-288 well then, lets go

But you can't stop growing. Its like breathing, you can't stop breathing. You can hold your breath but that isn't for long. The same thing with your growth. I can calculate the position and velocity of every particle in the universe in a moment and thus can predict the future. See also, Laplace's Demon

Player @F41TH has been banned for 31557600000 seconds. Reason: Corporate.

-290 im a spammer...

You end up being dissected by the government trying to find out why you are glowing. I can suck anything.

-292 it was during the age of the old forum

Player @F41TH has been banned for 57666 eternities. Reason: True claims.

Player @F41TH has been banned for a month. Reason: Bad grammar.

-294 remember when this was positive? That was several years ago.

But anything that is loved by you is instantly wiped from the universe. I can turn into a supermassive black hole

Player @F41TH has been banned for a week. Reason: Drinking water, see rules ====\> Rules

Vulcan Hornet Battle Mode. Everyone has hornet and vulcan

wait so who is @Mafs devil?

less than a week to rank to wo1 from recruit, casual playing

I would have to disagree. I commonly see battles with people with 6000 7000 GS, one notable example was a player with dictator mk7 rail mk7. It is very annoying playing against these people.

not really in the lower ranks

yes it is

who is poems? btw, put me down as trooller

ok... where do i start... That article is wrong. While its true that nature has a cycle of warm and cool phases, the significant human impact can lead to unintended results. Since you are hiding behind that article and using that as your arguement, let's debunk this article. First off, lets look at the graph, their first reason and evidence: Ok, so lets examine this graph. We see that the graph is plotting the year vs the concentration of oxygen18, our only tool in measuring temperature. This is taken at one location, GISP2. Note the scale on the side. It goes from -.353 to -.343. This is incredibly small. Second, there is an error. The ice core gave information only till 1850. Now, the description from the article: This isn't accurate. The chart is of the levels of oxygen18, the only but not very accurate way of measuring temperature in precipitation. There is another problem; The map is eurocentric. Also, we dont get good indications of timespans. However, this chart looks like its made to confuse, mislead, and decieve people with its shading, unorganized data, circles and vague notations. Furthermore, if the chart is accurate for the modern times, the modern warm age shows the steepest slope so far, which happens to coincide with the spread of the industrial revolution. The article then goes on to make some unrelated and ignorant claims This is simply not the case, as the american civil war happened on an uptick, and the Mongol invasion of Europe happened on a general decline. This can be clearly called an international war and thus disproves the first point of the author, which impacts credibility. This also completely ignores Asia and largely ignores Africa and America pre-colonization. Also, the author then suggests that he would focus on a specific period of 172 years, which the next graph does not. Also, the circle is not 172 years, but we'll let him off the hook for now. Next, lets look at this graph: So, lets immediately notice the lack of units on the vertical axis. Lets also note that its a logarithmic scale. In addition, lets note the inconsistency in the diagram. Let's note that this seems to be marked by the guy writing the article, not the institute, who's job is to basically be a large data archive. Lets analyze this graph. There is a peak at ~1320, then a drop, then another peak soon after, completely unnoticed. The apparent peak at about 1492 isn't really significant. Furthermore, what connection can this have with climate change? From this point on, the author goes on to explain and make a decent arguement about cycles in finance, not focusing on the important part, proving a connection between this financial cycle and climate. The fundamental problem with this is that there is a fundamentally different economy now than back during 1300s to 1700s. The economy now is consisting of large corporations and conglomerates. Back then, it was very different. The peasants, merchants, and nobles made up the economy back then. This is simply wrong. There is no evidence that supports this. Also, correlation does not mean causation. If they were correlated, this doesn't mean the the planetary alignments cause this. Furthermore, its not even correlated. Its a sheer coincidence, and not a good one either. Case in point, the Great Depression. Occuring due to the collapse of the stock market on October 1929 and lasting pretty much until WW2 sparked a resurgence in the economy, this is the most devastating depression in American history. There was also a similar situation in Europe, especially in Germany, which found itself economically wreaked by WW1 and in massive debt, those circumstances causing the Germans to get desperate enough to allow Hitler to rise to power. There is also the depressed markets in Communist China and the USSR during the Cultural Revolution and the Cold War, in the form of famines. These are very major events that happened in the middle of the cycle, therefore, the cycle does not really hold true. In fact, this cycle will not be applicable to modern day life, due to globalization. But this is besides the point. The article then goes on to analyze financial events, missing some very important ones that dont follow the cycle. Let me summarize my analysis of the article with this. There is little causation between finance and climate. In fact, the little ice age is the only real case where climate was the main cause of financial and political turmoil. Furthermore, this is all done in the time period before the industrial revolution, before humans started release significant amounts of CO2 from sources found underground. Before the industrial revolution, humanity's main source of fuel was wood. Burning wood is a carbon neutral process, since that wood came from a tree which is made of carbon that was initially in the atmosphere. Wood is a biofuel. Coal is not. Coal and other fossil fuels is carbon trapped underground, not able to contribute to climate change until it is burnt. The time period mainly discussed in the article was up to 1850, no evidence other than circumstantial evidence from a time period between 1850 - present was brought up. The economy for much of the time period discussed in the article was largely dependent on agriculture, but modern economics is largely dependent on industry and finance, with agriculture being affected by climate, and industry and finance not affected by climate. Thus, the articles claims simply cannot apply to the present day. Now to prove that climate change is real, lets first define climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.[Oxford Dictionary] Now, a long period is several years to a decade. Climate is essentially an average of the weather, and it is over years because then the average is of about a thousand days of weather. This is to provide a more accurate measurement so that an outlier does not really affect the data, giving an accurate idea of the general weather in an area. A coldest day on record doesnt really have much effect on the climate, compared to a really hot summer. Its a different scale. Now the effects of climate change can mislead people who dont understand the difference between climate and weather. Climate change causes the weather to be more extreme, due to the oceans being warmer, more water evaporating, and thus more and bigger storms form. Climate change is also a global phenomenon, not a local one. You cannot draw conclusions on global climate with just the local weather, you must consider weather all across the world. So a cold snap in America could mean nothing on the global scale because you aren't considering that heat wave in Australia. Climate change is terrifying because we might be wrong about it, as we have been before. However, when we're wrong about mother Nature, its not in us overestimating mother Nature, its in us underestimating her. For example, the US was conducting some high altitude nuclear tests and set one off at 400 km above the Earth, seeing what effect it could have on the Van Allen belts. They were initially disappointed by the results, not realizing that this would cause the Van Allen belts to expand and lead to the failure of 6 satellites. A much more common example is when residents dont evacuate before a hurricane, leading to a big loss of life. It is also evident even this year, when airport security proved ineffective at stopping the coronavirus at the border, or the second wave that hit Arizona after the governor prematurely ended the lockdown. Furthermore, the evidence of climate change is undeniable. 19 of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, with 1998 being the exception. Glaciers and ice caps are melting. We have more hurricanes, with 2020 recently beating the record for the earliest day for three named tropical storms to form. We do not want to wait till its too late. Besides, the world cannot stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow. Its a gradual process, one that will require some countries to completely redo their economy. If we don't start changing now, the outcome will effectively be suicide. We might be wiped out in the next 200 years by some giant asteroid or Yellowstone, but we shouldn't rely on that. If we get wiped out by climate change, it would be entirely our fault, because nature is a delicate system and we are continuously throwing wrenches into it. At some point, its gonna snap, and when that happens, we're dead. We're gonna need to plan out an effective solution to this problem if we want to continue living on a green paradise and not a flooded, barren place. For Maf and other forum mods. I dont think this guy is trolling, i think he genuinely believes that climate change is a hoax.

