Well in any case. RIP in peace Spirit Airlines.

Guess my view is little unreasonable. I mean building something new and expect it to work is demanding awful lot.

But stopping with the snark. Africa has it problems with countries weaponizing cellphone and internet connections and that would not be solved even if every tower had its own nuclear reactor powering them.

You say it would take a volcano eruption to cloud the sky. Intense Sahara dust events can lower the PV output and the soil landing on the panels can make them useless. Cleaning these panels is laborius and uses water that can be hard to get in some areas. These are happening more frequently as climate change is doing its thing. There has been studies showing solar energy drop up to 50% as far as Greece because of the sand in atmosphere.

I think using solar for powering those towers is a great. I just dont see logic behind building a system that can with a bad luck just stop working, when you could instead build some failsafe option.

Only thing in solar that worries me is the reliability. It almost always needs some auxialary power to reliable smooth the lows and ups.

That said Afrika as a continent is pretty reliable for solar power all year around. Average is something like 325 days of bright sunlight annually. Cell network is pretty critical system tough, so as long as there is some fallback plan in case of failure i think this is excelent use for solar.

I have always loved the saying: Lie, outrageous lie, statistic.

Data is a wonderfull thing, but it often can be really easily to be presented in a way, that while being true, is not representing the truth.

Like if we would just look the numbers containing just necessities and remove the luxury products it would not be that lopsided.

Trivia time: Chimpanzees are the best primates after man at throwing.

At best they can throw things at the level of semi-athletic child.

Humans have unique rotating shoulder joint that just gives us a huge edge over any other species, when it comes to throwing things.

Not the original commentor, but i think they meant more narrative failure than mechanical failure.

Like “You failed to save person from burning house, and the failure changes how the story unfolds.” Not “You died to a boss and you need to try again.”

First example of narrative failure that came to mind is from Deus Ex: Human Revolution. There is objective where you need to protect a chrashed pilot from enemies, but if you fail the game does not fail and load previous save. The game goes on and characters death effects the dialogue and a certain story point later in the game.

In souls games, no matter how many times you die, the narrative does not change. Dying effects you only in mechanical sense, where you might loose some recources, but you will never lose them permanently, but there are narrative moments that you can fail. Like in bloodborne if you summon certain npc to your haven, he starts to murder other people you have brought there.

I really love the game desing behind this system. The game is on a timer, but instead of time going foward all the time, the quest “cost” time.

Way of the samurai games did this kind of trick back in the day. In those games the day was divided in to four parts, morning, noon, evening and night. Player had unlimited time to wander the game world, but once they did something big, the time would go foward and depending on what you did the story would go in to different direction. After 5 full days the game would come to a finale, but how you acted, effected who was alive and wich side of the final conflict you would be.

The game ending and story coming to a finale does not necessarily mean you win.

If the game is fun to play and one play trough does not take forever to finish, i can see my self playing the game multible times trough and trying to find the way to make everything end the way i want.

Bruh! Im with you on this for sure! Its that weird feeling when someone ridin the exact same wave as you, but they’re just flappin around on their board.

Its like Im ridin this clean, glassy idea-barrel, feelin all enlightened and tubular, and suddenly this dude drops in behind me on their moms foam board and suddenly starts shouting the same thing, but in the like most uncoolest way possible. And Im just sittin there like, “Dude… why you gotta make our shared thought like that?”

Honestly, it does feel like they just catchin my swell instead of finding their own. Whole thing just tastes like sunscreen and feels like sand in the wetsuit, right my man.

Well i havent downvoted you during this conversation…

And you must be somewhat intrested in what im saying because you take your time and respond to my arguments.

And id like to think that given good enough argument i could change my mind.

I think we perceive the downvote differently. I dont think it means shut up. Its a binary choise. (Or ternary because no voting is choice too). There is hardly enough substance to interpret any intention behind it. Its just something people press, when somebody dont have anything to add to the discussion, or they dont have time to write their own comment.

It’s my idea of social-media utopia and this small feature would make it possible.

This is the fundamental part we seem to disagree with. I dont think its “utopia”, i think its facade, that only creates personal echochambers for people guarding them from seeing any opposing opinions.

I disagree. Its not fine tuning. Its fundamentally changing it.

