There is a house in Maine with a couple.

Thanks for sharing.

So much emotion in such a simple image. I feel storm clouds rolling across an evening sky. The smell of rain and that tinge of ozone telling you that there's going to be lightning roiling through the storm. Excellent work, I love it.

This is beautiful. My brain develops different impressions the longer I look. Thank you for sharing.

I thought this was on the metal casting sub, excellent work.

The detail is amazing. Thank you for sharing.

Interesting how you go from 'balancing' to trolling.

Lmao, yes, wasting thousands to recover damages amounting to less than ten dollars is a real solution. Enjoy trying to create a police state where they can just collect those deemed undesirable.

Then get the dude help, not arrest him. I don't understand why you're trying so hard to make this arr a st seem like it was justified, it's a waste of resources. There are a thousand better ways to get that individual help. You are doing him more harm by processing him on petty theft charges for dollars, single digits, of merchandise. Additional bullshit charges on his record isn't going to help him get a job or pass a background check. This isn't the police being altruistic, they would have just paid for his chips if they were.

Edit: a word

Arresting homeless folks is not the way to address the issue. I can't get behind that mentality. I'm sorry, have a wonderful day.

We don't need to arrest someone for such a paltry amount, and to do so is just silly and a waste of time and resources. Exponentially more is going to be spent on trial and housing for this individual. How many days of incarceration is worth, what, ten dollars? People should not be arrested and imprisoned for a crime whose value is single digits that involved no violence or threat of violence. The guy ate some chips, that were stolen by someone else. He isn't a criminal mastermind or a danger to the public, the arrest was excessive and unnecessary based on the alleged crime committed.

Do you believe a couple of bags of chips is worth the cost of housing and trial?

I really like this. The smoothness of the central animation makes the stuttering of the peripheral animations become a rhythm that the center figure is dancing to. Amazing work.

You're missing the point. Yes, those materials may be naturally occurring in the earth's crust, but so is carbon. We don't know the effects of this, and it should be studied way before we just allow them to dump tons of new pollution into the atmosphere. The current method is also exceptionally wasteful, I don't understand the waving away of people's concerns. These issues need to be addressed now, not when they become disasters.

When that satellite burns up, those resources are just wasted. We need a real plan to deal with space junk. Burning our waste is part of what put us in this mess. It needs to stop being the default solution. Is the internet so vital that we should continue the practices that put us in the environmental mess we find ourselves in currently?

Fossil fuel consumption is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed, I am saying we need to be watchful of new waste and wasteful practices. I don't want my grandchildren asking me why we let them poison the sky.

I wish I knew how to properly express my concerns. I live in a state whose fish are poisoned with mercury from the logging industry. There are areas where landfills poisoned the ground. Whole towns smell like rotten eggs because the mills have poisoned the air and water. Everyone let it happen because other issues seemed more pressing. Now the mills are dead or dying, the landfills are leaking, and those responsible are long gone or already rich enough to not care. We are losing trees to invasive species and diseases because folks and companies have more pressing issues.

Do you remember carbon credits? Incentives to try to encourage carbon reduction? When you offset pollution with another form of pollution, you haven't reduced pollution, just moved the source. We shouldn't ignore one source of pollution for another because we support one industry over the other. We should be reducing all pollution as much as possible, not adding new sources and types of pollution.

This opinion shows little concern for the environment or the future impacts on the environment from new technologies. You want to ignore potential issues because there are already issues. Compounding the problem will never fix it, and adding more trash burning isn't a fix. Prevention of future pollution should be as important as stopping current pollution, otherwise what is the point?

Ok, but again, that issue doesn't negate the possible environmental impacts of burning off tons of metal in the atmosphere by a different industry. Does SpaceX get a pass because coal companies are bad? We should be limiting this type of waste and pollution, not trying to wave it away because a different industry is worse.

There are more impacts on the environment than just climate change. Burning off tons of metal to be washed down into our water sources is probably something that should be discussed and not waved away because coal plants contribute to another problem.

Coal plants burn aluminum?

I'd hang it as a tapestry.

I can't properly express what it is I like about this piece, but I like it a lot.

Who pooped in your cheerios? Are you really this upset that people are criticizing a feature that failed?

Honestly breathtaking. How long did it take you?

Edit: Yeah, your replies appear to be getting deleted I'll check out your profile. Thanks for replying.

Read it aloud. It doesn't make sense as written. It's also being downvoted because it's an unrelated issue. Most arguments for manufacturer responsibility that I've seen revolve around advertising and creating a certain image.

Please provide any evidence supporting your opinion. You've been using your opinion as fact to try to shift blame onto the servers and haven't provided anything other than your opinion to support it. You're now trying to compare it to food handling laws, which are entirely different and exist for entirely different reasons. They are only related in this context because they put liability on the business and not the customer. You're consuming the food with the expectation that it will be prepared properly. This person didn't die from consumption. What do you think the expectation is when consuming alcohol? I assume most understand that it is an intoxicating substance. The consumption of which will make you impaired, and you should not operate a motor vehicle.

This case is like taking seafood home from a restaurant and leaving it on your counter overnight, then suing the restaurant because you got sick eating it for breakfast. Yes, there is a possibility the restaurant is at fault, but your actions are what led to unsafe conditions. The existence of food handling laws does not negate your responsibility for your actions. You created unsafe conditions, and you then ate that food most would agree is unsafe. This person consumed a substance they knew, or at the very least most people recognize would lead to impairment and still got behind the wheel. They didn't have a proper plan or didn't follow it. That isn't the fault of the servers, though according to the suit it is.