Why are they booing you, you're right?
Turret's "serious" comment said that you claimed people should know about/have awareness of that Flesch-Kincaid reading level as a determinant of literacy....but you never said that.
I will admit I had to go back and actually read both comments because I tend to tune out long comments (many long comments are slavering diatribes not fit to store in any memory, long-term nor short). Maybe that's what's happened here.
Vis a vis, the nudes inclusion: on the first -- and a very honest -- level, I'm just uninterested. Eastern Europe puts out a lot of porn, so I can pretty much picture the equipment she's working with.
But, on a more enlightened level, looking at her nude in response to her opinion feels like commentary on the worth of women tying to their sexual availaibility.
She sucks, and not just because she sucks for pay.
But the original lists two qualities: athleticism and urination quantity. You've reduced them to urinators. What does "athletic urination" even entail?
And it would be good if they showed something like that on screen. Shows Jon as a kind friend, if a little too soft.
Yeaaaah, I hate that. A lot of the structures that everyone says are shite seem to be propped up by "solutions" that create and perpetuate the problems they "solve."
I'm ignorant of the mechanism of solar panels and electrical grids...do they just explode if they are set up and not draining power?
Because why can't you just cut the inflow of electricity on a signal? I'd appreciate actual answers.
Edit: In fact, I don't see why "just don't send the power if it isn't needed" doesn't work for any power generation source. In lieu of answers, I can imagine the issue is with the non-renewable resources. Maybe you want to spin down burning generators, if you don't need the extra energy. So it's a planning problem to know when you don't need energy, so you know when you don't need to burn resources.
But you don't waste wind if you just let the turbines keep spinning while blocking of energy output. Sunlight isn't burnt up if solar panels keep slurping while the downstream draw is blocked.
Is this a problem being baked in because it's assuming "burnable fuel" restrictions?
Or maybe...they're too transparent.
I don't think it was ever shown as a "good idea". Wasn't it put up as a bread and circuses thing to placate the civic population from real problems, while the government did Very Bad Things?
Yeah, if you kill a guy and brag about it, their next-of-kin just has to nurse that grudge until next Purge.
I would think insurance would just change policy to void claims from Purge Day. There's no way they're accepting life insurance claims for a day with insane amounts of murder.
Don't you do that
They never said that. So maybe you're disagreeing with their reasoning because you don't know what it is.
They say billionaires are bad because they have a lot of money and don't use it to help people. This isn't even talking about billionaire who engage in actually/actively morally wrong deeds to acquire money.
If you produce a product so excellent that consumers give you 1 billion dollars ($1.000.000.000) in pure profit, there would be no problem if you kept a nest egg to ensure your livelihood and then used the rest to provide aid where it's needed. You would still be a bad person for sitting on it, instead of spreading it to help people that aren't well off. A person can live very well on $300K pretty much anywhere in the world: that means $999,700,000 is not materially improving your life and you are hoarding it for no good reason.