT. "Principles of Neuroscience" (Kendel et al) would be another good starter text. You can find books on some of the most modern frontiers of research later.

>for somebody somewhere

For everybody, everywhere, fag.

>muh mind-body problem!

Fuck off. Fags like you are the reason why the government is withholding teleportation technology away from us.

SUGOI~! SUGOISUGOISUGOI!!