You just made it seem much more appealing.
You just made it seem much more appealing.
In what context where both are available are emoticons objectively better?
They’re objectively not.
Yes, and? I don’t believe these are replacing any existing infrastructure, but are for places that have no infrastructure for the internet. They could drastically improve things in those areas, and if those place became a warzone sometime in the future they’d probably be pretty fucked with or without proper land based infrastructure.
I don’t know. I don’t think that’s something to be left for an email.
Screenshot? What are you, a goldfish?
30 minutes is not nearly long enough to get to anything convoluted.
That’s a fair assesment. But what’s the ratio games that you actually go back to compared to the amount of games you own in total? Unless you only play very few games, the amount of games a person owns vastly outnumbers the games they actually go back and play multiple times. Just looking at my steam library, I own hundreds of games I’ve completed once and have never touched again along with about 2 dozen I actually go back and play occasionally.
How expensive? Because accounting for inflation, $66 in 1994 is worth about $136 in 2023.
Resources like gold would be more accessible, y’know because it already been mined and made into things. If society collapses what few survivors there are could recycle shit like metals. The actual issue is fossil fuels. Getting to a point where you can use renewable power would be difficult with using fossil fuels for power first.