Wolf314159

Occam's razor doesn't apply because a flat earth is an exceedingly complex and irregular explanation for the even the most basic naked eye astronomical observations we can make.

It only does this for things (usually municipal or government related) with a well defined, continuous, and singluar boundary. Search for nearby Lake Buena Vista, City of Orlando, or Orange County and Google Earth behaves exactly that way. But Disney's land holdings are likely not completely contiguous.

Logically most people would want to see the boundary of all the Disney things when they search for Disney World, but that's also not a real region with a well defined simple boundary Google can show and so it doesn't. Google Earth can represent points (or geolocated 3D buildings that are essentially points), lines (like roads), polygons, and elevation. In fact, you can force Google to do this by collecting the pins of various locations into a list. When you select the list, Google zooms to the level that shows them all. But Google Maps would be the tool to search for "all the Disney properties" or "all the burrito places near me" to get quick and made to order lists like this, Google Earth simply isn't built to to that.

So you're new to reading maps? Is that the joke? Because the resort is the collection of all the various parks. Magic Kingdom is just to the north, Epcot is off to the east a bit, Hollywood Studios (now a part of Disney) is to the southeast, just south of Epcot, Blizzard Beach is mostly south and a little west, Animal Kingdom is south west, the Disney Golf courses are northwest. This point is basically the centeroid of all of those places because none of them are Disney World alone, they are only Disney World in the collective. It's not like Disneyland, which is a single park in the middle of town. Yes, they built in a swamp. What you've zoomed into is undeveloped land that I'm pretty sure Disney owns.

So, yes, that is Disney world, but I wouldn't send you a closeup of my nipple if you asked for a selfie.

Plugs, connectors, and cables often break, corrode, get vandalized, etc. The physical connections on most of the electronic devices I've owned have been the first thing to fail. The wireless connections and wireless charging has NEVER been something that I've ever had to worry about physically breaking. I'd wage that infrastructure maintenance is going to cost much more in the long run than the cost of inefficiency introduced by wireless charging.

That's fucking amazing. I love it. I want games like that for real now (they say, knowing full well that historically games made from movie and TV IP have been largely awful, alas):

• Asteroids, but with Star Wars ships.
• Galaga, but you fly voyager through Borg space, trans warp conduits, etc. Occasionally you pick up a clone or alternate timeline Voyager to fight along side you.
• Space invaders I think would also be a good with a Starship Troopers skin and bugs lobbing rocks at your bases, could also be good in the style of Scorched Earth (or Worms Armageddon).
• An Apple II style text only adventure game in Deep Space Nine.
• A farming/trading/city sim on Babylon 5.
• Civilization, but it's Babylon 5, Star Trek, or Star Wars, Dune, etc.
• Old school 2.5D Zelda adventure game, but it's Firefly or The Expanse.
• A Mario Bros. game but it's Farscape.
• Mario kart, also Farscape.
• Leisure Suit Larry in the style of Lexx.

It's because the precision is overstated in the conversion to imperial. If they're going to convert units they could at least give the correct significant digits. It should have read (if one insists on not just leaving it in metric):

• Operational altitude: nearly 1 mile (1.5km)
• Weight: Under 1 ton (imperial or metric. Take your pick, it hardly matter.)

NJ won't even let them pump gas.

Why should anyone bother replying to your bat shit crazy questions if you're just going to delete the post out of shame a few days later?

The only Star Trek or Star Wars shirt I currently own is black with yellow gold lettering saying "Star Trek" in the Star Wars font. I think it makes some people uncomfortable. My S.O. hates it. I think it's hilarious and I know immediately what type of "nerd" I'm dealing with based on people's reactions to it. I suspect most people don't realize it's a joke or they are worried that I don't know it's a joke.

This photo wasn't actually taken in West Palm Beach. West Palm Beach only frontages intracoastal waterways, not the Atlantic Ocean as this photo shows. The island of Palm Beach stands between West Palm Beach and the ocean along its entire coast. That's why it's called WEST Palm Beach. Along the entire ocean horizon that we can see there are no land masses visible. The only land visible is the beach itself. There is no view from a West Palm Beach coast that one cannot see the west Coast of the island of Palm Beach easily and everywhere. Moreover, given that Palm Beach was in 1910 primarily a winter resort for very rich people, and taking into account the dress, chairs, ropes, etc., it seems much more likely that this photo would have been taken at or very near to those resorts on the island; not the city of West Palm Beach, on the wrong side of Lake Worth and near the railroad where all the people that couldn't afford to dress this fancy lived.

Why is the thumbnail preview throbbing?

You're specifically crafting a definition for disappeared that does not correspond to the idea that OP is talking about. They are not using disappeared in that kind of literal way. Another turn of phrase or word that they could have used would be "swept under the rug", "downplayed", "minimized" "dismissed", "de-emphasized". Maybe disappeared isn't the perfect word, but there's no need to be so hung up on your own definition specifically crafted to support misunderstanding. That kind of rhetoric is a kind of arguing in bad faith.