I hope they own Jones’ likeness to the point where they can give DJs the rights to remix his shouts into something of value.

JVM is like a gas. It expands to fit it’s container, however large that is.

Why on earth would you even for a moment think you’re allowed to do that?

Because OP actually lives in that building and the rest comes down to proving his intent which is extremely difficult in every situation. You’re “allowed” to do it because proving that someone literally walking to their home has intent to menace is so difficult that no authorities will even try to prosecute.

Name the law.

This is awesome.

I think this is just a roundabout way of blaming the Jews.

If you ask enough pointless questions maybe women will start finding those pathetic losers attractive.

In this case YouTube can do literally anything they want due to the lack of real alternatives. Hosting videos for free, for anyone (and any number of viewers) to watch, for free, is rather predictably not a very profitable business model. If you want to see what it takes to actually be profitable with such a model, look at the average free porn site. Extremely intrusive ads everywhere. If you don’t want to pay, and ads are the only revenue, advertisers are the customer, not you.

Well it involves dick so it’s gay in my book.

Still a better love story than twilight.

It’s pretty crumbly but honestly haggis probably has one of the most undeserved bad reputations out of any food. The 5-6 times I’ve tried it it’s always tasted great. They went to extra trouble to make this plate look like shit for the memes.

I feel like Gae would be down to at least try this.

NGL if HBO made this into a 6 part miniseries I would watch. I would hate myself as I watched but I would watch.

It’s definitely true that if every actor did their own stunts, stunt workers wouldn’t get jobs. But here’s the thing - that is not in danger of happening. More than that, Tom Cruise doing his own stunts, in many cases, makes his movies better. Hanging on the side of a plane or running on the Burj Khalifa - in both cases the shots they can get are far better than they otherwise would be if they have to obscure the stunt guys face and use camera trickery and CGI to take his face.

Not to mention that the other actors in his films use stunt doubles so making those films more successful keeps stunt workers employed. It’s not like there were no stunt doubles in the mission impossible films.

Overall I just don’t see how this is a real problem . Most actors, especially A-listers, like themselves too much to seriously attempt doing their own stunts. Most of their reactions to seeing what Tom Cruise does is “fuck no”. Tom Cruise has the commitment of an actual crazy person to do the shit he does. No other actor who “does his own stunts” does what he does. Are stunt doubles really in danger of becoming extinct as a profession?

Given this, I guess I find it hard to see this as an issue worth worrying about. Why must this one crazy guy’s obsession with stunts be squashed? Is there there really not room in the wide landscape of filmmaking for one obsessive dude doing his own stunts?

Isn’t that allergy medicine and an antihistamine? How does that keep you going?

Except the cancer warning thing which didn’t exactly have the desired effect. Good intent, bad execution.

I remember the first time I used MapQuest and I was absolutely amazed that it could just figure out the route automatically.

Is AMD finally realizing that unless they lower prices their tenuous hold on the GPU market is going to slip away entirely?

I’d give it 50% odds at best.

“unrealized gains” that you can somehow live off of indefinitely.

2. I posited that entire media eco system behaves this way but we society turn a blind eye

1. Ridiculous assertion. All it takes is a single person not acting in bad faith to disprove , which is the problem with absolute statements. You can be 99 percent right (you’re not) and still be wrong. Can you prove that literally 100 percent of news media is acting in bad faith? If so, why all this bullshit? Just lead with the proof.

2. Prove it. You’re asserting bad faith on the part of thousands of people (which implies knowledge of literally everyone’s intent. Are you god? Lol) without evidence.

3. We had an exchange on what I meant by this, with you highlighting that “media” is varying and explaining away how media behavior is not the same. Essentially creating dichotomy “media is ok” but these rando’s are the enemy. You did not provide facts to turn my opinion though.

Using the vocabulary of logic doesn’t mean you’re actually doing logic dude. My statement does not in any way create a “dichotomy”. It could right, it could be wrong, or anywhere in between. Nothing said implies “media is ok”. Nothing you said implied they’re wrong. Using the vocabulary of logic doesn’t mean you’re thinking logically. Try harder.

My position is that you are still working within the standard politics framework… muhh team good/right, other team bad.

Nothing I said implied that. You literally just imagined it, like you did the “dichotomy”.

I fundamentally disagree with this approach. I can’t change your mind and that’s fine. I think readers had a decent exchange to read.

Of course you can. You make a logical argument, backed by evidence. Why is that so hard? You haven’t even tried.

4. you proceed to engage with a bit of charge which cool by me… but i would want he key issue addressed. Why does main stream media gets a pass for this from avg person?

This is not the question you originally asked, and assumes several assertions that you haven’t backed up with anything let alone proven. It’s also such a vague question that an answer is impossible. You have assumed that your read on “the media” as a whole is right (apparently 100 percent of them are acting in bad faith? Lol), that somehow people know this (proof?) and give them a pass( what does that mean? People complain about the media all the time).

5. I would posit that the media and idiots on twitter are prolly funded by the same bad faith actors, well a soup of them from different sides. But what they are not funded by is avg people.

I would posit that you’re dazzled by the true complexity of the world and so you simplify and imagine things in order to fit it into your head and make it make sense. "The media " is not funded by one person or the same people. This is trivially probable.

But what they are not funded by is avg people.

Who are these average people? Aren’t they the ones giving media a pass for all acting in bad faith?

Study epistemology dude. The questions you’re asking aren’t all bad. But you literally don’t know how to think. You just simplify until things make sense to you. That’s not how you find truth. The question of “how do I know what I think is true is actually true” is an extremely important one. Smart people have been asking it for thousands of years. Try learning from literally any of them. Epistemology is important.