There is only one season of Altered Carbon
Tamo240
joined 1 year ago
That is also my point. Don't worry though, you keep impeaching him until he dissolves congress.
You're response being 'yeah but you can be impeached multiple times' exactly demonstrates the weakness of that action.
Yep that's my point
I disagree, I think the removal of ads is often painted as a benefit that had inherent value. Look at YouTube premium or Prime video. Both haven't actually improved their offering, just made it worse by introducing ads and insisting users that don't want to see ads have to pay for the privilege of not being advertised to.
This means the total price adds up to higher than 100% of the product value, because it's a 'premium' version that comes without advertisement inconvenience.
Didn't you guys try that before?
Paying for the product and paying to not be inconvenienced by ads have become separate things. The first is standard business, the second is extortion.
I think what you're trying to say is that the social commentary has lost a lot of nuance, as well as the general quality of the writing going down, in which case I agree. Kinda toeing the line of the 'everything is woke now' crowd though, to which I would say you haven't seen/understood much Doctor Who if you think social issues are only recently a part of the stories.
For the record the Rosa Parks ep was one of my favourites for Jodie, but it's a low bar.
Why does any one employee have the ability to unilaterally move this much value? Even in non-malicious circumstances that doesn't seem like a good way of organising a currency?
Why disappointing? I think it looks promising,lalthough the chances of it reaching the heights of S1 are low.
If he ever denies team orders to switch the cars they'll stick someone else in the seat
The plot has already being discussed at length. I want to talk about quidditch.
Quick recap, in quidditch, scoring goals scores 10 or 20 points, catching the snitch scores 150 points, and ends the game. This effectively means that the only way a team can catch the snitch and lose is if they are over 150 points behind.
As a result of this, logically the seaker should not attempt to catch the snitch if the score is this unfavourable, meaning the game is always decided by the seaker, and nothing anyone else is doing remotely matters. Remember also we see the audience is rarely able to see what the seeker is doing from the stands.
Now you may say "what about the world cup in book 4, Krumm catches the snitch and still loses". This can only be attributed to Krumm got mad at his team, or maybe bored, otherwise he should just wait and see if his team can score a goal or two. If the other team's seaker catches the snitch you lose anyway, so why even try until it's going to win you the game? Maybe he was showing off to Hermione.
We also know for certain that this happens very rarely, as the odds given to the twins by Ludo Bagman are very high, leading to a big payout. Therefore quidditch is entirely decided by something that happens well out of sight of the audience, and would be terrible to watch or play.
As an aside, the rules around catching the snitch leading to a draw are never mentioned, but I assume they have some penalty shootout system
Not to be that guy but a Large Language Model doesn't generate images. This Is from a diffusion model