Key Lime Pie is less common than kit kats? Look, I enjoy kitkats, always have, but I've had way more key lime pie in my life. It's kinda sad that your country in general feels the reverse. Sad, and not unexpected.
It wasn't my fault. I tride to swerve to avoid the pedestrian, but my car hit the brakes mid-turn, causing me to spin out and kill six pedestrians instead.
A marathon running on the sidewalk was labelled with a big "30", so even though it was a sixty zone, my car slammed on the brakes thinking it was thirty.
I was passing a huge truck that was driving slowly on a two-lane road. I was executing a proper high-speed pass on the other side of the road. In order to pass the truck going 50 in a 70 zone, I needed to drive faster than him. The faster I drive, the less time I spend in on-coming traffic on the wrong side of the road. I needed to drive 90 to pass the very long truck in under two miles. But my car refused to go more than 70. So it took me four miles pass him. Or it would have, had I not hit the other guy head-on after only 3 miles, killing us all.
I've always appreciated the "guilty with a reason" option on moving violations. This completely eliminates the benefits of that option.
Not that I know anything at all, but it seems like their trying to hold back the ocean. That seems counter-productive to me. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense, seeing as how we're land dwellers and all, to simply build-up the land? We've been extending cities out into lakes and oceans for centuring -- filling in the ocean one block at a time. That's why my city has a front street, then a lakeshore street, and then harbour street, and then thirty yards of land, and then finally the lake.
I'd imagine that heaping on some dirt, and lifting the buildings higher (yes, rebuilding them as necessary) would make the most sense.
As I said before, I'm not interested in the next generation. I simply can't be. If others can, well then that's great. I act in the present, not in the future. It's become a policy of mine.
But I have learned something from your English fog article -- which I really enjoyed. I learned that British people are slower than fog -- and I mean that cognitively.
When I started reading that article, I thought it suffocated them within an hour. But apparently, they had at least a day.
I don't know how long you'd sit in black fog. But I know how long it would take for me to hop into a car and drive away from it: two hours. Two hours of "what is this black stuff?" Two hours of it being outside. Two minutes of it being inside my home.
But that's me. And I think the bigger problem here is exactly that. People feel comfortable sitting in black stuff for as long as others are doing the same. Last year I specifically moved out of the city (not far, but definitely out). Now, when I visit friends, I notice a few things: a) it stinks, way more than I ever noticed; b) it's three celsius degrees warmer; and c) people carry way too much stress to notice their own problems.
So I'm going to redirect this conversation. I'm going to say that the actual problem of global warming is living in massive cities of more than 400'000 humans, or more pavement than grass, or more buildings than trees (measured in canopy size, of course).
Having just driven over 5'000km through virtually empty gorgeous countryside and shoreline, an noticing that it was basically devoid of population, by city standards, that makes a lot of sense.
If you're happy to end it, without looking it up on your own, then that speaks volumes about you, not about me. I've told you that something exists. That's valuable. Whether or not you value what I say without corroberation is your problem. Whether or not you choose to corroberate it is also your problem. If you choose to do so, great, go ahead. If you don't want to because it'll offend your sensitive nature, that's fine too.
But if you think that something is less true because I don't use someone else's name to back up what I say, then that's your loss. You can go ahead and ask Albert Einstein to get someone to back up his ideas, or Galileo for that matter. The number of people who say something has absolutely nothing to do with its truthiness.
On the other hand, if you require assistance with line-of-thought, I can tutor you. It would be my pleasure.
When the world heats up, ice melts. Ice covers much land. So when ice melts, more land appears. Humans live on land. Humans don't live on ice. Humans travel on water all the time. Humans have trouble travelling on ice. Therefore, when ice melts exposing more land and more water, travel is improved, new travel options become available and more land for homes becomes available. Please note that if you live at the equator, this isn't relevant to you.
When the world heats up, there's more summer and less winter. Humans eat things that grow in the ground. More stuff grows in the summer. Less stuff grows in the winter. More summer means more growth. More growth means more to harvest. Last week, I picked the best blueberries in the universe -- because the best blueberries in the universe (not to be confused with blue berries) grow 15 minutes east of here. Seemingly unlimited blueberries, no pesticides, falcons to protect the orchard. But they are only edible for four weeks each summer. Longer summers will mean more blueberries for me to eat. This is true of all agriculture across the entire country. Again, this isn't true at the equator.
