Resources like gold would be more accessible, y'know because it already been mined and made into things. If society collapses what few survivors there are could recycle shit like metals. The actual issue is fossil fuels. Getting to a point where you can use renewable power would be difficult with using fossil fuels for power first.
Tenniswaffles
joined 1 year ago
You just made it seem much more appealing.
Yes, and? I don't believe these are replacing any existing infrastructure, but are for places that have no infrastructure for the internet. They could drastically improve things in those areas, and if those place became a warzone sometime in the future they'd probably be pretty fucked with or without proper land based infrastructure.
Screenshot? What are you, a goldfish?
I think that's nothing compared to all the, y'know, irreparable destruction and pollution we do to the to the planet tbh.
Nah, screw that. I'm here for pointless petty arguments.
That's a fair assesment. But what's the ratio games that you actually go back to compared to the amount of games you own in total? Unless you only play very few games, the amount of games a person owns vastly outnumbers the games they actually go back and play multiple times. Just looking at my steam library, I own hundreds of games I've completed once and have never touched again along with about 2 dozen I actually go back and play occasionally.
Childcare educator, a large amount of people suddenly wouldn't be able to work because they have no one to watch their children.
You don't see anything wrong with your language, but shockingly, the world doesn't revolve around you. Just because you think something is fine doesn't make it true.