I probably shouldn't judge it as unnecessary before I see it, however, Hollywood and Adam Sandler especially like to make cash grab sequels, and I feel cash grab sequels are unnecessary. Making a sequel because you have additional story you want to tell is totally ok, but making a movie solely to cash in on a previous story is not.

Let's taint the feelings you have about the first one by creating an unnecessary sequel. I'm not even an Adam Sandler or Happy Gilmore fan, but I can just imagine how disappointed actual fans are to hear this news.

I do find it extremely odd they chose to build this project in the desert of one of the most oppressive countries in the world. If I had to guess why it is happening in Saudia Arabia, I would guess they are trying to green wash their image, and possibly make it seem like Saudia Arabia is a super futuristic place that people should visit.

It's funny they act like piracy didn't exist before the internet. The tools are different and easier to use, but the justifications are the same. People want convenience, so if companies really cared about stopping piracy they would bend over backwards to make their content affordable and easy to access. Releasing only in theaters and/or doing the subscription shuffle is not convenient to the consumer.

Persona 3 Portable and Persona 5 Royal. I had an xbox game pass. I got half way through persona 3 and loved playing as kotone shiomi. I have played as a girl in video games for years whenever it was an option. It hadn't occurred to me why I chose female characters until I switched to persona 5 Royal because my subscription was ending soon, and I was disappointed by the lack of a female protagonist option. I realized the reason I was disappointed was because I enjoyed the gendered experience. I got to be one of the girls. I've never played a game with an acknowledgement of my femininity before, and it was really nice.

There's going to be a free online arcade whether game companies allow an online library or not. Companies can spend billions of dollars taking down emulators and unauthorized game distributors and ways to make playing games in unauthorized ways harder, but it will always be a game of whack a mole. Game companies should focus their time and resources on making legacy titles accessible, whether that means creating a deal with online libraries or selling the files directly to the consumer for a reduced cost. At the end of the day, game companies spend more money trying to prevent people from playing legacy titles than they make on the legacy titles, so there is no benefit to the consumer or the company.

I think there's a fear by companies that a rerelease or remaster won't make money if the original is available for free, but the reality is that people will happily buy a remaster or remake if it's good despite already having the original game.

His grandparents let him watch whatever is on nick jr or Disney jr, so he already has paw patrol shoes, toys, and books. I figure it's a losing battle at this point. I should let him have fun. Paw Patrol isn't the worst thing in the world for him and if he's happy I am happy.

Parents know those other shows are better, but I am more likely to be asked to put on Paw Patrol than Bluey and my toddler doesn't ever ask for Hilda. Kids have their own tastes, and it is impossible to shield them from everything you don't want them to watch. Thankfully, everyone I know agrees Cocomelon is harmful garbage and off limits, so I've been able to avoid that completely.

I 100% agree that they should have gone further with the many things they accomplished during their super majority. A universal healthcare system would have been better, they could have gone further with digging the average American out of the recession, etc.

However, it is disingenuous to pretend they did/do "nothing meaningful". ACA expanded healthcare to millions of people who couldn't get insurance at all, expanded Medicaid and Medicare, and it lowered healthcare costs. That's pretty meaningful and a major success even if it wasn't universal healthcare.

I think it's also disingenuous to compare democrats who make small progress forward to Republicans who are actively trying to roll all of our laws back to the 1800s. Again democrats aren't ideal, and really we need a more progressive major party in the US because they don't go far enough, but it's better to make any progress forward than it is to fully regress.

Democrats not being progressive enough is an issue we can fix in time, but it will take decades of hard work (and continuous work even after we succeed). We need to start helping more progressive candidates with their campaigns and even personally running campaigns during local, state, and national primaries. It would also help for us to push for major election reform while we work towards getting progressives elected. It is unacceptable we only really have only two major parties and really only one choice during general elections.

The last time they had a meaningful majority they spent their time (72 working days) on ACA (a major healthcare reform), pulling us out of a recession, appointing two supreme court justices, and so much more. They are known as the most productive Congress since Lyndon B Johnson was president. The last official majority they had they spent their very thin majority cleaning up after Donald Trump and dealing with COVID.

Democrats don't get strong majorities for long periods of time like Republicans do, and they are expected to fix every issue plus clean up after the newest national disaster that Republicans created. Maybe if we gave them time and a strong enough majority they would get more done.

Conservatives have been purposely tanking uncontroversial legislation so that "Biden doesn't get any wins". Do you genuinely think it is possible for the current legislature to pass bills that would fix something as complex as the housing crisis?

Most of the internet is made up of echo chambers now even though anyone and everyone can access a majority of it. I don't think being selective in who we allow into communities worsens the pre-existing echo chamber issue. If anything it may help to be more selective. It can sometimes be impossible to tell the difference between trolls, bots, and real people, so I feel like we assume every person we disagree with is a troll or bot. The issue with that is that we may be outright dismissing real opinions. In theory, everyone in a selective community is a real person who is expressing their true thoughts and feelings.

Who is on Hamas's side? There are plenty of people on Palestine's side, but no one really wants to be on Hamas's side

In my opinion, those are exactly the reasons to run. Consensual sex between adults is normal regardless of kinks, but our culture demonizes it so much. Someone needs to normalize talking about sex. It doesn't have to be you, but I hope the world changes in a way that you feel comfortable enough to run for office if that's what you want.

What about ships passing through. How are they supposed to avoid scraping their bottoms on the columns if they can't see the columns. I think there needs to be enough structure above water too.

Pretty sure they boycotted chik fil a within the last 6 months because the company has a diversity initiative, so they are doomed to starve.

I've watched a few episodes from each season and kept up on the news, but I havent religiously watched it by any means so I might be wrong on a few details.

Every season has followed Ash, but they will be moving on to a new protagonist soon.

It is very loosely connected to the games like it always has been. The two can be enjoyed independently of each other.

Not entirely sure on the story, but Ash did finally become a Pokemon world champion in the most recent season, which is why they are changing the protagonist.

He hasn't caught any legendaries, but he has a mythical Pokemon melmetal.

Based on what I've seen, you can start almost anywhere. Each season softly resets Ash's progress. You may see occasional cameos of past characters, but each season Ash usually makes a new set of friends, has a new set of Pokemon, and starts a new story.

While I know anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, I personally felt a lot of empathy towards the animals when I took my son last year. I think it is hard to read every plaque in front of the exhibits and not be sad. Almost every plaque says something about how the animals exhibited are struggling in the wild due to everything humans do to the planet, and each one gives suggestions on how we can improve the world. I may be a rare case though because I can understand and acknowledge the environmental impact we have as humans, and I actually read the plaques. I think you may be right about the majority of people who go to the zoo, but I do feel like it is effective if people engage with the lessons that zoos try to teach.

There were insurance requirements according to this archived https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/27/travel/behind-the-wheel-in-the-soviet-union.html. It doesn't really go too in depth about how the insurance works, just that it is a requirement. I am pretty sure it was state owned because pretty much everything was, but I couldn't find a super credible source on it beyond people online just saying that it was state owned.

It was extremely hard to get permission to own a vehicle, and it was even more difficult to get gas and parts to maintain the vehicle. Usually only Soviet officials and well connected people had cars. It was such an issue that normal citizens couldn't get cars there was a comedic satire film called Beware of the Car where an insurance agent would steal cars from politicians and scammers and sell the cars to give donations to orphanages.