jon @ jon @lemdro.id

Posts

0

Comments

37

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Leah_Betts

It's basically nothing more than a badly written advert.

The author is basing this claim on feedback from FIVE people who have been playing the game. If Bethseda are only expecting a similar number to play it once it's released, then this is a useful metric. Otherwise it's meaningless.

"THIS WEBSITE IS A JOKE"

That picture and caption is outstanding.

Literally none of those are actually"objective"...

Yep, using it as a literal test seems to miss the point, namely that there is a significant %age of films and TV that fail to meet even that low a bar.

This one, every time. Imagine buying a product or service for an agreed price, and then being guilt-tripped into having to pay 20%, or more, on top because the owners don't pay their staff enough salary to survive on. It should be fucking illegal. Pay your staff a proper salary and charge your clients the price you published on your menu/price-list etc. Running a business isn't a god-given right, and if you can't do it without screwing your employees over, then you're not capable of running a business period. You should bugger off and let someone who is capable, and who isn't an empathy vacuum have a go.

The photo posted by the OP appears to be BC playing LB when he was a young man, hence I chose a photo of him when he was a similar-looking age.

Regardless, the cliche about Jews having unusually large noses is just an urban myth, and the makers of this film could have easily avoided the furore by not bothering with the prosthetics. What were they actually trying to achieve - did they think the audience might not know who he was without the big nose...? I don't know why film makers keep doing this - Nicole Kidman looked ridiculous with one as well. The only instance where it has been justified are the films based on the Cyrano de Bergerac story.

If the dude had a big nose, then I wouldn't see the problem, but he didn't.

In Trump's dyspeptic liver of a brain "irrefutable" simply means bigly.

The published "safe" levels of alcohol are generally completely arbitrary:

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health

I just remember it being very good. Now I will have to watch it again...

Midnight Run is a classic late 80s buddy film, albeit with bounty hunters instead of detectives.

The Kid Detective is another detective dark comedy.

That was my initial reaction at first as well. However as far as I can tell, natural products are not patentable, unless the product in question has been modified, manipulated etc, to produce something that is deemed to have been significantly changed.

So, in the US, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that human DNA, being a naturally occurring product, cannot be patented. However, it also ruled that complementary DNA, essentially DNA that has been extracted and then modified in a lab, can be patented.

Thanks for clarifying. Although I don't agree with your doctor friend from an ethical standpoint, the point about natural products not being patentable is an interesting one and hadn't occurred to me before.

Medicine is any substance that has a demonstrable healthcare effect (demonstrated through double blind tests and not some rando's anecdote). That includes natural substances.

To put it another way, medicine and natural substances are not two mutually exclusive (i.e. disjoint) sets, as you and/or your doctor friend appear to be implying.