“There is no substantive evidence that Einstein wrote or spoke the statement above. It is listed within a section called “Misattributed to Einstein” in the comprehensive reference “The Ultimate Quotable Einstein” from Princeton University Press.”

So No. I also was always very irritated by this quote, because from a scientific point of view this is rather incorrect, as (like you said) experiments need to be repeated, to verify the results.

If it happened, but nothing happened, did it really happen?

One of the classics.

This rule is however also broken. For example, if I come to you to ask for help, but you unkindly decline (cause unbeknown to me, you are really having a bad day), you will never receive any help from others, because you treated my like this. And as I will then reject your request for help, I will then be also excluded in the future from help from others. I.e. this rule will spiral into a bad state, because there is no forgiveness.

To solve this, we would need to make a new addition. And then we will be able fo identify another edge case, requiring another edge case. And this continues on and on.

The intention of these simple ethical/moral/social rules is to be as simple as possible, while still being a good approach. The are not intended to be absolutely followed, but to be a rule of thumb, until more information is available, to adapt properly to the situation.

And what if I don’t know (yet) how they treat others?

For trees, more like their exhaled breath.

With the interpretation of the internet being teleportation of data, your Webbrowser becomes a replicator of data, as e.g. the video that you are streaming from YouTube is merely being copied from its servers, but not deleted from its source.

In general computers are just copying data, i.e. replicating data.

But Der Postillon is basically The Onion. So posting it in this community does not make a lot of sense. Or am I mistaken?