In a nutshell - video doesn't compress well, which means YT needs vast amounts of bandwidth and 'hot' storage (also backup), along with the accompanying infrastructure.
Not to mention ongoing costs such as power, staffing, etc.
I agree, it wasn't the worst, but it was such a weird inclusion - given it's a condition that affects less that 1% of people on average.
Why not include psoriasis or eczema then - both are far more common.
Forsaken was well received by the player base, but sadly, it's been down hill ever since then.
Everyone thought the split from Activision was going to see a return to the golden years of Bungie, but instead the wheels really fell off and their response was basically to double down on the greed.
The have been only a shell of their former selves for a long time now. They layoffs should come as no surprise.
Employment and travel will be hampered with a criminal record.
Singapore is a city-state, so leaving the city means travelling to another country, the closest country being Malaysia, which you cannot enter if you're a convicted criminal.
My guess is he was posting in case anyone else was wondering the same thing.
English being the primary language in an Asian city is unusual, especially if you don't know Singapore's history.
Context: this arrest happened last year:
Hoes mad, the article.
Egypt and Jordan won't take them because they know the type of trouble they will cause after being let in from their own histories.
Humza also knows this and wants them in Scotland.
The fact that his life in prison will be absolute hell gives me comfort - that is if he makes it out alive.
Tara Strong is a piece of shit and a retard.
This is going to be memed to hell and back.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by4UZ-79MK4
It's hilariously bad.
I should have clarified - they didn't support the voice when it was announced, but they after months of negotiations with the Labour party, they did end up throwing their support behind it.
This did cause one member of the greens to quit the party - a senator named Lydia Thorpe (who has a reputation for being bat shit crazy)
The polling had been predicting a 'No' on the referendum for the last few months - I think June was the only month where polling indicated there might be a 'Yes'.
Throughout the campaign, no-one from the 'Yes' side was able to say definitively what it would look like once implemented. The 1 page "Uluru Statement from the Heart" that the proposal was based on, turned out to be 26 pages, with another 100 or so pages of supporting notes - and there was a lot of stuff in there that people didn't like, such as reparations.
Many (rightly) ended up believing this was the first step in acquiescing to a long list of demands from the lefties and activists, and that would end up setting race relations back decades and cost the taxpayers billions.
I posted this in another thread, but I'll repost it here for anyone interested:
Another Aussie here and what a wild ride it's been.
To give some context around what's been happening, there was a referendum asking to change the constitution to include the following:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
- there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
- the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
You can probably already see the problems:
- it's giving one race the special privilege of permanent direct access to parliament, i.e. members of lower house and the senate (upper house), and the executive government (responsible for the drafting of laws, policy, introducing bills, etc.).
- 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice' is very broad and could include things that affect every Australian, e.g. taxation, health care, education, etc.
In other words, it would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy that would give indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.
The referendum was introduced by the Labour party (a left wing political party in Australia) but did not have bipartisan support from either the Liberals (right wing) or the greens (hard left wing). For context, no referendum in Australia has ever succeeded without bipartisan support.
It did however get support from many of the biggest corporations in Australia including banks, tech companies, airlines, grocery chains, and others. It had support from many church denominations and many high profile people as well. Have a look at this list of the 'Yes' endorsements compared to the 'No' endorsements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum
It was virtue signaling on steroids.
The Yes' campaign came out with all the usual leftist talking points - every indigenous person was a victim, and it was needed to combat institutional racism in Australia. They accused the 'No' campaign of racism and misinformation - despite the 'No' campaign being headed up by two Indigenous people - Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price.
They had massive financial backing as well and ran a media blitz - 'Yes' advertisements were everywhere - TV, radio, online, billboards and signs all over the place. In the polling booth I went to on Saturday, there were 'Yes' campaign signs everywhere and not a single 'No' campaign sign anywhere - it was wild.
a couple of other highlights:
-
The 'Yes' campaign colours were very similar to that of the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) - the body that oversees elections and referendums. I don't believe this was a coincidence.
-
The AEC came out and said they would accept a tick as a 'yes' vote, but not a cross as a 'no' vote. Note - the correct way to fill out a voting form is to write either yes or no in the box on the form.
-
It came out during the campaign that some of the leaders of the 'Yes' campaign were actual communists. Others publicly advocated for reparations and the changing of Australia day (which many lefties call 'Invasion day').
