The jews prove
That's the worst, most atypical metric to use of human behavior. Immigrants do adapt, but only up to a point and that point is entirely dependent on how similar their cultures were to start with. Drop a Englishman in France and he'll be a fish out of water for a while, but adopt local conventions. He'll never be French but will try not to be disruptive and won't try to turn France into England. Because even though they're different cultures, they have similar values.
If you have a group with the core values of taking everything you can and every one else being their slaves, of course even slight assimilation is impossible
Lmfao. I can't tell if some of the shit they repost is parody or them not realizing it's parody.
Someone posted this with: "happy juneteenth eve" https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLJLDukWoAA-zy4.jpg
And they retweeted with "You know we eatin good today"
Crush at Work.
Underrated.
misunderstandings, manufactured drama, and on-the-nose tropes you get from high school romcom anime.
If you want the middle ground, The Ice Guy and His Cool Female Colleague. Mature adult characters and more reserved, but with some of the the apprehension and cluelessness you'd expect from a first-time romance.
Assuming you're talking about the goalkeeper? He's half-Japanese, half-Ghanaian. Apparently grew up in Japan despite being American-born. Not like the European teams on account of his mother actually being Japanese. If that's better or worse is up to you.
Don't forget the part where they went after other cancer charity fundraisers over use of the trademark "... for a Cure."
From a 2010 article:
So far, Komen has identified and filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred of these Mom and Pop charities, including Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure, Surfing for a Cure and Cupcakes for a Cure--and many of the organizations are too small and underfunded to hold their ground.
"It happened to my family," said Roxanne Donovan, whose sister runs Kites for a Cure, a family kite-flying event that raises money for lung cancer research. "They came after us ferociously with a big law firm. They said they own 'cure' in a name and we had to stop using it, even though we were raising money for an entirely different cause."
Donovan's sister, Mary Ann Tighe, said the Komen foundation sent her a letter asking her to stop using the phrase "for a cure" in their title and to never use the color pink in conjunction with their fundraising.
Definitely not. The only reason people paid is because they tricked themselves into it.
"Netflix is $20/mo, so if I run my own Plex server for grandpa and the in-laws, we're saving $480/yr. It pays for itself!" They were willing to spend far more than it was worth because they thought they were clever in getting one over on the networks/streamers.
I guess there's also a handful of people who were technically capable enough to set up a server on their home PC, but not capable enough to figure out VPNs for slop on the go.
Thirded. Switched to Jellyfin the instant Plex wanted to charge a subscription to use hardware transcoding on your own GPU.
They're going down the Crunchyroll route of piracy enabler > wanting to be "legitimate" > mediocre service > awful service.
Server software for turning a drive full of video files into something that looks like a streaming service on your phone, TV, etc.
They shouldn't even have subscribers. Shit used to just work, then they started charging for built-in features and stitching their own "content" into it which no one asked for.
It's obvious they are preparing for "Muh IPO"
You're probably right.
crimew lives in Switzerland. She is non-binary and uses it/its and she/her pronouns, with a strong preference for it/its. She is autistic and identifies as both bisexual and a lesbian. She is a member of the Young Socialists Switzerland, and has run for political candidacy on socialist platforms.
Maximum clown world.
Even if you 100% buy into their ideology, this is cult shit.
The first 5 don't apply to: any single people regardless of sexuality, bi people in straight relationships, trans people in "straight" relationships.
The remaining (non-trans ones) force membership in "the community," which is a requirement of cult membership.
I want to see the court case where:
- A gay business owner certifies solely on his basis of marriage to a man
- His partner later troons out
- The state charges the business owner with fraud for being in a "opposite-sex" marriage because the other guy has retroactively always been a woman.
>Your window got broken recently
>You're probably pretty bummed about it
>But the person who threw this rock was more happy to throw it than you are sad about your window
>The total happiness in the world increased
>So, whatever
the real voting power is in the Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street
I only have experience with Vanguard, but sometimes can select how they vote for your assets. For example, one ETF gave five options:
- "Glass Lewis ESG" - Vote to lose money and be a faggot
- "Fund Proxy" - Let the fund's trustees vote for you, possibly same as above
- "Mirror Voting" - Do what the other shareholders do, proportionally
- "Board Aligned" - Always vote with the company's board
- "Egan-Jones Wealth-Focused" - A item-by-item voting strategy which opened with:
Proposals promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion are also opposed. Exceptions only exist when proposals are directly tailored to revenue generation.
But still contains language that suggests DEI is beneficial. Practically it just votes AGAINST on most shareholder proposals related to "Human Rights," but unfortunately includes proposals to rescind existing audits in that category. It won't vote to remove existing DEI policies, but will vote against any proposed "diversity-based hiring," "anti-discrimination policies," and climate garbage.
Obviously the first two are flat-out unacceptable. Mirror voting is the minimum if you want to be neutral. Board-aligned if you want to minimize activist investor interference. The latter if you you find the average board lest trustworthy than the supposed policies of a third-party. But in practice, how many people even know they can make a selection like this, let alone actually bother?
If a 13yo boy watched TNG in the 90s and found it entertaining, why is it assumed a 13yo boy in 2026 would just absolutely hate it?
I think this assumption started as something reasonable and morphed into something that really isn't. Episodic TV works just as well now as it always did, but there's much much more competition for a potential viewers' time now than there was in the 90s. Making it more serialized is a viewer retention strategy.
Viewer watches a couple episodes of an episodic show. Comes back if they want more of the same.
Viewer watches a couple of episodes of a serialized show. If you managed to hook them with a mystery box or whatever they keep coming back to see what happens next.
Instead of every episode increasing the chance a viewer burns out, it increases the chance they become too invested to walk away.
Compare TNG vs. DS9. The Dominion war and ongoing politics provided a level of, "what's going to happen next week," that TNG never had with the exception of some specific multi-episode stories. After a focus on serial plot threads, I think really was a natural evolution. It's a tiny step from execs thinking of it as a retention bonus to thinking it's a retention requirement. Then, if the focus of your show becomes the serialized plot thread, the episodic content starts to get viewed as filler. It might be entertaining but it gets in the way of the next anticipated story beat. Take too long and the people who are only there to see what happens next give up. Trim that part down and it's obvious you don't need 24 eps to tell the story anymore.
tl;dr: It's not a question of age of the media. Or even the quality. It's the format. Continuing plot threads is a way to keep people invested in a crowded media landscape.
Bring back fumi-e with a Muhammad edition.