nope, look at his most recent post: Im in the process of debunking the article piece by piece

But we are already buying depleted uranium for railgun, this way, we dont buy depleted uranium, we just get it

uh actually... You're the devil. I'm the angel. Period.

I'm afraid I must support the ducks, I am a high ranking member of the duck army and the religious leader of the religion of the holy electron, the religion of the ducks. We will be taking over the world, and there is nothing that can stop us. You have discovered us preparing for the great war against the geese, therefore, you must be silenced...

I was unable to work for a month afterwards. It is a very bad experience, 3 days of very high fever, a headache that didn't go away, and then 2 weeks of having to cook for the whole family because everyone else got sick. And then the stress of the immense workload that my school gives, thinking that we have nothing better to do than to work all day. I strongly do not recommend getting coronavirus. Stay safe.

I would say 14 because around 12, children would enter puberty and at that point, would start to become self sufficient. The age of puberty would rise with decreasing food supplies, but it is not of much matter, because at that point, the oldest would be close to their thirties. The problem is that cities would probably become hazardous, and humanity would be set back to the neolithic age, but would be able to catch up much more rapidly. One would wonder what caused the older population to die in such a strange manner. There would be tribes of friends, now depending on each other. They would be forced to mature. The younger ones would probably die, and the human population would be reduced to 9/10 - to 14 year olds that are mature enough to sustain themselves. There would be a struggle, but if played right, humanity can still survive. The culture would mostly die, but still survive through media like oral stories and books. This being said, 14-16 years old as a cutoff would be much better. At that age, a much bigger percent of the population would be able to survive, and people could establish temporary governments and coordinate much more effectively. This gives humanity a much better chance at survival. It is possible for the age 12-14, but much more likely for 14-16.