Yes. But world exploration tend to happen on horizontal.

Also additional height is often used as a way to store alternative dimensions (like nether or end). As there’s is not another built in way to do so.

Anyway it would me nice to have the horizontal extension. But at this point is not a planned feature and it would break a lot of things, so it’s not something that Luanti would likely ever have.

I’ve always thought about the period thing. For some people the pain can be very debilitating.

I’ve always assume that they mostly use hormonal birth control to reduce or control it. But I really don’t know.

Last reply, after blocking your because your insult.

Population control do not require any violent measure.

It can be as simple as making people lives better, as it has been proven that populations with higher life quality have less children. Then achieving the objective of having a lesser global population .

Discussion ends here as you have been blocked.

Of course. I’ve explored bigger extensions of terrain in Minecraft.

Other example, a server like 2b2t would be impossible in Luanti. Or any big multiplayer server.

Most likely they never recognized that they fucked up. It was always other person fault.

How familiar are you with the concept of civil war?

If he would go to bomb an American city a civil war will start. Then they authority to stop him or not will rely on the winner of the war.

I still enjoy music made in the XVII century, so I suppose you are right.

That’s the top pc you can buy nowadays, yes. Best consumer grade cpu and gpu, the rest of the specs are on par. Nice build.

It’s not the systems alone. It’s the multiplication of systems per number of humans.

Too many humans even with paleolithic lifestyle will fuck up the environment anyway.

We need to find a balance, what systems we do we want to live in and how many humans can that system accommodate.

Petition?

No, no, they should be legally enforced to do so.

NASA is such a gift to the world.

Let’s hope it can survive this administration.

Because it reads more like advertisement of a paid product than news.

You can be rewarded with the honor of paying a monthly subscription.

Once again the survival of the species is not on the line because of that.

That’s just an excuse you are making to justify a hate that has other roots.

Prove is in the complete disregard of proposed solutions: remote work, decentralized offices, traffic reduction instead of complete suppression, population reduction… And apparently disregard for other forms of pollution that could be reduced or eliminated instead, for instance, international traveling, or traveling at all, maybe people living in cities should never visit nature or different places, that travel will destroy the world!

not everyone have to live the way you enjoy living. Diversity is good.

I could say. Because I know international travel is polluting and I don’t like it let’s put a global ban on international traveling. No one is allow to travel. Probably people who enjoy traveling (you might be among them) will be furious against me and it would be dictator like from me trying to take that away from them.

No. Environment should never be a excuse to have a dictator like mindset of just depriving people of their lifestyles. That will be fight against, and people fighting that away would be on the right side of story.

Once again, we are a clever species. Surely we can find a way to make diverse lifestyles work. I completely disagree with your radical posture that that lifestyle is imposible to have without human extinction. You completely disregard that things like remote work or decentralized offices exist. The solutions already exist. It would be matter of expanding them to reduce the amount of people needing daily commute.

Now even you say all suburbia have to go too. That’s type of close-minded extremism should never be the beam that guides the future of humankind. It would be a sad future. Let people be free to live in suburbia if they want, let people to life in a rural area if they want. At this point the only think that’s not a valid life choice here is your intention to oppress everyone into the only lifestyle you consider “valid”.

And I’m pretty sure that the environment is nothing but a excuse here. It would be nice to disclose the true reasons for the hate towards people who doesn’t live in cities.

In spanish it could be translated as “comportarse”

Yo me comporto Tú te comportas Ella se comporta Nosotros nos comportamos Vosotros os comportáis Ellos se comportan.

I think they are called reflexive verbs. Because they have to be conjugated with reflexive pronouns.

If not it would be.

Yo comporto Tu comportas Ella comporta …

Which sounds weird as hell. So I suppose you are right also in Spanish.

You can try both, see what you like.

I still like Minecraft Java more than Luanti.

My main grip with Luanti is world size. You can totally get to the world end in a few hours. I like the infinity of Minecraft.

I said in other comment. I’m not in the US, I’m in europe we have one of the best train networks of the world. Public transport is funded by the government so is cheaper, even completely free in some cases.

People living in rural areas still chose cars while they have the free will to do so.

If as a species we cannot find the way to make that work there’s no incentive for us to keep trying. Luckily I’m sure it’s possible, that people say it’s not just because propaganda (as I said mostly because the voting split rural/urban). We have achieve harder things as a species. Surely we can have people in rural areas still using cars (electric cars for instance) without dooming humankind to extinction.

No. I think humanity should aim for absolutely every single human in every country in every single region, urban or rural could have a level of life quality comparable to what’s consider middle-high income level in USA/Europe.

If we cannot achieve that we’d better give up as an intelligent species and leave room for que squids to try.

This seems interesting because they did some research in the actual mechanism that could create a cause-effect relation. Still need to be repeated to justify legal changes but that’s a good start.

Much better than these “correlation” studies that say nothing. Like the ones saying “people who doesn’t drink any alcohol die sooner that people who drink a cup of wine each day”, that’s totally faulty for a lot of evident reasons. And until now most artificial sweeteners studies were like that “people who use artificial sweeteners tend to have more health issues”, like with the drink is reasonable to assume and consider that people who do such dietary changes is more likely to already have an underlying health issue that they are trying to cope with and it’s obviously more in risk that healthy people that doesn’t feel the need to control their diet.

As I said this study seems a little more promising as they did research on the actual mechanisms on which the health issues may happen. I hope it gets repeated enough times and, if needed, the product would be banned or properly labeled.