I firmly belive that if we are ready to write anything on to a public channel, in this case even with anonymity, we need to be ready to accept critique and the fact that people will sometimes disagree with you. Also there will always be irrelevant, or snarky comments, but as a adult we should be able to ignore those. If you are not ready to accept it, you should reflect with yourself, if you should even be writing anything.

Artificially making it seem like everybody agrees with you is just lying to yourself and skewing your own perception of the mattet.

Also as a another point. This whole discussion we have right now comes from disagreement. I have read your comments, it has made me ponder things i would not have tought without you and weighted things you have written. I hope you have done the same. Even when we clearly have different opinions i think we have argued in good spirit.

The system you are suggesting would remove these interactions completelly.

Im against auto-blocking.

The block feature we have now is fine for what it is, because user needs to review case by case if they want to block somebody or not and they will always keep seeing other peoples opinions even if they try to make a bubble for them self.

Dont you think its inherendly dangerous to just automatically block anyone who disagrees with you?

If you see only comments that agree with you or interract only with people who have the same opinions, your views will never be challenged. Many of the societys problems has its roots in people living in their own bubble.

Good job!

I played the odds with my comment because statistically people who donate anything are the vast minority.

Honest question. Not an attack. Do you get anything from donating? Like some merch or tax deductions or even a thank you note or something?

Do you think that getting something would invalitade the whole charity?

Most if not all exotic big game hunts are marked animals that are either dying or harmfull for the ecosystem, so they are going to shortly die to malnutrion, by being hunted by other animals or if necessary by the park ranger.

I dont generally like trophy hunting, but i also understand that without the money it generates, places that offer it would not exist and that would mean the people running those places would not protect the animals from things like poaching or unsustainable hunting.

Some places can make do with only charity and tourism, but many places would cease to be without the additional money.

If trophy hunting would stop, the money rich people are spending would go somewhere else like ski trip on the alps or new yacht.

Well eastern europe did try to concquer eastern europe in the 1990’s

Well you can see my patio furniture from satellite images too. Generaly when something is big enough “to see from space” it means its visible to astronauts without any additional equipment.

So yes. I doubt this too.

Hunting old or sick animal that cant reproduct does not effect that.

Hunting unstable animal that kills younglins of other males only helps with this.

When was the last time you donated money for animal sanctuary?

And you could volunteer at the homeles shelter.

The way these things work, is that the people working in these places identify problem animals, like infertile males that prevent the herd, or pack or pride or what ever growing, unusually agressive animals, animals with genetic faults that could be hereditary etc etc. Basically anything that could hinder the the population of the endangered or vulnerable species. These animals are hard or impossible to relocate because most places dont want to take these problem animals in, because they generaly are bad where ever they are. I mean what zoo wants lion that kills anything they see or what animal sanctuary wants rhino that kills anything it can catch?

The park rangers could very easily kill the animals them self, but running these animal sanctuarys is very expensive so its better if they find some rich dude that is willing to pay ridicilous amount of money to do it for them.

The rich dude them self isint necessary a philantropist, but the money they spend goes to local economy and is often used for things like security against poachers, vetenarians and infrastructure.

Its easy to think that killing any exotic big game is always bad, but in reality the targets are always chosen carefully.

Oh i love this conversation.

So do I asses right that you think all hunting is unethical?

So lets imagine situation:

You own a animal sactuary in Africa. There is population of lions living in there is lets say one lion pride and few solidary males roaming the area. Great job! Lions are listed as vulnerable species. They are not quite endangered, but very close. Everything is fine and dandy.

Then one day you notice that the dominant male of the pride has grown old and infertile, but he is still strong enough to ward off the younger males of so they cant copulate with the lionesses and there is very real change the pride will go few years without cubs. Is it ethical to let the male lion live, even when there is chance it will effect the prides abilibity to grow and survive?

Or what if one of the males outside of the pride starts to show excessive agression towards cubs and other adults? Would it be ethical to let it kill or maim other animals?

Or if one of the lions start to kill other animals more than it can eat. Would it be ethical to just let it keep doing that and leave tens of carcasses behind?

While i understand that licenced hunting of big game is good for the local economy and it funds the reservations so they can fight against more descrutive things like poachers and it keeps the wildlife refuges alive so nobody turns the area into highway…

…I also find it somewhat beatifull that the hunt thats purpose is to cull unwanted elements, like for example older males that cant reproduce anymore, but are strong enough to keep younger generation from procreating, ends up removing old male, that hoards recources from younger generations in a completelly differend ecosystem.