No worries! It may be exposure bias, and I'll be honest that the only BI articles I read come from here and there certainly is a certain slant. But from where I'm sitting, it really does seem like there's a coordinated effort among so called 'culture journalism' articles such as this to push a certain normalcy of nothing I'm that I can't help but wonder if there's something funny about it. Perhaps it's a sort of tin foil hat theory, but prescient in a really stupid way. This article in particular isn't exactly a defining example, but more of a contribution to that nature. I dunno, I probably need to go to bed lol.
It just seems like a good chunk of the articles I see from them are stories promoting going without, dealing with less, and downgrading lifestyles in response to cost of living, but doing so in a "feel good" sort of way, kind of like a life hack in a sense. They just seem to keep pumping out stories that portray families and people in their 30s to 40s that are downgrading into small homes or even trailers, eating next to nothing, or forgoing basic necessities as a way to somewhat normalize not having shit but still working your ass off, or at least that's what I've perceived from it.
Like with this article, they promote it as some kind of performance-enhancing life hack to not have an internet-centric phone, yet the person on the article is carrying three of them for different purposes. It just seems ridiculous. If you want to spend less time on your phone, uninstall the time wasting apps, set do not disturb on a per app basis for the ones you keep, and make a conscious effort to put your phone away. It just seems like a clumsy solution for not having self control.
BI is one of the biggest culprits of trying to push social trends in a ridiculous, serflike direction, and then they wonder why their 'prestige' has dropped to the level of rag.
100% agree. Half the reason I love the old Bond movies was because they were so goofy, along with some good action scenes and a fun storyline. The new stuff just strikes me as big budget boxoffice grabs. They aren't bad, but they aren't 007. That said, the newer Casino Royale was miles better than the 1967 version. I love Peter Sellers, but that movie tried way too hard and failed miserably.
The Craig films certainly showed the more cold, gritty side of Bond that was portrayed in the books, but that wasn't really the intent of the earlier films. The earlier films were made more lighthearted and fun on purpose, really only following the books for the basic story. Even Brosnan's Bond still kept a bit of the whimsical nature to an extent, though they certainly were catering to the 90s action audience. Craig's Brosnan more crossed into psychological thriller in my opinion, and I wasn't too big on them.
If it was that hot for that long, there's a good chance the glue in the cones let loose. It's probably safe to say they're toast, hopefully they can be swapped easily.
It's worth noting that even though a building might have solar, the systems usually disable themselves in the event of a blackout to prevent back feeding into the grid.
Meh, these systems are ripe for false positives, all it does is weed out riskier drivers, or provide incentive to encourage reduction in pay and benefits in order to mitigate said "risk." These systems are cancerous.
In California, yes. Moreso because taxes keep rising but services keep dwindling.