And despite all of the institutional backing and all of the money the 'yes' campaign had they still failed to win a majority in any state, or with the population in general. The only territory that voted 'yes' was the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), our equivalent to Washington DC. Fortunately, territories don't count in the referendum.
So yes, this was in fact, a big white pill moment.
A coalition of three left-wing parties has over 52% of the votes according to current results
They will be at each other's throats soon enough...
World building and story telling are what get the fans invested.
Fans love seeing the lore expanded and the story continued.
They don't like it when it's changed or retconned.
They hate it when it's done arbitrarily (subvert expectations!) or for political reasons.
Hence the demise of Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dr. Who, Wheel of Time, The Witcher, the MCU, and numerous others.
It's not that hard to understand.
Another Aussie here and what a wild ride it's been.
To give some context around what's been happening, the referendum was asking to change the constitution to include the following:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
- there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
- the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
You can probably already see the problems:
- it's giving one race the special privilege of permanent direct access to parliament, i.e. members of lower house and the senate (upper house), and the executive government (responsible for the drafting of laws, policy, introducing bills, etc.).
- 'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice' is very broad and could include things that affect every Australian, e.g. taxation, health care, education, etc.
In other words, it would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy that would give indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.
The referendum was introduced by the Labour party (a left wing political party in Australia) but did not have bipartisan support from either the Liberals (right wing) or the greens (hard left wing). For context, no referendum in Australia has ever succeeded without bipartisan support.
It did however get support from many of the biggest corporations in Australia including banks, tech companies, airlines, grocery chains, and others. It had support from many church denominations and many high profile people as well. Have a look at this list of the 'Yes' endorsements compared to the 'No' endorsements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum
It was virtue signaling on steroids.
The Yes' campaign came out with all the usual leftist talking points - every indigenous person was a victim, and it was needed to combat institutional racism in Australia. They accused the 'No' campaign of racism and misinformation - despite the 'No' campaign being headed up by two Indigenous people - Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price.
They had massive financial backing as well and ran a media blitz - 'Yes' advertisements were everywhere - TV, radio, online, billboards and signs all over the place. In the polling booth I went to on Saturday, there were 'Yes' campaign signs everywhere and not a single 'No' campaign sign anywhere - it was wild.
a couple of other highlights:
-
The 'Yes' campaign colours were very similar to that of the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) - the body that oversees elections and referendums. I don't believe this was a coincidence.
-
The AEC came out and said they would accept a tick as a 'yes' vote, but not a cross as a 'no' vote. Note - the correct way to fill out a voting form is to write either yes or no in the box on the form.
-
It came out during the campaign that some of the leaders of the 'Yes' campaign were actual communists. Others publicly advocated for reparations and the changing of Australia day (which many lefties call 'Invasion day').
And despite all of the institutional backing and all of the money the 'yes' campaign had they still failed to win a majority in any state, or with the population in general. The only territory that voted 'yes' was the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), our equivalent to Washington DC. Fortunately, territories don't count in the referendum.
So yes, this was in fact, a big white pill moment.
I pulled my car over because my own hands were shaking as I listened.
Any "journalist" that embellishes a story with shit like this isn't worth reading or listening to. It's right up there with "and then everyone clapped" levels of cringe.
The irony of a story about pride tape on a bundle of sticks.
Interesting video - I do wonder how much is Wyatt's interpretation versus what Sergio Leone has said about his own films - some of it felt like a bit of a stretch.
Still worth a watch though.
Now I'm going to have to rewatch Once Upon A Time In The West and The Good, The Bad & The Ugly lol
You can probably imagine the reporting if it was Trump in power and the democrats stormed the capital.
"Rowdy but mostly peaceful crowd march on the the capital"
It was reported that SA hit the pause button on normalizing relations with Israel last month - so I don't think this was directly the result of the Hamas attacks, or Israel's response. Although, they have been pretty clear throughout the process that it hinged on peace between Israel and Palestine, so either way not much of a surprise.
Hamas have fucked themselves going after civilians though - that's dried up most of the sympathy people had for the plight of Palestinians. The pro Palestine rallies haven't done much to improve their image either.
This post needs more slapping across the face with a gauntlet!
You are right - to clarify I meant encoded video (basically since it is already compressed).