I demand to speak with nature’s manager.
Okay got some good ones near my park
This tells a story of someone taking vengeance on the birds.
This feels like a horror story for some reason
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Birds 2 - No More Birds
“There is nothing”
Are they real morons or fantastic trolls?
Definitely trolls.
Last time I saw this I concluded it’s locals leaving 1 Star reviews to lessen tourists visiting these spots.
I respect that
Gotta shoot out the window a couple times per year to keep the rent low
You wish. Take, as a shining beacon of wisdom, the current US president - he thinks Canada’s wildfires are to blame on them not raking the twigs from between the trees.
Nah that’s just him reflexively victim blaming, ’cause he’s a rapist.
Australian Aboriginal nations actually do this. They use cold fire to burn the underbrush, while leaving the trees intact. It’s hot enough to burn up the twigs, but not hot enough to harm the trees. It reduces the chance of dangerous fires, and it’s been going on for so long, many plants have evolved to require fire as part of their life cycle.
I don’t think this is really as settled or clear as you’re making out.
The cold or cool fire you’re talking about just means they burn every year, there’s less fuel load so the fire burns out before larger trees have time to burn.
Traditionally they weren’t doing this out of care for the land, it just makes hunting far easier - kangaroos like to eat the new shoots after a fire, and it’s easier to chase / throw things at them if there’s thinner underbrush.
Land management organisations have been making informed decisions about controlled burns since forever. They consider all the factors, like fuel load, weather, risks to property, and input from community groups including indigenous Australians.
It’s controversial because these controlled burns often become uncontrolled fires.
Things have changed since this type of land management was a thing. Notably people have houses now which they prefer not to be burned down.
Finally:
many plants have evolved to require fire as part of their life cycle.
This is confirmation bias. What happened to the plant species that were vulnerable to fire?
just means they burn every year, there’s less fuel load so the fire burns out before larger trees have time to burn.
There are several techniques which control traditional burning temperature. They’re done at a time of year when the air and soil are only slightly damp, to produce the best temperature, and the conditions on the day are assessed, including the health of the soil. An experienced Elder can tell how hot a fire will burn just from holding a clump of dirt. That’s because of the advanced science which these cultures have honed over thousands of years. The burning is also done in a mosaic pattern, a little piece at a time, so the geographical size is controlled and any changes in conditions can be responded to. And before the full burn begins, Elders will make some smoke to warn the animals that a burn is coming. Insects will climb to the treetops, because evolution has taught them it’s safe up there.
Oh gee, wow… burn off when it’s not summer. Amazing science. We better tell these university dumb dumbs.
I’m curious how they managed to achieve a mosaic pattern with no fire breaks or water or anything really to control where the fire burns.
If you believe any of that I can’t help you mate.
Notably people have houses now which they prefer not to be burned down.
Tough shit, don’t build houses in disaster zones. (Flood plains, slide zones, Florida, dry pine forests)
This is confirmation bias
Literally not what that means. Plants, entire ecosystems, evolved to depend on a rhythm of burns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte
LOL.
Plenty of houses in Australia have been burned which are not in “disaster” zones. Every property has a bushfire rating which determines required mitigation. Its a genuine risk in many suburbs.
Also, that’s exactly what confirmation bias means. In making an assertion that ecosystems evolved to depend on regular burning, you’re ignoring all the species which became extinct in prehistory due to regular burning.
The type of land managment practices in use in 18th century Australia are about as useful as the farming practices from that era.
Any suggestion that we should disregard the last 100 years of land management science, in favor if lighting up the nearest bush every other month, is just as absurd as it sounds.
I think you mean survivor bias, not confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is when you only remember things that reinforce the way you think or believe, like only remembering the bad things that happen to you on Mondays and not the good or the bad on other days. I don’t know what fallacy you think you’re invoking but it’s not that one.
only remember things that reinforce the way you think or believe
If you want to maintain the belief that Aboriginals are magical managers of the natural environment, you have to forget all of the species that disappeared when they arrived.
After 60,000 years of man-made fires, the only species left are those which were resistant, or could adapt. To consider those remaining species and conclude that native bushland benefits from regular fire is the textbook definition of a cognitive bias, because you have to disregard all the species which no longer exist.
