Aragaren

u/Aragaren@lemmy.world
0 posts · 23 comments

Recent posts

No posts.

Recent comments

on Nice work Mexico! · c/upliftingnews · 34 pts · 79d

What's important to note is that these placed aren't going back on it because it doesn't work. They are going back on it because of back room deals made with corporate insurance lobbyists and their bought politicians. Profit is always the driving force for privatization.

That would be the healthy way of looking at it, but sadly isn't the case for most who are "proud of their country." The reality is that many just feel proud because they are told to, because it's pushed onto them from the moment they attend school (the Pledge of Allegiance every day in class is an example of this). Being proud of one's country for the sake of it just breeds nationalism, which just breeds extremism.

For a movie to be eligible, it needs to have a theatrical run that includes being in a number of theaters for a specific length of time. Since the film was strictly on a streaming platform it initially didn't qualify so Netflix released it in a handful of theaters to meet the minimum requirements.

"Scott Street, Dunbar’s attorney, argued that his willingness to sacrifice his job underscores the sincerity of his religious views, which he said are no less real for being outside the mainstream."

His attorney kind of screwed him here. "Sacrificed" means he willfully knew he would lose his job and chose to walk away. It proves the company isn't at fault here. He knew the consequences of his actions and proceeded anyways. That isn't the employers fault.

It isn't yourimagination.

What it really comes down to is risk. In the 90s, studios relied on the dvd release as a second boost to revenue so if a film didn't do well in theaters it had a back up.

With physical media all but gone the studios can only rely on theater revenue which has to be split with the theater itself.

Because of this, execs are sticking with successful old faithfuls rather than risking money on unprodictable new IP.

I see what you are saying, but it is kind of the point. Socio-economic status plays a huge role in increases of not just gun violence but also suicide. Placing restrictions for the most vulnerable parts of the population to obtain them, while it doesn't seem desirable, can go a long way in reducing harm. In turn, funding from increased taxes that weathier individuals pay can be used to aid those same people by investing in mental health care.

https://luskin.ucla.edu/connection-poverty-inequality-firearm-violence