Time to move to fish
Add a circle for people who cant (or wont) atop that too, just to be sure.
what would you have instead?

?
penguins
and secret ufo bases
2020s
... "both sides"...?
Why concrete?
It's energy intensive (~& polluting), unhealthy, and does not last.
Various other options are available now. Lime hempcrete, and various myco-based solutions, for a couple examples.
With various suppressed technologies, if de-secreted and availed, we could even be building giant forest arcologies, and even linking them up to create vast forest arcologyscapes, increasing the carrying capacity of earth into the hundreds of trillions. Not saying we should, just saying we could, and that we have so much headroom without these crooks, these rentiers, seeking to keep others down just to maintain their power over others, even if it means making themselves worse off than what they could be in real terms, in egalitarian freedom and abundance.
Also, I hear there are already sufficient number of empty housing to house all the homeless... but the hoarders do not want to avail that for good use. They want to remain complicit in the manufactured scarcity to increase their return on investment, keeping the bubble growing.
Could have swore that was going to say "worse than Hitler".
Imagine USA gets a system where people vote for what they want, not merely against who they don't want.
I've won when everybody gets the principles of free software philosophy, along with other essential freedoms, free roaming, free speech, free assembly, free press, free energy, free healthcare, etc.
It's the freedom.
Free to use, study, share, change.
The Free Software Definition
The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions about subtle issues. See the History section below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free software.
The four essential freedoms
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1]
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.
In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code we plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of. For instance, consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to handle some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B are free. However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B, only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.
data dump flood to hide the pertinent stuff.
like dumping a very large bale of hay on the needle.
Digit
0 post score0 comment score
I willingly paid (iirc) more than that, for a pro copy of suse, and a fsf membership.
Have since paid more for free software than I ever did for proprietary.
It's the freedom.
Worth investing in.
For each and all, (self included).
I gave the money freely.