In making an assertion that ecosystems evolved to depend on regular burning, you’re ignoring all the species which became extinct in prehistory due to regular burning.
That’s how evolution works. That part of it is called natural selection.
Any suggestion that we should disregard the last 100 years of land management science, in favor if lighting up the nearest bush every other month, is just as absurd as it sounds.
That’s not an accurate description of Indigenous fire science at all. I recommend learning the science before you try to critique it. But you are right that European primitives have only been studying the ecosystem for 100 years. They’ve been messing stuff up for 1/600 of the time Aboriginal scientists have been collecting measurements.
Its not “natural selection” when people are lighting fires and destroying the native flora and fauna.
Indigenous fire “science” is just like natural “medicine” - any that can withstand scrutiny is just “fire science”.
I can tell you don’t know the first thing about the practices you’re trying to describe.
One of us sure doesnt.
Yes Indigenous land stewardship practices altered the environment and undoubtedly some species were losers and were extirpated. However at a landscape scale, over thousands and thousands of years, the ecology adapted and is most healthy when these practices are applied.
Indigenous peoples see themselves as part of the land not above, so the practices are reciprocal, not exploitative. In this way they achieved sustainability and endured for thousands and thousands of years, whereas colonizers trying to force practices used in Europe have destroyed the ecology in a few hundred years.
Calling Indigenous lands wilderness is incorrect, lands were managed. It’s just harder to justify stealing land when you admit that. Same as calling Indigenous peoples hunter gathers when they had sophisticated agricultural practices.
“I read a bunch of sarcastic posts and I am gullible.”
Once again, the curse of /
rc/Funny rears its ugly head.The R in your r/ being crossed out confused the hell out of me. I was trying to work out what language that letter came from
My faith in humanity is not high enough for me to agree with you.
I used to leave reviews on bus stops while waiting. Like “This one has a bench! A+!“ or “homeless guy shitting here, do not recommend”
Definitely trolling.
A big chunk of the people on this platform have no concept of satire.
i’ll go with fantastic morons please
Went there and had a fight with Cindy she said she was leaving fucking bitch
One star
Just to clarify - Cindy’s a local cougar
She has some amazing DD-cups btw
I always assume these types of reviews are jokes, because the alternative, that they’re serious, is sort of insulting to me as a member of the same species as the person who wrote it.
I don’t hate joke reviews, but I don’t like when the overall rating itself is affected by the joke ratings.
I post a lot of jokey, satirical, and unhinged reviews on google maps. One time I wrote an entire rap song about a taco bell and left that as a review.
Regardless of the content of the review text, I’m giving places 5 stars - unless they’re actually bad and deserve less.
I do agree, its one thing to make a joke, but when that joke has capacity to evolve into something serious - then it is a problem.
Beach near me.
I once went on a short hike in the summer, and even though it was hot and sunny outside my body kept getting wet? My hand got slippery which made my cane hard to hold, and I smelled bad after that! Don’t hike here, they fuck with you!
Clearly a conspiracy! They must be putting chemicals in the air!
It’s the chemtrails. 🤓
Oh, that’s genius.
5 stars are often just as silly. 5-star at a restaurant be like “We all had food poisoning the next day but the service was great! Food out fast.”
“Fantastic food and very friendly staff. One of the best places we ever ate” - 3 stars
“The food quickly left our bodies, making room for more food! 5 stars!”
One star reviews are hilarious in general.
“Joe Schmo’s pizza”
Excellent pizza, Joe is warm and welcoming, very clean tables and fantastic service. However, they forgot to add Canadian bacon :(
1/5 stars
I look at 1 star reviews just to get a sense of if idiots hate a thing, or normal, rational people had real issues. If it’s just idiots, it usually pushes me more towards the thing.
I tend to ignore 5 star reviews, and read 1 and 4 star reviews.
The 1 star, for the reason you mentioned, and the 4 star because they tend to be more from people who have actual issues that keep it from being 5 star, but aren’t petty and saying “everything sucks” because they felt like their waiter was 15 seconds late on a refill.
If I see enough 1-stars saying the thing breaks quickly, etc. I pay attention to them. Also, the ones that say, “I should have paid more attention to the poor reviews.”
