I mean ageing technology (what the person might look like after 5 years etc) was also created for human trafficking victims, and I haven't seen it really being talked about in many years now since it came out. Seems weird to base something on whether or not you've heard of it.

If the family doesn't have a recent picture of the person without makeup, then yeah, this would be useful, since people can look pretty different without makeup. I'm the only one who has recent pictures of my wife without makeup for example, her friends and parents only have pictures of her with makeup since she normally does some when meeting them. She's also half Chinese, so depending on how she decides to do her make up, can look way more asian or barely asian at all. If I didn't have those pictures and something happened, the make-up pictures wouldn't be as useful in searching for her.

Well considering this ideas were taken from Endless Legend, you should give that a try. Or if you want something more Civ like, they also have Humankind, which is like Civ but better and the AI is really good (they made it even better now than before, and it was already way ahead of Civ's NPC AIs). They also have a unique win condition with Fame.

Neither was that YouTube video 🤷🏻‍♂️

Well, I guess you at least proved to everyone here that you're arguing in bad faith and not reading any responses.

Does the question also say "on an island, the size of Ireland"? If you're going to argue in bad faith, we can be here all day, because if it's just you and some man in Madagascar, you're equally as safe as sharing that island as with a bear or much anything really.

But then, you knew that and are being purposefully obtuse, since "island" type questions are usually about being in a limited amount of space (btw - bears hunt in forests, known not enclosed spaces, so kinda still proving my point most people really don't understand the danger a bear poses).

Either way, you're falling for the trap I just mentioned. It's not to further discussion on the problem, because it doesn't actually address the problem. Secondly, there's no reason I need to prove I'm the "reason" so many women picked the bear. That's a logical fallacy designed to inflame, not unite. And at it's core, you're proving what some have said, and showing how this question is malicious - it's designed to paint men as bad by default, rather that what the real problem is - statistically more likely to be abusive than the other sex. And before you misinterpret that, statistically significant ≠ everyone. It means to practice caution, of course, because the problem is there. It doesn't mean assume every single man will be evil, because then you won't be able to have healthy relationships (and I'm not even talking romantic ones here, but familial, social, professional) if by default you assume you will be in danger. That is, after all, the only logical conclusion to thinking a random man is more dangerous than one of the strongest predatory mammals on earth.

That you then dismiss someone simply because they didn't tow some now created narrative is exactly what identity politics also wants. Because then you're not open to dialogue that might fix the problem, and you're also preventing focus from the true root of virtually all modern societal issues: the wealthy ruling class. They are, end of the day, the ones that tip the scales of power so that things are the way they are.

Just as one example - does roe v Wade being overturned help in any way with the current fear many women have of men? No, it doesn't, because now rape becomes even more horrific without access to abortion. So why would Republicans appoint members to a supreme court that would do such a thing?

Well, we don't have to guess, because they've even said the quiet part out loud - to create more cheap human labor for the economy. And that's not the only thing it does - it's harder for a worker taking care of a child to quit a job where she's being mistreated or underpaid. It's harder for her to risk her job to join a union.

And that's just one part of the multifaceted issue that is (especially American) women being afraid of men in general, regardless of the bear or not. And it, like most societal issues, come back to the wealthy ruling class. But instead of that, they've managed to get people like you to play identity politics. Solve the real problem - an oligarchy that wants people divided - and most of the other issues go away.

This furthering of a perception of men being more dangerous than a bear is just another scheme to prevent us from working together.

Considering no one I've met so far that I've told "a grizzly bear can bend steel bars" knows that - no, most people don't know much about bears, or how dangerous a bear is. Heck most don't know how fast a bear can run or swim. Heck there's people who constantly get injured or killed because they want to pet a wild bear.

This doesn't negate point A that you made, but the other huge factor is, most women, men, and everything in between don't really know much about bears, or have been exposed to bears, and that's a gigantic reason why so many women picked the bear too. Heck, your point B proves that - you clearly don't understand the threat, or you'd know that it's not a threat, it's a death sentence. You are not, in virtually any scenario of being stuck on an island with a ever growingly hungry bear, going to live. You can't swim away, you can't climb a tree to escape. You'd have a much better chance of killing an openly hostile man than surviving a wild bear. You basically just said "yeah, I know how missiles work, they fly in the air and go boom when they land - that's why I can survive a missile".

And the question was designed to create this divide, because had this question instead been with something that IS perceived as more dangerous (like, would you rather be stuck in the middle of a large pool with a shark of a man), it wouldn't have received the same amount of replies, since sharks are seen and portrayed as scarier than bears. It wasn't designed to actually improve society, it was designed to drive another wedge and make us forget that the real danger is the wealthy and corporations that literally kill and poison us daily.

Also responding to unrelated topics will make some think you're a bot. The conversation should happen organically. It'll get you clicks but not positive interaction.

That just results in an image of JSON Bourne.

Can vouch for their routers.

I do want to say though, they technically use their own version of OpenWrt, but you can just as easily install pure OpenWrt too.

Funnily enough with this explanation I finally get what Pocket is, because I thought modern Pocket was something different and not the same thing from back then.

I'm not trying to get sympathy 🙂 I'm calling out your obvious bullshit with actual examples that shows you're full of shit.

You're so full of shit you can't even argue against the example given, such as how the "quality healthcare" doesn't even offer diafiltration. Hell y'all still do the step ladder sticking technique and use fax machines.

For the average person, healthcare there is partying like it's 1998. I guess though if you're a near millionaire it's pretty good though.

But I guess I can't fault you much for being so full of shit - I know it's hard to schedule and get a basic colonoscopy there too.

I will say though, I hope you get kidney failure. It'd be for the greater good - not because of your suffering, but it's clear you're one of those that will only ever understand once they suffer, and only then would you actually try to help those less fortunate and make the world a better place.