When the world heats up, people choose to spend more time outside with their friends and families. Humans like to travel, for adventure and relaxation. While some humans ski and snowboard, a far greater number of humans prefer beaches and walking and hiking and boating in warm weather. Longer springs, summers, and falls, with shorter winters means that more tourists travel to my country. Tourists are arguably the best way to import wealth into a country -- literally and directly taking cash from another country. It also promotes economic growth in domestic tourism as well. Longer tourism seasons means a better country. Again, probably not all true at the equator.
When the world heats up, oceans rise. Oceans destroy shorelines. People living along shorelines can be devasted in other countries. In my country, people living on shorelines have more money, not less. These people have the funds and resources and skills to protect their homes from the ocean. Such threats to these shorelines result in those people actually building up those cities, and hence the country. Since my country is vast and empty, more people building is a great thing. Again, equatorial shorelines tend to be populated by the poor, so it's not the same there.
Instead of trying to argue against the manner in which I choose to present information to you, as though "winning the argument" is a worthwhile objective, you might try looking at the actually point being made. Discrediting the argument wins debates, and elections, but it doesn't help your life. Try assimilating the information first-hand. I've given you second hand. You've asked me for third-hand. But you're still ignoring your own hand.
Or do you think that global warming doesn't help anyone anywhere at all? It's a very diverse range of climates that circle the globe. Thinking that none of them can be improved by a few degrees is, well, short-sighted.
Democracy simply means that my wishes and opinions are respected. It doesn't say how.
And you can go and read all on your own. You don't need me to quote articles, nor to guide you. If you wanted to find the countries that benefit most from global warming, that's a very simple search. If you're too lazy to do it, then you simply aren't interested. I couldn't care less about what you do. I'm not here for you.
I'm actually not so sure. But I do have reason to believe it. I look at things like those miners trapped underground a couple years ago. Within days, humans innovated a way to pull off a rescue that was impossible days early. And it was paid for (in part) by a sunglasses company.
When it's really urgent, it happens. The oil spill went the same way. We were literally pumping crude oil directly into the oceans. That's something that can actually kill 90% of life on Earth within a year. And again, within a few days, people and innovations appeared to mitigate the threat.
In the case, global warming isn't an instant death threat. It's a long-term gradual threat of drastic change. And if temperatures rise by 5 celsius degrees -- which is an absurdly high number that no one but me is suggesting -- it won't actually affect human civilization.
It's be a major struggle. Food will be different. Shorelines will change. Land values will change. But no one will die. Data won't be lost. Electricity will still work. We'll have food -- although there may be more jellyfish and less chicken on the menu. Big deal. Political turmoil, sure, but there's always political turmoil.
So that's why I think that this is the perfect problem to have. We've literally got generations to work around it. And right now, the vast majority of the human population on this planet aren't involved in the problem. So right now is when we need to master it. And we learn to master things by making them bigger. Capitalism works on very large problems very quickly, and ignores anything that isn't mission-critical.
So I say this: let's make this problem as big as it can be. Let's see what happens, and how things change. Let's learn everything there is to know -- enough to know how to do it intentionally on venus, how to reverse it on mars, and how to control it on a per-region basis on earth.
Because if we don't, here's what's going to happen in ten years.
India and Africa are going to appear out of nowhere. Suddenly, probably in 2019 or 2024, literally 2 Billion -- with a capital "b" -- are going to start building factories. When you tell them that those factories pollute, and that they should instead do something else, they are going to turn to you, give you the finger, and say: "100 years ago, you had factories, and a whole industrial age. You built your whole country then. Now it's our turn." And they are going to be correct.
Right here, you have me -- a guy who works from home, and creates 1 bag of trash each week. In ten years, you're going to have all of them behind me. What you want to do is to invent something that's orders of magnitude better than factories, and that happen to also pollute a lot less. What you don't want is to have a much more expensive factory that's marginally better that pollutes a little less -- which is all that you have today.
In short, you don't want cars that are twice as fuel efficient. And you don't want cars that run on electricity like today where we lose 40% of it between generation and the tires, and where we polluted to generate that electricity in the first place. What you want are cars that are so fuel efficient that they can burn orange juice, saliva, and urine.
Otherwise, you're prolonging the inevitable -- which means that you're asking me to ruin my life, to kill your grandchildren instead of your children. That distinction doesn't work for me -- I'm dead in both cases.
