I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.

Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?

How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?

The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.

That’s explored in the movie, no? That’s why Cypher betrays them to go back into the Matrix. Some people are fine and even prefer the Matrix, others can’t live that way knowing it’s all fake.

Poor diet, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use can all certainly be attributed to corporate malfeasance in at least some part.

What are the ages of the generations here? I’m just curious because it’s rare enough to have a living great-grandparent, let alone a great-great-grandparent (in relation to your children) in the same house. And how did this end up falling to you?

I get incredibly anxious about her finding incriminating things that I didn’t do and I know don’t actually exist, but what if they do somehow?

I don’t think anyone would confuse military service with freedom.

No problem meaning they shouldn’t care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn’t care in the first place?

Just finished it, way better than it has any right to be. I thought it was the perfect amount of stupid fun with just enough heart from Mackie and Beatriz to keep it moving along.

I am a little worried that >!moving to a tournament setting!< In season 2 is the wrong move, but they earned some trust with this first season.

Probably exactly what has been reported. Putin waited for things to settle, weakened Wagner troops by taking their weapons and splitting their numbers, then they killed leadership. Occam’s razor certainly points to this.

But, of course, the way it was done certainly leaves the door open for conspiracies.

Every time I see it I can’t get past how hideous it looks. I just don’t get it…who’s the target demo for this thing? They’ve already been beaten to market by non-absurd looking trucks, how big could their market actually be?

Group A was wronged by entity B. Group A goes to court to seek restitution from entity B. Courts rule that entity B did in fact cause damages to group A and must be held liable.

That’s all reparations are. Entity B is your government. It’s the same legal entity as it was 190 years ago, regardless of the composition of the population it represents. If a group was wronged by their government, this is their only means to legal restitution. Unfortunately since the primary form of income for some governments is taxation, it means people complain about paying for things when that’s not exactly what’s happening.

The alternative is to say that if a government “runs out the clock” and is able to avoid responsibility until the population turns over, then they can no longer be held liable for anything they did prior to that point. That’s not a very good position, in my opinion.

I thought it was okay, which as you said is almost par for the course, but it felt like a generic Marvel movie whereas the first two had some fun heist elements to them. Gave them a unique feel within the MCU that I missed in this one.

The issue of climate change is routinely one of the most important issues for young people, so perhaps she played a role in that.

The question itself is pretty useless because how could we possibly quantify a single activist’s contribution to a global issue?

This would cover things like hunting and/or target practice at a home or private property, so not entirely that weird.

Hopefully word of mouth can drive interest if it really is good, because the marketing for it so far has felt very much like another generic DCU movie and Blue Beetle obviously doesn’t have the name recognition that the other franchises do.