Don't see too many cars on walking paths and sidewalks. The number of e-bikes on walking paths and sidewalks has skyrocketed. It's almost as if someone decided being a pedestrian is a sinful activity, and that every walkway must now be infested with morons on wheels.

Then let me get started on mobility scooters.

I'd just like them banned from walking paths. At least once a day I'm getting some crazy asshole ringing his bell as he comes flying up behind me. I'm not a fan of any kind of bike on walking paths, but at least the people on regular bikes have more control. The worst are probably older riders who often seem like they're barely in control. And the three wheeled ones take up outrageous amounts of space on smaller paths, regularly forcing other users on some of the narrower paths I frequent to get to the side of the road.

It's hard to imagine, short of motor vehicles, anything more hazardous to a pedestrian than some stupid prick on an e-bike.

I have never used an AI to write code. The code that I write I understand and am able to document.

And it may prove to be the most prophetic of all ST:TOS episodes. Unfortunately, the C-suite is currently jacking off to it. "No, don't let that pointy-eared freak control the guard's mind! And pass my cocaine!"

Hell, my parents retired 3 years ago with 200k in savings. They still haven't touched it and are living solely off of their social security.

It all depends on what you want to do. Their house was paid off years ago, they cook all their meals at home, and rarely spend money on anything that isn't necessary. It just doesn't cost much to keep the lights on and food on the table.

I don't have an issue with using natural land for hunting or recreation. Hunting when bag limits are set and laws are guided by biologists isn't harmful to an area.

Humans are a part of nature. Our structures and creations are not. Us going out and walking in the forest or taking a limited amount of game (basically legally limiting humans to an amount of predation that is sustainable) isn't throwing the ecosystem out of whack.

Antarctica I'd say doesn't really count towards the percentage total. You'd need 30% per region, not 30% of all the land on the planet with a large percentage of that being just the land that isn't of human use.

Antarctica is damned near uninhabitable. Very little plant life and the animal life is relegated to coastal semi-aquatic animals. The interior is devoid of complex life.

Of course in global warming keeps up in a few thousand years it might be a great place to live - with everyone claiming to have "set aside" the nearly uninhabitable areas at the equator :).

Why should one have to forfeit it? We pay taxes for a reason. Any land that isn't already publicly owned and set aside for this purpose could be purchased from the current owners willingly (if they don't want to sell, buy equivalent acreage from someone who does).

Taxes are literally the way for all of us to collectively do things that it would be too financially painful to do individually.

It says 30% for "nature" - not 30% that isn't urbanized parking lot. The remaining 70% can be all sorts of utilized stuff that isn't really natural. EG farming takes up a lot of space. Its not natural, but I don't think anyone is too put off by a corn field or a peach orchard visually.

I mean in the US, the government already owns about 28% of all the land - most of that largely undeveloped. Its not really that hard to just say "keep that publicly owned land public and don't build anything on it". Or at least keep building to a minimum (eg hiking trails with an occasional bathroom along the way).

Climate change will render all of that moot. It is the one thing that not even bloviating halfwits can alter. You see, people are morons.

Just remember that the laws of physics don't give a fuck, and will crush us with as much ease and as little concern as a tidal wave crushing an ant.

That we imagine we can alter physics by denial is a sign of what an utterly idiotic species we are.

The shut down their plants as a result of the scare of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, this is now seen as a mistake but at the time the big worry was escaping radiation.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest her statement was fair and accurate.

please continue to reduce use of coal in spite of some other countries trying to burn more. Future generations will thank you.