I won't let you cross the line by comparing anything here to murder. My competing with my neighbour for a job, to the point where he can't afford to feed his family is not my problem -- no matter how much money I have nor how little he has. Welcome to competing for life.
Most scientists agree that my country benefits greatly from global warming. Start reading.
I don't care about future prospected revenue, nor current value. Those are things that matter to you. They do not matter to me. Stop presuming that what's important to you is important to everyone.
It's not about challenges. It's about telling me to put effort into recycling, spend money on recycling, cutting my electrical usage, driving less, driving cars with less performance than I'd like. It's gotten so bad that we have "reduced rolling resistance" tires which save about $100 in fuel over a three year period, and as a result, have less traction. That's pollution vs safety. I choose safety. You don't.
You want to change gradually, you go ahead and do so. Over several decades? Enjoy. I'll be dead, you'll be happy. Until then, I'm not interest in gradual change. Gradual change conflicts with stability. I like stability.
Direct vs. Indirect. I won't let you get away with crossing that line.
In this case, my country and my life and my communities benefit greatly from global warming. You don't get to make me give up my immediate future to save your distant great great grandchildren.
In this case, my country and my life and my communities benefit greatly from global warming. You don't get to make me give up my immediate future to save your distant great great grandchildren.
I can decide that there's a benefit to my country from climate change. Welcome to making decisions. I'm not the only one to say so either.
And why would you want me to prioritize your goals over mine? I don't want to risk getting hit my the bus to save someone else. I don't want to waste my life to support your children. You're welcome to. I refuse to. Welcome to diversity.
You would suggest that I shouldn't be permitted to live with my own ideals, just because you believe that some of my actions have very indirect minor concerns to you? Welcome to the business world.
I live in a country that will greatly benefit from global warming in terms of agricultural output, tourism, and available land. Additionally, I have no children and want no children and hence don't see any value in making efforts to change a world in which I'm burried.
I also believe that these kinds of struggles are good to have -- pushing civilization into space exploration.
I also believe that first-world countries should explore the true depth of a problem (by growing that problem), in order to encourage and eventually force solutions before the much larger third-world countries encounter the problem. Reducing whatever by 10% in north america means nothing when India gradually adds a billion people to the problem.
You live your way. I won't stop you. But I probably have zero interest in your ways. I don't intend to follow them. Most call this democracy.
I lived in Toronto at the time. We were without power for about 24 hours. We all banded together in a crisis situation to drink the beer while it was still cold.
Local bars and pubs were giving it away free. And it was patio-season too!
And I got to mock all of my friends whose cars were useless only because they didn't know how to manually open their garage doors. Funny.
You did it wrong. I was living in Toronto at the time. Apartment building or not, we just didn't go home. We all banded together to fight a much bigger problem than darkness and stairs. Bars everywhere couldn't keep the beer cold.
Seriously, local bars and pubs were giving away free beer. You've never seen a more instantly-friendly megalopolis.
Exactly. Hey, it could collect the distributed inner portion into the one region, or it could fill air bladders into cushion pockets, or it could dispense a foaming agent as a one-time injury-preventing mechanism. Whatever.
flexibility, ultra-thin and all that, when not needed. The idea is to make armour appear from nowhere. I don't want to wear a liquid wet-suit while swinging a hammer. I'm fine wearing some thin plastic.
The next time a DIY tool falls, and I block it with my forearm, it'd be swell if the skin senses the impact and immediately hardens/cushions into a bracer/gauntlet to shield my fleshy arm beneath.
It could have just been made shorter. But instead, they added a big empty back section, to lengthen the vehicle for no good reason (let's call it stability), then the entire back useless half folds upward. Hope there was nothing in the trunk buddy.
Thanks for the big empty cavity. That's not helpful.
Probably a very nice golf cart storage system though. Trunk-be-gone!
That's called disengaging. Holding a book and looking at your phone isn't being engaged in the book any more than holding the book was being engaged in the play.
It is possible to just not like something. It's perfectly ok to not like something. Stop giving me the same carp in a different format. I still don't like it.
Slashdot Mirror
Key Lime Pie is less common than kit kats? Look, I enjoy kitkats, always have, but I've had way more key lime pie in my life. It's kinda sad that your country in general feels the reverse. Sad, and not unexpected.
The faster you go, the safer it is.
It wasn't my fault. I tride to swerve to avoid the pedestrian, but my car hit the brakes mid-turn, causing me to spin out and kill six pedestrians instead.
