There's definitely a nostalgia factor that we all have for our childhood. That being said, I've talked with a number of people from both the Greatest Generation (adults in the 1950's) and Boomers (children in the 1950s) in the course of my life. I can't think of one that expressed a belief that life was better "today" (1990's to present, depending on time of conversation) than the 50's. That tells me something.
I believe that since their complaints are that the state violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights, the parents can take this out of family court and file a federal case. Which is what I would do, as family court tends to justify anything the government wants under the umbrella of "needs of the child".
Any lawyers out to there who can confirm?
"the Frogurt is also cursed"
Ah, thanks. Good explanation.
Someone smarten me up on fentanyl. I know that very small doses can be lethal and I keep seeing stories where people die from other drugs tainted with fentanyl without their knowledge.
Are there actual recreational drug users of fentanyl in and of itself and they just have to keep the dose super small? Why are dealers putting it in other drugs? Seems to me that killing your customers is a bad business decision and attracts attention from the cops.
Wi Tu Lo
Ho Lee Fuk
Bang Ding Ow
This. Console games spend 3 hours downloading and installing the game the first time you put the disc in now. After that, the disc only has to be in the drive because the game checks and won't let you play if it's not there.
There's also a bunch that require online connectivity, even when you're not interacting with any online content.
Murray is a Democrat running for a sixth 6-year term in the U.S. Senate
Well, there it is, I found your problem right here.
Blacks are basically like pets or retarded children to liberals. They use black as props to show how empathetic they are and excuse the crime/drugs etc. like you would tolerate a dog shitting on the carpet or a child's tantrum.
But, if a black isn't content to be a pet and doesn't behave the way his masters want, they'll unimaginably cruel.
Like father, like son.
Maybe that creature should just remove its coat if it's hot.
It's a fucking joke. Supposedly he's already divested a bunch of his money and he'll just declare bankruptcy. What's the point?
Fair enough, but the gas station cigars were just so stereotypical. I had to mention that.
Absolutely. And the mental gymnastics from the reddit NPCs to try and paint this as the victim's fault are next level retarded.
Bottom line, a thug acted like a thug and started a fight, escalated to a firearm, and his girlfriend "rescued" him by shooting the victim. If the races were reversed, the white guy and the girlfriend would already be charged with murder.
According to court documents, Santi intervened when a customer argued with a clerk who told him the gas station didn’t have the kind of cigars he wanted.
I knew the aggressor was black right here, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that the white guy threw the first punch.
The decision by the prosecutor's office is complete shit. You have no right to self defense when you are the aggressor, nor does a third party intervening on your behalf.
When the legal system fails us, there are other options. Let's hope the victim's friends and family make sure the shooter and her cigar aficionado boyfriend end up on the next season of Unsolved Mysteries.
Hey Microsoft, why don't you take the effort you put into this shit and use it to fix my Outlook that continually crashes when I right click on a sender's name to get their address book info?
This went so far that we did research as to which regiments actually came from Westphalia and which numbers they wore, because our boys came from Westphalia. We were meticulous. It didn’t necessarily make life easier for us, but it is an important reference. If you decide to do something correctly, there is only one right way,” he concluded.
They're saying the right things. Let's see what we get in reality.
From the article:
The industrial revolution saw the loss of labor-intensive jobs and the AI revolution will soon be coming for creative and analytical workers. In a utopian future, all work would be the domain of machines whether taking the form of robots or operating virtually over the internet, leaving humans to lives of leisure. The tricky part will be navigating the transitionary time.
If anyone thinks the elites are just going to let everyone live a life of leisure for free, they are insane. The AI may take everyone's jobs but you're still going to be expected to pay for food, clothing, rent, etc. There just won't be as much work to earn that money because computers can do it cheaper and better.
Since his employer says he "abruptly quit" and his lawyer isn't asking where he is, I'm going to assume he went to ground on his own.
After a weekend firing dirty blanks from a rifle that was dirty to begin with it allows you to close the bolt when you manually cycle the action to reload after clearing the weapon to get chow. Said rifle would cycle normally when firing said blanks though.
I went looking for them after you posted this. I found them "available with HBO Max add-on" in Hulu. So I guess HBO has them now.
I could swear I had seen them on both Netflix and Paramount+ in the past. Which is another infuriating thing about all these different streaming services- you can't count on a finding a studio's own content in their streaming service, because of all the various licensing agreements out there.
I think many/most of the streaming apps do that. From the ones I have personal experience with:
Netflix: no ads
Disney+: no ads
Amazon Prime: both shows with ads and shows without- they tell you in the menu which it is
Paramount+: ads
Hulu: ads
I think the services with ads allow you to remove them if you pay more, and apparently Netflix is going to do something similar in the near future.
When it was just Netflix, and they had a large library of everybody's stuff, streaming was a viable replacement for cable TV. Now that every studio has their own streaming service and they all want a ton of money to remove the ads, it's basically becoming cable TV again except you have to pay a la carte for everything like you used to for Showtime and HBO (which both have their own streaming apps of course).
Putting aside content, I prefer Netflix's interface and lack of ads. Here's a direct comparison with Paramount+:
Netflix had Deep Space Nine until this year, and it happened to flip to Paramount while I was in the middle of rewatching it. I have logins for both, so I figured "no problem, I'll just continue watching it on Paramount".
The Paramount app is slow to load, has lag when you use the remote to navigate, has a crappy fast forward/rewind implementation, and Paramount sticks ads in several spots that don't always land where the original commercial breaks were. The ads were interrupting people mid sentence.
In addition to this, the app would sometimes freeze and even after restarting everything, it wouldn't resume where I left off and I would have to restart the episode and fast forward to where it broke.
Going through all that just days after watching the same show effortlessly on Netflix made me hate Paramount for removing Star Trek from Netflix.
I don't think they have gone after password sharing yet outside of some South American markets.
I read an article yesterday that they're going to roll it out in the US next year. The article said they're going to use IP addresses, which is going to cause them trouble with people who are logging into their Netflix accounts away from home.
Anecdotal, but almost all of the comments in the article said that they wouldn't pay if they were borrowing someone else's password or that they would consider canceling if they were an account holder. Apparently, Netflix is only worth it to a lot of these people if they can share with their friends and family.
You're forgetting the rise of "no-fault" divorce in the 1970s and 1980's. This was a major policy goal of the feminist movement at the time.
In the 1950's, in order to get alimony, a woman had to prove nelgect or abuse in court. And if the man could prove she cheated she would likely get nothing.
I'm also not sure when states started going to community property but most, if not all, of them back then considered wages to belong to the earner alone, not the spouse. So, a housewife who failed to prove abuse got nothing when she divorced her husband.
The nature of women may not have changed, but their ability to monkey branch and cheat without consequence absolutely has. You may have been miserable in your marriage, by the wife knew that she wasn't getting any exit prizes if she left you.