naraku360

Depends on if the corporation can have a heart attack.

All those other countries that don't have obesity problems must be hogging them. Damn commies!

Too many.

Still a better love story than Twilight.

The part where it got replaced by a French movie bootleg site. It was a very funny mercy kill.

Dude literally tried to claim North Korea and China were not run by dictatorships at one point. Pretty sure he still believes that.

Goddamn liberals!

Watch out, you criticized Putin so you're in for a downvote from Nabs.

You could say the sponsors are all Tuckered out.

This thread be like

Fixed.

No.

James

I dunno. We had years of lost advertisers from him and I didn't see too many come back. It seems like a pretty big gamble with how many big ones he lost and with Twitter hemorrhaging them already.

I get that but he was the anchor of the most watched news program in the country and advertisers found him so unappealing to anyone outside the Fox bubble that they still wouldn't advertise on his show. I'm coming from the perspective that the fear of being associated with him at all would cause more damage than net benefit. Whether or not that holds true comes down to how much the companies care about reputation. He was the largest news anchor in the country but they still wouldn't advertise on his show out of potential reputational harm. I'm sure he'll get some back since some will come from the same angle you are, and that makes sense. At most, I'm suggesting it's too much of a gamble on that to really be a good idea. But even then, there were some real big names that left Fox entirely because of Tucker, regardless of his overwhelming viewership. So it's a question of how many will return vs how many will remain reluctant for reputation AND how many will leave on basis of not wanting to associate with the network (website in this case) that props up Tucker's bullshit. It's certainly possible for it to pay off. I'm leaning toward the Tucker ad well has become Flint, Michigan. I guess we'll see if Tucker's pull can outweigh the insurmountable stupidity of Elon Musk.

I don't know how anyone involved thinks this is a good idea. Musk is a bumbling moron who lost billions of dollars for the purpose of "triggering" the libs with the crustiesy, boomerest memes imaginable, so I don't know how Carlson thinks this is a viable option. And Twitter is in desperate need to advertisers now that Elon royally screwed that up. And his answer to getting advertisers back is.... advertiser napalm. The guy who got companies willing to put ads on Fox News to bail.

Whatever this week's variant of "What was she wearing?" is.

BotW has been a perpetual bucket list further hindered by my limited interest in Zelda. But I'm sure I'll play it some day. The world design is by Monolith Soft and that basically means I have to play it at some point.

That's the thing, though. There has to be a limit and these suits don't have a concept of restraint. Eventually everyone will be gone and working in conditions set by real humans with things like a conscience. At some point nobody is going to want to work for a place that puts all their eggs in a basket that can't figure out if Alucard could beat Dio.

Sort of, but I don't think the issue you had was necessarily with the content as much as how it was presented. 2011 doesn't really convey what Gon is like since they really ramp up the cheerful shonen vibe and cut down on characterization. It's all but the most recent 3 arcs. Glad it doesn't sound too severe. Those are world-ending powers that are visible to most people. It's not that people forgot. It's that most users keep it close to their chest since each ability is unique to the user and anyone knowing their ability is a serious risk. That's not a universal pretense, people outside the Hunter Organization can figure it out on their own and nobody is strictly barred from exposing it. It just isn't super common knowledge. A ton of them can't be seen without special training, either. Wouldn't say that. They're presented with more mature storytelling and better characterization, so their actions are more understandable. I'd say they're more likable and it's more neutral on how you're supposed to view them. Phantom Troupe and Chimera Ant tackle those kinds of aspects and are very critical of the cast. Though even in 2011, they actually do address stuff like that early. Everyone is caught of guard by Gon's bizarre sense of morality. '99 shows more of his upbringing with him basically running around the forrest all day, how Kite (the person that caused Gon to look for Ging) impacted Gon's morality, how Mito literally hid the existence of Hunters from Gon to prevent him from following his dad. Stuff that got removed from 2011. It's a case of 2011 making the wrong kind of changes in adaption. That stuff was in the manga. They're less "good guys" or "bad guys", and more somewhere in the middle. It's acknowledged much more thoroughly earlier in '99. I found it made them more likable despite being at core very similar. It's moodier without being overly edgy. Dark, perhaps, but handled maturely. There are women. Takes a while for any to be center stage, but there are quite a few major ones throughout. Most ensemble arcs like Phantom Troupe, Chimera Ant, and the Succession War have multiple main characters separate from the protagonist(s) that are women, and Biscuit Krueger is effectively a part of the main group for Greed Island. I should have time to watch some of Robotech in the near future. I got wrapped up in nigh nonstop Xeno series stuff that's been ongoing since Xenoblade 3 came out. Revisited 1, 2, and Xenosaga, finished Xenogears, and am mostly done with Xenoblade X outside post-game/side stories. I've watched maybe 2 or 3 things on my own since XC3 came out and both were sequels. 🙄

Counter-counterpoint: Unions can still exist with smaller indie companies that are able to produce higher quality work with fewer resources. Companies not constrained to the unreasonable, inethical expectations placed on them by corporate knuckledraggers. Contemporary media, for better or worse, is largely online and able to reach more people easier than ever. And I think more accessibility to create independent art is fundamentally a good thing.

Frankly, the fact AI is eventually going to make it possible for anyone to produce art previously unheard of without a multibillion dollar corporation to back them may very well spell the doom of Hollywood as a concept. Good riddance.

You didn't respond to, like, any question. How is asking to distinguish between two things that meet the criteria you're complaining about "whining"? You immediately went to calling me obtuse, refused to answer some basic questions, berated me for being "delusional," and can't even define the terms you used to make your claims. It isn't my fault your side is predicated on vague hyperbole you can't so much as be bothered to elaborate on. Gesturing loosely at wrongdoing amd calling it nonsense like "killing off useful parts of humanity," whatever that means, doesn’t say anything. I don't know what that means. I don't know what "replacing artists" means when it's technology that those same artists will, in the coming years, simply adapt to using new technology. Art is about creativity and if your opinion is that being creative is fundamentally bad because AI was involved, than I'm simply not going to agree unless you give me something more concrete to work with. Yes, automation means people lose jobs. That's inevitable. It was always going to happen. Artists adapt. It's technology those very people can use to make things they could not have dreamed of making before without support of multibillion dollar corporations. Do you like Disney having a monopoly on media? I certainly don't.