A marathon running on the sidewalk was labelled with a big "30", so even though it was a sixty zone, my car slammed on the brakes thinking it was thirty.
I was passing a huge truck that was driving slowly on a two-lane road. I was executing a proper high-speed pass on the other side of the road. In order to pass the truck going 50 in a 70 zone, I needed to drive faster than him. The faster I drive, the less time I spend in on-coming traffic on the wrong side of the road. I needed to drive 90 to pass the very long truck in under two miles. But my car refused to go more than 70. So it took me four miles pass him. Or it would have, had I not hit the other guy head-on after only 3 miles, killing us all.
I've always appreciated the "guilty with a reason" option on moving violations. This completely eliminates the benefits of that option.
Not that I know anything at all, but it seems like their trying to hold back the ocean. That seems counter-productive to me. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense, seeing as how we're land dwellers and all, to simply build-up the land? We've been extending cities out into lakes and oceans for centuring -- filling in the ocean one block at a time. That's why my city has a front street, then a lakeshore street, and then harbour street, and then thirty yards of land, and then finally the lake.
I'd imagine that heaping on some dirt, and lifting the buildings higher (yes, rebuilding them as necessary) would make the most sense.
(Nice topical movie reference.)
As I said before, I'm not interested in the next generation. I simply can't be. If others can, well then that's great. I act in the present, not in the future. It's become a policy of mine.
But I have learned something from your English fog article -- which I really enjoyed. I learned that British people are slower than fog -- and I mean that cognitively.
When I started reading that article, I thought it suffocated them within an hour. But apparently, they had at least a day.
I don't know how long you'd sit in black fog. But I know how long it would take for me to hop into a car and drive away from it: two hours. Two hours of "what is this black stuff?" Two hours of it being outside. Two minutes of it being inside my home.
But that's me. And I think the bigger problem here is exactly that. People feel comfortable sitting in black stuff for as long as others are doing the same. Last year I specifically moved out of the city (not far, but definitely out). Now, when I visit friends, I notice a few things: a) it stinks, way more than I ever noticed; b) it's three celsius degrees warmer; and c) people carry way too much stress to notice their own problems.
So I'm going to redirect this conversation. I'm going to say that the actual problem of global warming is living in massive cities of more than 400'000 humans, or more pavement than grass, or more buildings than trees (measured in canopy size, of course).
Having just driven over 5'000km through virtually empty gorgeous countryside and shoreline, an noticing that it was basically devoid of population, by city standards, that makes a lot of sense.
If you're happy to end it, without looking it up on your own, then that speaks volumes about you, not about me. I've told you that something exists. That's valuable. Whether or not you value what I say without corroberation is your problem. Whether or not you choose to corroberate it is also your problem. If you choose to do so, great, go ahead. If you don't want to because it'll offend your sensitive nature, that's fine too.
But if you think that something is less true because I don't use someone else's name to back up what I say, then that's your loss. You can go ahead and ask Albert Einstein to get someone to back up his ideas, or Galileo for that matter. The number of people who say something has absolutely nothing to do with its truthiness.
On the other hand, if you require assistance with line-of-thought, I can tutor you. It would be my pleasure.
When the world heats up, ice melts. Ice covers much land. So when ice melts, more land appears. Humans live on land. Humans don't live on ice. Humans travel on water all the time. Humans have trouble travelling on ice. Therefore, when ice melts exposing more land and more water, travel is improved, new travel options become available and more land for homes becomes available. Please note that if you live at the equator, this isn't relevant to you.
When the world heats up, there's more summer and less winter. Humans eat things that grow in the ground. More stuff grows in the summer. Less stuff grows in the winter. More summer means more growth. More growth means more to harvest. Last week, I picked the best blueberries in the universe -- because the best blueberries in the universe (not to be confused with blue berries) grow 15 minutes east of here. Seemingly unlimited blueberries, no pesticides, falcons to protect the orchard. But they are only edible for four weeks each summer. Longer summers will mean more blueberries for me to eat. This is true of all agriculture across the entire country. Again, this isn't true at the equator.
