You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature

If you actually believe this then there’s nothing anyone can say to help you.

If a naturally occuring spring runs directly into a wide flat area in the middle of the Mojave desert, then it doesn’t naturally reabsorb into the ground as the hard pack just makes it sit on the surface. Since the water is shallow and sitting on the surface, it evaporates instead of being used to water native plants or support native animals.

The golf course in question is not a dam, it’s putting the already available water to use more efficiently. Growing non-native grass, but also native plant species, and providing native insects and animals a way to utilize that water before it would have otherwise evaporated.

Dams destroy native ecosystems by flooding and displacing them, or removing available water downstream. The golf course in question does none of those things.

“Nature is perfect and humans are capable of nothing but destroying it” is a great take BTW. You could have saved a few people some time by leading with that.

You must be trolling.

Birds, insects, and reptiles are common even in the desert. A species can be native to an ecosystem or region, without naturally occuring in an small locality.

If humans manage water more efficiently than nature would have in this locality, it stands to reason that the resulting local ecosystem would be able to attract and support more native wildlife.

This is observable and provable for golf courses which manage their resources with a focus on limiting their natural resource use and increasing local biodiversity.

You just hate golf courses, which is fine, but you sound pretty uninformed.

Golf courses aren’t just grass, they plant all sorts of other vegetation, much of it native. This supports native wildlife that wouldn’t otherwise be there.

Have you ever actually been to a responsibly managed golf course? Many in the southwest US are run this way, and tons more are moving in that direction to reduce water use.

If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.

I’m not sure I understand? Did you mean county?

It sounds like this course is located at a natural oasis fed by a natural spring. If the course wasn’t there the water would probably feed some plant life and a bit of wildlife. With proper management it’s likely that their water use is more efficient than it would have been naturally. It isn’t unusual for resource aware golf courses to actually improve biodiversity in a region while being water consumption neutral.

I’m going to get all kinds of negative votes for speaking up here. I’m not attempting to defend the various positions I outline below, just to explain why the gun folks see the current situation as the least bad alternative. If gun people in the US actually had their way the laws would be MUCH more permissive than they already are.

Again, I’m not attempting to defend the various positions, only to lend some context (and in the case of domestic abuse, to correct) the talking points above.

If the second amendment is explicitly designed to allow normal citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then allowing that same government to compile a registry of gun ownership makes no sense. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation, see Australia and New Zealand for recent examples.

(Note; It’s highly suspect that non-military ownership of small arms could effectively fight the US military. Years of attrition in Afghanistan might be the counterpoint here.)

The CDC was examining gun violence statistics in the past, but then ventured outside of the realm of science and into political speech. Most gun people are ok with making science based recommendations determined by facts. But they’re worried that a government entity funded for the purpose of science but controlled by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats will push policy based on politics.

(Note: Any gun policy has some base in science, the question is whether the policy controls the science, or whether science leads the way. Counterpoint: national COVID policy was marginally effective at great cost, both in lives lost and economically)

There are measures to keep “known” domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing firearms. If “known” means “convicted” or under indictment, then those folks are legally prohibited from firearm ownership or possession. This was recently confirmed by a notoriously pro-gun Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, by an overwhelming 8-1 majority. Even a restraining order for domestic violence is enough to prohibit purchase or possession.

(Note: enforcement of gun confiscation from prohibited persons is spotty at best, but it’s arguable that this is a problem with policing as the laws are already on the books. The counterpoint here would be the ability in many states to conduct private party transfers without the involvement of a licenced firearms dealer or the requisite background check)

I’m talking about millions of occurrences of this edge case a day.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to fight. I said multiple times that we should continue to encourage and expand our use of electric vehicles. But to blindly fanboy electric cars without being able to honestly admit that we have some improvements to make just makes you stupid and smug.

This is incredibly short sighted. I usually bring my own food on a long trip because I dislike stopping or buying crappy food. I eat while driving on long road trips because I have a schedule and want to get where I’m going. My gas car gets double the range of an electric car, so I’m stopping less often as well. I’m often in places where getting gas or food isn’t within an hour’s drive, and almost none of those places have the ability to charge a vehicle anyway.

Look, everyone has different use cases. I think electric cars for the in-city drive around town use case are great, and we should continue to encourage their use. I’m just saying that for wider adoption we’re going to have to solve the charge rate, range, and charger accessibility issues.

So your electric car has more range than a similarly sized gas car? Unlikely.

Given both vehicles start at “full”, drive until you have low range left. Now talk about convenience of filling up in the middle of nowhere, or when in a hurry.

Is this use case common for everyone? Definitely not, but I run into it a few times a month.

99.99% of people they are never in a single day going to drive beyond their cars range, meaning even a standard level 1 slow charger over night at home can manage their

You’re saying 1 in 10,000 people will never drive more than ~200 miles in a single day? What country is that statistic for? Source?

I love the idea of rail, but it doesn’t work in large spread out countries like where I live. Sure cities can be connected, and we should definitely do that, but the idea that I could get to all the natural and wild places I love in this beautiful country by taking mass transit is impossible.

I’m not at home sleeping when I’m out traveling. I’m referring to multi hour or multi day drives. This is an extremely common use case where I live.

Also not everyone has access to a charger where they sleep.

And then wait an hour to get acceptable charge levels for range. Filling up at a gas station is much faster.

This is not to say electric vehicles aren’t a good idea, the charge rate and convenience while traveling are issues we need to improve on.

Papaya salad is my absolute favorite Thai dish.

Yeah I can see that.

Many people have no screens allowed rules at meal time, I think that reflects the sentiment in the comic.

Yeah, let’s advocate for violence, great job!

Fuuuu

The grill doesn’t sound like fireworks, but using it reminds this human of holidays that are associated with both meat cooked over an open flame and fireworks. 4th of July in the US is what the meme is talking about.

We have to pay to have an account on X now?

I guess I was trying to address the parts of your comment where donations cost calories and time. They certainly aren’t paying me for my blood, but personally I feel like it’s a fair exchange, and I get to feel good about doing someone I’ll probably never meet a potentially life saving favor.

Your point is valid. As a counterpoint, when I donate (6-7 times a year) I get snacks and drinks during the donation, and a $5-10 gift card for a local fast food spot to fuel up later. I’m also very lucky that I can take most of my meetings using a headset, so I don’t have to miss work, and the donation truck is at my office, so there’s no travel time to or from my appointment.

I love when CHLA emails me to say they’ll be downstairs in the coming week. I feel good about donating, and get free In-N-Out 😀

It’s pretty clear to me given the cops shooting, then shouting orders, and Mr. Pink saying he’s been shot, that he does not in fact get away.

I know there’s theories on the Internet about this, and he may not have died, but at the very least he’s been caught and does not keep the diamonds.

Honest question: if your goal is to complete workouts (good on you!), what does posting it to the world gain you?