I've never seen the sequels but I figured from the trailers it was going to be some slice of life slop, so thanks for confirming that
But to be honest, the real exception in their media appearances IS the 2007 movie. The original cartoon animated series were focused on making random music videos and covers, and the 1987 movie is simply a musical about an adventure around the world.
Only in that 2007 movie we see them becoming superstars. Sure it still would have made sense for the sequels to build on that, but it's likely those slice of life stories were written quite a while before they became stars, their character design wasn't built around pop stars to begin with
A reduction in profits is not an issue to the production itself... I would understand if it were a 10% reduction in revenue. Nobody needs to be fired, profits are still above 0, the company is sustainable
But if it's private, you're basically increasing demand on the service by artificially lowering the price, without addressing potential overcharges... I guess it's still OK because you reduce traffic and end up saving elsewhere, and you can bargain the price collectively. Still I would prefer that bargaining to happen before the measure is put in place and you start giving away public money to a private company
You could also reframe the word "friends" from the context of active social life to actual companionships.
When I was 19-22, I struggled to have an active social life, and my parents were kinda obnoxious about it, turning to me on Saturdays asking me to try contacting old friends I hadn't seen for years just so I'd be out.
But I had no trouble finding companions to talk to. Online, that was. Especially on apps like Slowly or Bottled, but also through groups about manga or games. Some of the people there stuck with me, I might have met them once only in person, but I've discussed a lot of my feelings of the time with them. I believe them to be full friends, even if I didn't routinely see them outside.
Now it's basically the opposite, I can ask some friend to go out on a weekend (work doesn't allow me any other day without paying it in sleep hours), but I struggle finding somebody new to share my feelings with online. Which is fine too, but I do miss the curiosity I had at the time, chatting with people around my age from other parts of the world.
I'm not sure if "mods" are the ones managing communities, while instances are managed by "admins" or similar.
On reddit, sub mods can ban you from their sub, and reddit itself is the single instance with its own guidelines which can get you banned from the whole platform, with the possibility that in the future we'll need identification to login, so creating multiple accounts might even become something of the past
Lemmy is a protocol, every instance should be seen as its own small reddit, which can behave like reddit, however all these reddits are connected together so even if one provider manages to ban you and your multiple accounts on that instance, it has no legal responsibility on your activity on other instances. There is no central Lemmy authority that could be legally compelled by the laws of one country to have specific moderation policies.
If somebody's behaviour is terrible, like idk fascist propaganda, they will be banned by every instance, except those with inactive moderation or fascist admin/moderators. In this case, other instances can (topically collectively) decide to sever the federation to those instances. Thus, a general ban on individuals is possible, but only by a collective effort of people who have otherwise no legal obligation to each others
The point of Lemmy is that here you can drop one instance because of its rules and join another instance without having to lose your communities
OP was banned by one instance and telling us about it from another instance connected to basically the same people. Single instances are powerless, they can't silence you effectively here.
Massive resources are being used to build things in a useless attempt to get rid of workers
All those resources never showed up to help research teams finding a cure to cancer.
Well nationalise it, duh
I've recently watched a lecture by Graeber about dowry and bride pricing, and yeah I get where these laws come from
But to keep them until 2018 is wild
🌋🤯
I've never seen the sequels but I figured from the trailers it was going to be some slice of life slop, so thanks for confirming that
But to be honest, the real exception in their media appearances IS the 2007 movie. The original cartoon animated series were focused on making random music videos and covers, and the 1987 movie is simply a musical about an adventure around the world.
Only in that 2007 movie we see them becoming superstars. Sure it still would have made sense for the sequels to build on that, but it's likely those slice of life stories were written quite a while before they became stars, their character design wasn't built around pop stars to begin with
A reduction in profits is not an issue to the production itself... I would understand if it were a 10% reduction in revenue. Nobody needs to be fired, profits are still above 0, the company is sustainable
Hopefully the increase in popularity will reduce per-person costs and at that point the government can do collective bargaining.
Thanks for the replies
Ofc not, see other reply
If it was were public I'd understand that.
But if it's private, you're basically increasing demand on the service by artificially lowering the price, without addressing potential overcharges... I guess it's still OK because you reduce traffic and end up saving elsewhere, and you can bargain the price collectively. Still I would prefer that bargaining to happen before the measure is put in place and you start giving away public money to a private company
I'm confused, why does the measure cost money to the government? Is the government going to pay the remainder?
With half the population priced out of new cars, possibly permanently, this will be fun to watch unfold
In Europe it's full of parties that call themselves socialist, they have won here and there, yet their countries still vote and other parties win too
You could also reframe the word "friends" from the context of active social life to actual companionships.
When I was 19-22, I struggled to have an active social life, and my parents were kinda obnoxious about it, turning to me on Saturdays asking me to try contacting old friends I hadn't seen for years just so I'd be out.
But I had no trouble finding companions to talk to. Online, that was. Especially on apps like Slowly or Bottled, but also through groups about manga or games. Some of the people there stuck with me, I might have met them once only in person, but I've discussed a lot of my feelings of the time with them. I believe them to be full friends, even if I didn't routinely see them outside.
Now it's basically the opposite, I can ask some friend to go out on a weekend (work doesn't allow me any other day without paying it in sleep hours), but I struggle finding somebody new to share my feelings with online. Which is fine too, but I do miss the curiosity I had at the time, chatting with people around my age from other parts of the world.
I'm not sure if "mods" are the ones managing communities, while instances are managed by "admins" or similar.
On reddit, sub mods can ban you from their sub, and reddit itself is the single instance with its own guidelines which can get you banned from the whole platform, with the possibility that in the future we'll need identification to login, so creating multiple accounts might even become something of the past
Lemmy is a protocol, every instance should be seen as its own small reddit, which can behave like reddit, however all these reddits are connected together so even if one provider manages to ban you and your multiple accounts on that instance, it has no legal responsibility on your activity on other instances. There is no central Lemmy authority that could be legally compelled by the laws of one country to have specific moderation policies.
If somebody's behaviour is terrible, like idk fascist propaganda, they will be banned by every instance, except those with inactive moderation or fascist admin/moderators. In this case, other instances can (topically collectively) decide to sever the federation to those instances. Thus, a general ban on individuals is possible, but only by a collective effort of people who have otherwise no legal obligation to each others
The point of Lemmy is that here you can drop one instance because of its rules and join another instance without having to lose your communities
OP was banned by one instance and telling us about it from another instance connected to basically the same people. Single instances are powerless, they can't silence you effectively here.
How many times my father insisted that this or that classmate had a thing for me
No, dad, she has a thing for getting a good grade in math, which I happen to understand a bit
So how did that go
Ducks think? Do they quack in their dreams?
"Human males are more attractive, look at peacocks"
Claro que si
A clear sea indeed