When the world heats up, people choose to spend more time outside with their friends and families. Humans like to travel, for adventure and relaxation. While some humans ski and snowboard, a far greater number of humans prefer beaches and walking and hiking and boating in warm weather. Longer springs, summers, and falls, with shorter winters means that more tourists travel to my country. Tourists are arguably the best way to import wealth into a country -- literally and directly taking cash from another country. It also promotes economic growth in domestic tourism as well. Longer tourism seasons means a better country. Again, probably not all true at the equator.
When the world heats up, oceans rise. Oceans destroy shorelines. People living along shorelines can be devasted in other countries. In my country, people living on shorelines have more money, not less. These people have the funds and resources and skills to protect their homes from the ocean. Such threats to these shorelines result in those people actually building up those cities, and hence the country. Since my country is vast and empty, more people building is a great thing. Again, equatorial shorelines tend to be populated by the poor, so it's not the same there.
Instead of trying to argue against the manner in which I choose to present information to you, as though "winning the argument" is a worthwhile objective, you might try looking at the actually point being made. Discrediting the argument wins debates, and elections, but it doesn't help your life. Try assimilating the information first-hand. I've given you second hand. You've asked me for third-hand. But you're still ignoring your own hand.
Or do you think that global warming doesn't help anyone anywhere at all? It's a very diverse range of climates that circle the globe. Thinking that none of them can be improved by a few degrees is, well, short-sighted.
And that's fine with me -- as long as that extinction is more than about 70 years away. Like I said, I'm not interested in supporting your children.
Democracy simply means that my wishes and opinions are respected. It doesn't say how.
And you can go and read all on your own. You don't need me to quote articles, nor to guide you. If you wanted to find the countries that benefit most from global warming, that's a very simple search. If you're too lazy to do it, then you simply aren't interested. I couldn't care less about what you do. I'm not here for you.
I'm actually not so sure. But I do have reason to believe it. I look at things like those miners trapped underground a couple years ago. Within days, humans innovated a way to pull off a rescue that was impossible days early. And it was paid for (in part) by a sunglasses company.
When it's really urgent, it happens. The oil spill went the same way. We were literally pumping crude oil directly into the oceans. That's something that can actually kill 90% of life on Earth within a year. And again, within a few days, people and innovations appeared to mitigate the threat.
In the case, global warming isn't an instant death threat. It's a long-term gradual threat of drastic change. And if temperatures rise by 5 celsius degrees -- which is an absurdly high number that no one but me is suggesting -- it won't actually affect human civilization.
It's be a major struggle. Food will be different. Shorelines will change. Land values will change. But no one will die. Data won't be lost. Electricity will still work. We'll have food -- although there may be more jellyfish and less chicken on the menu. Big deal. Political turmoil, sure, but there's always political turmoil.
So that's why I think that this is the perfect problem to have. We've literally got generations to work around it. And right now, the vast majority of the human population on this planet aren't involved in the problem. So right now is when we need to master it. And we learn to master things by making them bigger. Capitalism works on very large problems very quickly, and ignores anything that isn't mission-critical.
So I say this: let's make this problem as big as it can be. Let's see what happens, and how things change. Let's learn everything there is to know -- enough to know how to do it intentionally on venus, how to reverse it on mars, and how to control it on a per-region basis on earth.
Because if we don't, here's what's going to happen in ten years.
India and Africa are going to appear out of nowhere. Suddenly, probably in 2019 or 2024, literally 2 Billion -- with a capital "b" -- are going to start building factories. When you tell them that those factories pollute, and that they should instead do something else, they are going to turn to you, give you the finger, and say: "100 years ago, you had factories, and a whole industrial age. You built your whole country then. Now it's our turn." And they are going to be correct.
Right here, you have me -- a guy who works from home, and creates 1 bag of trash each week. In ten years, you're going to have all of them behind me. What you want to do is to invent something that's orders of magnitude better than factories, and that happen to also pollute a lot less. What you don't want is to have a much more expensive factory that's marginally better that pollutes a little less -- which is all that you have today.
In short, you don't want cars that are twice as fuel efficient. And you don't want cars that run on electricity like today where we lose 40% of it between generation and the tires, and where we polluted to generate that electricity in the first place. What you want are cars that are so fuel efficient that they can burn orange juice, saliva, and urine.
Otherwise, you're prolonging the inevitable -- which means that you're asking me to ruin my life, to kill your grandchildren instead of your children. That distinction doesn't work for me -- I'm dead in both cases.
Coward.
I won't let you cross the line by comparing anything here to murder. My competing with my neighbour for a job, to the point where he can't afford to feed his family is not my problem -- no matter how much money I have nor how little he has. Welcome to competing for life.
