ok, not sure, but...

• its billionaires..
• they tried to put additional sand there to "protect" their luxury vacation homes they had literally "build on sand" and damage wildlife while they go, but were stopped by a court ruling
• now one of them accusing another of "stealing sand" and sues him to put "the stolen sand back", so he can be forced by court to put sand there. and maybe more than he ever "stole".
• it sounds like only lies is what they have
• its only billionaires, nothing good comes from them.

maybe the court should rule that he has to put sand there personally by his own hands (no tech other than a bucket is allowed) that he has to carry without machinery, cars or anything from at least 5km away until his neigbour is fine with the situation. if the neighbour is fine quite quickly, the court should fine that neighbour due to abusing the court with false claims. if not, that sandy billionaire still can fine his neigbour to help him. maybe...

but anyway that situation stinks.

Now see, that’s all more reasonable.

That is only "more reasonable" when you ignore the reality that "disliking some parts" of a resolution usually is followed by not voting, but they explicitly voted against thus made any argument why they did not vote 'for' that right a clearly undenieable lie.

maybe the world should follow their vote to the point, those countries voting against should be prevented from receiving food from other countries for free, especially fishing industry that rips off resources on the open seas or near other countries should be physically stopped with force if they come from or go to the countries that voted against a right for food for everyone. That would only be reasonable as they explicitly wanted such a right to not exist, thus it should be explicitly removed in practice from them too. The countries who voted for a right for food then just put a freely increaseable tax on every gram(!) of food exported to those countries that don't want food to be a right for everyone. And then the against voters can have what their wish they explicitly voted for. i like that idea: those who don't want food as a right, shouldn't have that right then. period.

The US is evil and wrong

+1

basically a system that makes crime necessary to survive only due to unaccounted crimes of the rich so that cops can claim they would "solve problems" but aren't because they mainly accompanied the rich causing them?

isn't even trying to keep an innocent behind bars already a type of kidnapping attempt and every second of delay that it caused an actual act of kidnapping?

and the ones finding apes on a planet just short ahead or into the beginning of those 10000 years might think "well lets teach them how to stack stones and let them call us gods for just showing some of our million years old and cheap replicated tech gadgets pewpew, how amusing! but now lets go on, this planet has water but way too much oxygen and also there is axial precession that would change weather over only few hundrets of thousands of years if not less, not the planet of choice for eternals like us, duh!"

don't they have any law enforcement there?

never eat credit cards with no debt on it, always wait for a sufficient amount to disappeat 😁

i think it was not the whole hull but one of the materials, the hull was made of that had expired. well, carbon fibre has its strenght when pulled, but when pushing it bends. but if one uses resin on the fibre, then it gets some strenght when pushed too. similar to steel and concrete, while steel can really be pulled a lot, concrete is way better when pushed than steel. steel is quite stable when pushed too, but thats not its main strength. i think the resin was what really held the pressure in the sub, not the carbon fibre, but with this i only have that dangerous type of half-knowledge i'ld have to bring to expert level before doing something stupid (like depending on that to be fully true without really knowing).

in general things often last longer than their expected "minimum" to be used without concern. but in practice one would have to test for damage or if its worn out (like its done with airplane parts at fixed intervals) even without using materials of bad quality. but that was AFAIK what oceangate's management decided to explicitly NOT check the sub for - despite internal demands to do so.

i would not say its not possible to build a secure pressure hull out of carbon fibre, or out of carbon fibre of not the best quality, or a hull of a different shape than a sphere, or a hull out of different materials with different bending behaviors under pressure, or when such components are "glued" together on the edges that do the different bending, but ALL of this at the same time and without even checking at least after a new maximum depth was reached? not to mention crackling sounds after which heared one would want to double check. Even the wright brothers seemed more cautious to me.

today one would at least get some wear level statistics with unmanned vehicles in a slightly deeper than intended depth to have security margins and afterwards throughout checks for the parts that are important, single points of failures or are one of the proudly new developed.

that is why i do my best to NOT support such and go along the more sane way of using open source, self-hosted and vendor independent things in the first place.

by taking control to yourself you then have it. otherwise giving control away to parasitic richies, then you loose control, which can also as well be pronounced as just: "you loose".

if something does not yet exist as open source (software or hardware no matter) go along find same pple and make it happen to exist as open source ;-)

when a company makes profit from crimes and a gov "fines" them only a fraction of their crimes profits, that gov is basically saying 'good job, go on, do more! but we want to get paid for protecting you and participate in profiting from your crimes" to them. it does not matter if that gov actually says such words bcs this is what the criminal groups will hear AND experience then anyway. thus words are neither needed nor could stop such crimes. but such words can help raise the crimerate again when news talk like that company had payed the fine and the crowd would stop looking into it but look rather away of it. this way those "fines" -when too low- actually help the criminals to go on with crimes.

maybe they really and ultimately narrowed it down to "gone".

also they ruled out:

• up or down
• sideways
• back or forth in time
• with the wind
• hiding
• just vanishing
• gone for good
• gone for a walk
• other realities / timelines / simulations (maybe recovery from backup is still possible)

...

8-)

UPDATE-edit: damn i forgot Schroedingers quantum gone paradoxon: He decides where he was only in that very moment when they actually find him.

maybe weird answer but...

1. depending on overall comfort and freedom desires, you/he could have a look on crimes that happened and how they would be prosecuted, quit renting contracts or sell, tell police one of the crimes was actually you/him and for some month/years the bills will vanish. when living in one of the most shitty countries of the world, police and court might be fully ok if they enprison an innocent anyway and you/he could help someone safe his (bad) ass.
2. not the expected answer? maybe just find a flat where street lights shine in all night and quit the utility contracts (or just don't sign up) done: lights will stay on ;-)
3. maybe even better: help healing the world and help fixing politics and utility bills could vanish all over the world, all needed resources are ready available, it just needs a big fix of their distribution.

even though maybe weird, all of above ideas would work =D hope you/he choose no 3

regards ..