[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Not that I don't disagree with you, but how did you come down to this conclusion?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

You are making a red-herring argument.

The post's question is: "What technology made the most impact in modern times?"

A poster says "Chemical fertilizers" and detailed the reasons.

And then you come in and say "NU-UH, IT DESTROYS THE PLANET!!!" an argument that has nothing to do with the question.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

You can see this in the U.S. as well.

In many parts of the world, though, I wouldn't say cars per se, but definitely public transportation. A lot of people can't afford cars in the world, and they still benefit from the invention of the internal combustion engine.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

its* polarization (or polarisation, in your part of the world.)

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

What a wild question.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

And your home feed would be a direct and unfiltered view of what all your friends posted

And it was a feature added later when they wanted to compete with Twitter. Prior to that, no home feed. Just profile pages, a la MySpace. And it was glorious! It was so much fun to leave wall messages to friends, and see whatever others have posted in them too.

When the newsfeed came about, I remember thinking "I don't like it. It's stupid!" mainly because I knew it was a reaction to Twitter. Of course, I got used to it eventually.

But yup. Facebook back then was a neat tool. Not the cesspool that's been for the past 10 years.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Oh. Hehe.

Sorry.

It's hard to read people's intentions with just text sometimes.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What the fuck are you on? This is not an Airbus engineering war room.

The title of the post is "What's an idea you have that should be an actual thing?" not "What's an idea you have that should be an actual thing and it must realistically be made possible"?

Lighten up.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Well, that's a different argument. The original argument was "permanent seat reclining" and you replied:

Nope, the recline function make almost zero comfort change for the occupant, but for the person behind it has huge impact.

You didn't mention cost until now.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Why not make sure that both are comfortable? The issue is not the reclining seat. The issue is the space in between the seats. So, the issue is the airlines, not the passengers.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Comfort for both the reclinee and the person behind don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Quite pricey, though. And the maids are a bit clingy.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

laughterlaughter

joined 5 months ago