You must log in or register to comment.
- 11 hours
Went there and had a fight with Cindy she said she was leaving fucking bitch
One star
- BillyClark@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
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.
- 23 hours
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.
- 24 hours
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.
- 24 hours
why are there reviews for nature to begin with?
there shouldn’t be reviews for anything other than consumer products that cost $$$. experience is subjective. one person’s worst movie or worst restaurant is another person’s favorite.
- 19 hours
Because someone who was there can tell others how it was and upload pictures. How is that a question?
Funniest nature review I ever saw was:
5 Star waterfall - “never been”
- kamen@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Imagine directing the same negative energy towards the people who litter in nature (or anywhere else for that matter).
- rabber@lemmy.caEnglish23 hours
I leave reviews like this for my favourite places, hoping it encourages tourists to go elsewhere
It’s more effective though to talk about dangerous wildlife or sketchy locals
That’s some victim-blaming bullshit.
If they ran the place better, guests wouldn’t have to pack a flashlight!
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’.
- 2 days
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]?”
- 18 hours
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”
2 daysLast time I saw this I concluded it’s locals leaving 1 Star reviews to lessen tourists visiting these spots.
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.
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.
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish2 days
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?
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.
- Soggy@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
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
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish2 days
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.
- Soggy@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
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.
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish1 day
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.
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish2 days
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.
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.
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish2 days
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.
Definitely trolling.
A big chunk of the people on this platform have no concept of satire.
“I read a bunch of sarcastic posts and I am gullible.”
Once again, the curse of /
rc/Funny rears its ugly head.- 2 days
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”
- 2 days
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.”
- 1 day
“The food quickly left our bodies, making room for more food! 5 stars!”
- Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish2 days
“Fantastic food and very friendly staff. One of the best places we ever ate” - 3 stars
- 2 days
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!
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”
