HarryOru

As a Spotify direct replacement you can go with YouTube Music.

Favorites:

• Veronica Mars (just the perfect match for the show's vibe and a damn catchy song)
• Fringe (loved how they used it later in the series to match the universe/time period the episode was set in)
• True Blood (a classic, wish the show matched its atmosphere beyond season 1)
• Jessica Jones (so underrated)
• Severance (extremely creative and memorable)
• Stranger things (hate the show, but the intro is undeniably brilliant in its simplicity)

Honorable mentions:

• Yellowjackets (fun!)
• Dexter (love the concept, hate the song)
• The 100 (after a basic title card in season 1 they actually added an intro for the rest of the show, with the content changing to match the theme and setting of each season)

I can't really think if any "worst" ones although in general I don't like when shows only do static or just very low-effort title cards. Some examples that come to mind are Breaking Bad and The Boys.

I think for me it's not so much the amount of episodes but how they are released. Most of my favorite shows have varying amount of episodes per season but they all were released weekly over several years or at least months. And I've come to the realization that the reason why I can't grow attached to modern shows the same way I could with 90s-00s and early 10s television is that binging 6-10 episodes over a couple of days once a year just isn't the same kind of experience and emotional investment as following a group of characters and a plot week by week over several seasons, literally growing up with them and the story.

I'm not saying today's model is all inherently bad but I personally often miss that kind of old-school television where reaching over a 100 episodes was almost the norm for even semi-popular shows. I wish they could coexist.

I'm interested in getting a foldable eventually, but I think it's still too soon and too costly.

You're clearly giving it too much thought. It's just stupid, blatant lies. There is no point in entertaining them or even questioning them.

Sorry dude. I know you really really want to be taken seriously, but it's just not gonna happen. Defamation laws have been around for millennia (50 years of case law? Lol) and they're just one tiny example of regulation of speech. If you don't believe political propaganda on social media should be regulated exactly the same way, you probably lack the mental acuity to understand the concepts of cause and effect. Or you're just arguing in bad faith as well. We could go on for hours about the excesses of extra-woke cancel culture and how they are detrimental to discourse, but since you decided to open with "Nazi propaganda is free speech" I'm pretty sure it would be a huge waste of time.

No, I definitely cannot read. Can write, but can't really read, sorry. My lack of mental acuity doesn't help. Libel and slander? Oh my, I wonder what those words mean. Are they, perhaps, social constructs that exist to prevent the consequences of harmful communication? Like... Regulation of speech?? Like... laws? Wait, but isn't speech supposed to be free??? Why are they taking away our rights like this???

I suggest you call the nearest mall and tell them you placed a bomb in there. It's just free speech, it's not like you actually put a bomb there, you're just saying it, so it's fine. If they don't like it they just can hang up and move on. I think it will be a totally fun and safe experience for you to try and that there will be absolutely no consequences for anyone involved, because that's how free speech works.

Or maybe, I don't know, you could pick someone you don't like and start telling people that they're a pedophile! It doesn't even have to be true, it's just free speech. You are free to say whatever you want! And if someone wanted to do the same thing to you, it should absolutely be their right to do so! Free speech for everyone! It's literally free!

you know who overwhemlingly didn't vote for Kamala Harris, "progressive" leftists who wanted to protest Jews in support of Islamofacist terrorists.

Thank you for saying this. Tolerance paradox paradoxing hard; I will never understand those people and their naive, stubborn black-and-white thinking.

It's a crypto scheme, they're using this AI agent project to promote their coin. This is what crypto schemes do all the time, claiming that their coin is powered by or is powering whatever latest tech buzzword thing. Few years ago it was NFTs, then the metaverse, now it's AI agents. It's also extremely common for them to claim to be affiliated or funded by Elon Musk, for obvious reasons.

AI agents, especially if used like the project creators are implying through this fabricated narrative, are absolutely a threat to society. But that still doesn't mean that this narrative isn't fabricated.

Please, please, please, don't believe everything you read on the internet. Fact check everything, especially everything that sounds too good or too bad to be true. This is exactly how we got into the situation we're in today, and our ability to verify information is exactly what they're trying to take away from us.

We all saw relatives, friends and coworkers turn into conspiracy theory spouting zombies back in 2020, as they were willing to believe literally every piece of disinformation they were exposed to as long as it aligned with their fears. Then we saw many of those same people continue to spiral further into the alt-right's destructive narrative and propaganda. We must NOT fall into the same trap. The war that we're all fighting in today is a war for the meaning of truth.

Yes, and 2+2=5

my question is should your constitution deem a action moral/immoral in some situations, and opposite in others, and if so, where and how can you define such limits, and is it good to define such limits

You are not going to find a clear definitive answer to that question, for the reasons I've explained. If we as a species had a single, universal, correct answer to that question, a solution that somehow fairly handles all the infinite variables of context, cause, effect and emotion, according to a supreme, universally pleasing standard of justice, we would be living in a utopia. Or in Heaven. We wouldn't be here having this conversation, and we wouldn't be constantly teasing ourselves with debates or thought exercises like "would you kill Hitler if you could?"

YOU need to pick that answer for yourself. You have to come up with the best solution that you feel comfortable with after taking in consideration the variables of context, cause, effect and emotion to the best of your ability and knowledge for EACH experience you have. Then you'll have your "morals", and those are the only ones you should follow.

And yes, like I said before, this is complex, and scary, and difficult and absolutely exhausting. Which is exactly the reason why some people turn to religion or anything that promises the illusion of a ready, stable, immutable answer in a world that is constantly changing and constantly requires them to re-evaluate everything they know.