I'm sure it does nothing, but every time DPD/other fucks up a delivery by failing to even ring the bell and says "we missed you", I call up their customer service and waste their time complaining about the small amount of time allowed per package delivery.
I ask for drivers to be allowed more time. It's not entirely their fault (but some seemingly have no situational awareness).
Gatling turret is good. The meta weapons (breaker+redeemer) are good and unlockable early.
Incendiary mines are fun and effective at killing bugs and friendlies (I've had many squadmates walk into my mines and kill themselves).
Does this normally work? They removed support for location based reminders over a year ago, so that might be why it's struggling so much. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/06/the-google-assistant-is-losing-location-reminders-one-of-its-best-features/
Though last time I tried assistant responded "I'm sorry I can't set location based reminders anymore". Either they've removed that warning, or this image is over a year old...
In this context (IIRC) smart means "if this zip contains a single folder with contents, directly extract that folder, but if the zip contains files and/or folders, extract all that to a new folder named the same as the zip file".
Some people zip folders while some people zip the files in a folder. Smart extraction just handles both automatically.
You really are an Unethical Life Tip Pro.
While I'd like to think the wealthiest would do something that would benefit everyone, they can just build walls, or move to higher ground.
Your take on climate change makes me more worried. Sure, I will probably be fine, but how many innocent people around the world will die until we've done enough to see the climate improving?
How horrible is the world going to be to inhabit if the Gulf Stream collapses? Or other major climate disruptions occur?
I don't doubt the human race will survive, but why do we have to experience the pain before committing to fixing the problem?
Is it 100% optional? Are there no dietary conditions that require eating meat? Even if it is optional, I only said that expecting everyone to change is unrealistic, not that it's impossible.
How much do you expect people to sacrifice? If you give up eating meat can you fly to go on vacation? Or are people expected to give up everything in the name of the climate while billionaires jet around and corporations expell endless emissions?
Also, your comparison to mercenaries is bad. If military operations are required for survival (like eating) then why would the nation feel guilty? If the mercenaries say "yes we will only defend that military base and we will not kill everyone in the nearby school" and then they go and kill everyone in the school, why wouldn't they be blamed for not following their orders?
Sure, but to get to a plant-based diet that meets the dietary and taste needs to replace a meat-based diet, takes an initial investment of time that some people may not be able to spare.
I'm not saying a matching diet will be more expensive, but the cost (mainly time) of changing diets is an investment some may be unable to afford. If there was a lot of social support for the working poor to change diets, sure, but to say changing diets is something that won't take more time because the buying of produce and active cooking takes the same time is misleading.
If only there was some kind of carbon tax that took from the profits of polluting companies!
People could just stop what? Eating?
Buying meat? Is becoming vegetarian not more expensive in terms of time and money for someone who has a meat diet? Many people do not have the money or luxury to make such a change?
Expecting everyone to become vegetarian is unrealistic. If you're buying meat and all companies you can choose to buy meat from are making the same carbon neutral "commitments", it's not like you can choose the company that will actually follow through.
But anyway, blaming people for the depravity of companies is also not going to fix anything.
I mean, many (several?) sites tried optional subscriptions where you pay to get rid of ads, but that doesn't seem to have worked. Judging by the fact that most sites that have subscriptions instead of ads use pay walls.
People have come to expect free access, so if you can easily use an ad blocker, why would you choose to pay to remove the ads that a blocker removes for free.