4 ms·
1. They last a long time has zero significance because the content is outdated in a year or less. 2. You don't need studies to know the difference between a na
by marvindanig 5y ago
1. They last a long time has zero significance because the content is outdated in a year or less.
2. You don't need studies to know the difference between a natural habitat and cultivated land. And that the former is non-renewable.
It looks like this comment is coming from one of those pulp-farming ambassadors spreading misinformation/whataboutism. This happens every time when a case for online publishing with direct payments to authors is put forward. Ha!
- detaro 5y agoa first-edition copy of this book would still be a worthwhile read.
- marvindanig 5y agoYeah, a Github repository can do that easily. As if high karma, twisted logic would help you cut it. To the moderators: Dang, please un-flag my previous comments because it is absolutely spot-on and these dead-tree fanatics are suppressing my voice for no reason other than control/hate.
- cinntaile 5y ago1. This isn't a fast moving web framework, the underlying mathematics are forever. But maybe the code implementation gets outdated after a couple of years. 2. You need something to base your opinion on though, preferably peer-reviewed scientific studies. You read way too much into my comment.
- marvindanig 5y agoYou need a peer-reviewed research to know the difference between natural habitat and cultivated land?
- cinntaile 5y agoI refer to my original comment, not the one where you moved the goal posts. Environmental impact is of course much more than just the difference between cultivated land and natural habitat, almost everything we as humans do has an impact on the natural habitat.