Evil_Shrubbery

(in a fight, right?)

Or any "aesthetics" to his atrocities.

I wouldn't blame Belle if she was disappointed and called it off.

Tales can be cruel:

And people underestimate big dommy furries:

M-m-m-money.

Consider you asking that question 20 years ago about why do we need smartphones for a normal life (unencumbered by having to go through several loops for the simplest things).

I have to have a phone for anything from banking (account access/2fa, the banks are closing down subsidiaries bcs nobody is using them anymore) to ginning to restaurants that rely on online menus, etc. Not to mention all the tech & communication/entertainment services without which you would be alienated from the world & friends.
(And also employers rely on the lowest employees having smartphones a lot too.)

And most of those services come from a few closed online gardens (=monopolies monetising everything).

Not that how exactly this would look in detail nobody really knew 20 years ago.

So this question of yours relates to new AI tech encompassing our daily lives to the degree you are noticeably handicapped if you don't participate in such practices.

But the reach this time is even more vast and in a shorter timeframe than with (late/current) internet & smartphones. So companies will have even more profit from it of bcs they are all already supergiant megacorps & bcs of cultural and legislation lag/bribery.

Actually the drivers should consider the distances of cars to the traffic lights in relation to the speed of light and sound in the surrounding air - it would be more optimal if the waiting driver would start honking a bit earlier than the green light turns on so that the honk sound would reach the slow driver at the time the light from the green light reaches them.
(It just isn't optimal to wait the green light to pass two or more cars & then the additional wait time for the slow sound to reach the driver holding up the line in the front.)

Yeah, 400 million years. We are doing it in centuries.

We are already into the mass extinction event caused by humans, the hardship for biodiversity is measured in millions of years in event we give nature back the space immediately (ie we disappear).

And three are no plans anywhere about that.

The hardship for humans seems irrelevant in comparison, if we have a war & kill 4 billon people that is still a 50 year setback (1975).

Also even if human population is starting to level (geopolitical predictionds still point to 12bn, it's more about the economy & living status than food supply), we will each year consume more of everything, space/surface included.

I don't even see us reaching our max destructiveness on earth's species in the next 100+ years.

Times will get a little tougher for next human gens & with our entitlement we will just destroy more nature.

Nothing in our past or present points to anything other than that.

Tests replacing lighthouses with giant nips revealed some positive & negative effects of such infrastructure upgrades.

I think ppl did it so much it became a challenge at some point.

youtube.com/shorts/ehECSg43LrE
youtube.com/shorts/P5_xzrNwWSU
youtube.com/shorts/s6_BOdKnex4

That's so sad.

It's hard to argue how we aren't an infestation. The reach & environmental effects of humans per individual is outstanding even without factoring the explosive growth (globally only a few 100k or a few millions for 4 billion years, then a billon in a single millennia, then 9 billon in just 200 years).

Solitary unconnected gardens can't help, it would barely be possible to sustain us normally if we all were extremely and unambiguously (and with much more knowledge) aware of & actively dedicating our lives to diminish environmental impacts.

But also our overall lives would be better. Imagine forest cities with tall buildings (without critter loss, so maybe glass covered streets?), clean every, waste treatment & reuse, no "waste", etc.

Why would you put that uncensored comment out here for us to see? Now I'm going to have nightmares as if directed by John Capenter about spiders that look exactly like puppies to humans until they attack.

Ohhhh, that's a really cool & outstanding thought!
(With a satisfying explanation for the biological size limits ofc. It can just be "magic", idk, the idea is too nice to be cockblocked by a plot hole.)

It would be even funnier if the arachnids lost some original traits in favour of mimicry & their new environments (like the jumping spoders in this post lost the jumping part for their ant masquerade).

Not the jumping, but like the way of life - they just figured dogs have it too good when bonded to nice humans so some jumping-dog spiders just decide they want to be pets and they cuddle & fetch their entire lives (sure the humans might find it suspect how many live snacks they have to feed their pupper, or how no smol animals seem to hang around the house, but that's not that different to being owned by a cat).

Also nothing beats the feeling of a happy jumping-dog spider jump-hugging you when you get home with all its weight.

(There is also the funny looks the first time you take your dog to the vet. Or how it builds it own beds out of the nicest silky material you've ever seen. Or how you've seen it jump from the ground after a squirrel ... that was on the very top of a very tall three.)

Also jumping-dog spiders - kings of puppy-eyes look!

The mammal head tilt still needs some (evolutionary) work tho:

- 'Does it bite?'
- 'Almost never, but it will cocoon people that it dislikes.'