Most scientists agree that my country benefits greatly from global warming. Start reading.
I don't care about future prospected revenue, nor current value. Those are things that matter to you. They do not matter to me. Stop presuming that what's important to you is important to everyone.
It's not about challenges. It's about telling me to put effort into recycling, spend money on recycling, cutting my electrical usage, driving less, driving cars with less performance than I'd like. It's gotten so bad that we have "reduced rolling resistance" tires which save about $100 in fuel over a three year period, and as a result, have less traction. That's pollution vs safety. I choose safety. You don't.
You want to change gradually, you go ahead and do so. Over several decades? Enjoy. I'll be dead, you'll be happy. Until then, I'm not interest in gradual change. Gradual change conflicts with stability. I like stability.
Direct vs. Indirect. I won't let you get away with crossing that line.
In this case, my country and my life and my communities benefit greatly from global warming. You don't get to make me give up my immediate future to save your distant great great grandchildren.
You're just like the others. Direct vs. Indirect.
In this case, my country and my life and my communities benefit greatly from global warming. You don't get to make me give up my immediate future to save your distant great great grandchildren.
I can decide that there's a benefit to my country from climate change. Welcome to making decisions. I'm not the only one to say so either.
And why would you want me to prioritize your goals over mine? I don't want to risk getting hit my the bus to save someone else. I don't want to waste my life to support your children. You're welcome to. I refuse to. Welcome to diversity.
You would suggest that I shouldn't be permitted to live with my own ideals, just because you believe that some of my actions have very indirect minor concerns to you? Welcome to the business world.
I live in a country that will greatly benefit from global warming in terms of agricultural output, tourism, and available land. Additionally, I have no children and want no children and hence don't see any value in making efforts to change a world in which I'm burried.
I also believe that these kinds of struggles are good to have -- pushing civilization into space exploration.
I also believe that first-world countries should explore the true depth of a problem (by growing that problem), in order to encourage and eventually force solutions before the much larger third-world countries encounter the problem. Reducing whatever by 10% in north america means nothing when India gradually adds a billion people to the problem.
You live your way. I won't stop you. But I probably have zero interest in your ways. I don't intend to follow them. Most call this democracy.
I lived in Toronto at the time. We were without power for about 24 hours. We all banded together in a crisis situation to drink the beer while it was still cold.
Local bars and pubs were giving it away free. And it was patio-season too!
And I got to mock all of my friends whose cars were useless only because they didn't know how to manually open their garage doors. Funny.
I'm looking forward to the next power failure.
You did it wrong. I was living in Toronto at the time. Apartment building or not, we just didn't go home. We all banded together to fight a much bigger problem than darkness and stairs. Bars everywhere couldn't keep the beer cold.
Seriously, local bars and pubs were giving away free beer. You've never seen a more instantly-friendly megalopolis.
agreed. although maybe paired with propreoception sensors, to notice when I lift my arm in a defensive gesture as a natural reflex.
air bladders.
Exactly. Hey, it could collect the distributed inner portion into the one region, or it could fill air bladders into cushion pockets, or it could dispense a foaming agent as a one-time injury-preventing mechanism. Whatever.
flexibility, ultra-thin and all that, when not needed. The idea is to make armour appear from nowhere. I don't want to wear a liquid wet-suit while swinging a hammer. I'm fine wearing some thin plastic.
The next time a DIY tool falls, and I block it with my forearm, it'd be swell if the skin senses the impact and immediately hardens/cushions into a bracer/gauntlet to shield my fleshy arm beneath.
Like I said, an expandable trunk doesn't require folding. It needn't be a part of the car. It can just be like a basket out the back.
The whole point about being a part of the car is to be structurally protective. That thing's plastic that I can fold myself. No side-impact anything.
It's totally useles.
It could have just been made shorter. But instead, they added a big empty back section, to lengthen the vehicle for no good reason (let's call it stability), then the entire back useless half folds upward. Hope there was nothing in the trunk buddy.
Thanks for the big empty cavity. That's not helpful.
Probably a very nice golf cart storage system though. Trunk-be-gone!
That's called disengaging. Holding a book and looking at your phone isn't being engaged in the book any more than holding the book was being engaged in the play.
It is possible to just not like something. It's perfectly ok to not like something. Stop giving me the same carp in a different format. I still don't like it.