Item was exactly what I needed but arrived 1 day late.
1/5 stars.
(Vendor doesn’t control shipping)
" Painful when inserted into rectum, 1/5 stars"
That’s a legit complaint though
Not for a toilet brush
It was for a framing hammer.
Also there was a massive storm that just went through the area that disrupted a lot of services.
I haven’t been here myself yet but I’ve heard bad things about it. 1/5 stars
Funniest nature review I ever saw was:
5 Star waterfall - “never been”
“Looks good on the photos”
I decided to search my local trails to see if I could find any good one star reviews. Nothing as good as these, but I did find a guy giving bad ratings to try to reduce the crowds, who said he paid $700 for parking and broke both knees.
Edit: also found a 1 star review of a nearby lake that says “bro it’s just water”
Maybe they should add cherry flavor to it.
Or bubbles. Everyone likes bubbles.
On my city’s nature trails there are signs on the entrance of unofficial paths in the woods warning people that the ground could be uneven and slippery.
How pathetic have we become as a species that we can’t even let someone walk in the woods without fearing a lawsuit?
Edit: I even remember being told by an employee at Costco to walk the long way through a long empty queue instead of simply going over or under the chain because “I could have hurt myself” doing so. Overprotective nonsense like that makes me want to live in a cabin in the woods away from everyone.
American litigiousness is a direct result of the missing safety net.
A lot fewer people would sue if their slip didn’t land them five to seven figures in debt, make them unable to work, and completely fuck up their finances
Until 2023 there was a tree in a national park near me that was 65m tall, and you could climb to the top because there were rebar climbing pins in the tree. Not a ladder, as such, but just steel pins sticking out from the trunk about 2 feet apart, spiralling up the tree at an 80 degree angle. There was no safety net, no safety line, no harness, no gates. It was not ‘closed’ during major storms, it was just assumed nobody would climb in one. You could just drive up, and start climbing in thongs and a bintang singlet during a thunderstorm if you wanted to.
Sadly this era came to an end in 2033 when they restricted the climb to just 30m.
Nobody has ever died falling from it.
A warning from the future.
No doubt insurance made them do it.
One of Ryan George’s videos explained one reason these reviews exist. Google used to have a pretty robust Local Guide designation for reviewers who were actively reviewing locations. They game-ified reviews and naturally some people wanted a high score. So, they would review things like parking lots and other places that are usually not ‘review-able’.
I still get notifications that say "your reviews are popular! Over 1200 people have viewed them. Can you fill in details about [some place I stopped in the parking lot to check the map]?”
Subtle hint of how much data they’re collecting.
I mean the comment is public and that your were at some location and searched stuff about it via Google is something they should know. Ideally they would not collect that too, but out of all the things they do this is more superficial and easily explained as a service. The real issue is ALL the invisible stuff they collect about you, sites you visit, what you do/look at there, … and then also use and sell that and not in any way to make things better for the user too.
Doesn’t explain them leaving a nonsensical review like the inevitable march of time existing
They would have a review like “nice trees”
I believe they had word count and photo/video buffs to the score of each review. Not saying that’s the case here, but the actual content of the review textbox didnt impact the final score in this Local Guides program.
Imagine directing the same negative energy towards the people who litter in nature (or anywhere else for that matter).
I mean, just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s useless information that can’t be left in a review. Even if no one can do anything about it, it may help people decide whether to go there.
But “it got dark way too early”? That doesn’t help anyone; people can look up sunset times themselves if that’s something they’re concerned about.
This is not about people leaving 1-star reviews. This is about people leaving 1-star reviews for lunatic reasons. I once saw one on a hiking app, saying the path was not flat and there were no stairs. I mean sure, that is information that might help you ; but what the hell do you expect from a mountain trail with >500m of elevation difference in a natural reserve. Sure that’s not the craziest thing out there, but it baffled me.
Pretty ridiculous to put a mountain in the middle of a mountain trail. Tsssk.
Once again, we see that most of the people on this platform have no concept of satire.
Because they are so locked and loaded to call everyone a Zionist, antisemite, tankie, etc.etc.etc.
That, and probably half are well and truly on the spectrum.
