snooggums

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

67% audience rating though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I would say it is number of episodes more than just years, as a show with 20+ episodes per year will run out of the same number of ideas twice as fast as 10 per year, and the latter has more time available to think up and refine ideas.

I would say long running shows should be the exception to the rule, and all those shows that drug themselves out for whatever the syndication minimum was are the best examples moat things having a limited lifespan. Plus the number of years tends to lead to staff turnover and the people writing season 7 are most likely not the same as the ones who made the show successful in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

People shouldn't be used to deny healthcare either.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Everything can possibly be construed as X.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

They aren’t going to make this easy cause it quite literally means giving the shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.

Making less profit than previous periods of time or even operating at a loss is not illegal in the US. Many companies have periods where they lose money or sacrifice short term profits for long term growth.

Investors with enough control might boot the leadership out, but they can also do that for whatever reason including unrealistic expectations.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

The whole Lovecraft universe is sort of a hog podge of other's authors work as well who sort of expanded and formalized parts of it.

It is a shame that the other authors are overlooked because it was an awesome collaboration.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

That is what the help files say, but when I tried to register a work account yesterday it did the verify you are human, then said there was something suspicious and sent the email verification, then said there was something suspicious and is now requiring a phone verification even though I did not enter a phone number.

At no point was I ever signed in and able to even pick a channel. This all happened while trying to log in for the first time through the browser at work with my work email. I guess that someone else might not hit that phone requirement as I only tried to do the registration once, but it is in no way limited to joining a particular channel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I don't know if it is new, but it is in the help files when I tried to figure out why it required both confirming an email and the phone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Do you think I'm talking about inherent value to dogs and cats?

I'm going to assume you are trolling and kick myself for falling for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I'm sure that I have met and interacted with one or more people who are trans, as I have known enough people to be statistical likely.

an few literally, we are in our 40s and and openly positive about accepting differences including LGBTQ+ folks so odds are it would have come up by now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I don't think you understand what inherent means.

If something does not always have value in every circumstance, the value is not inherent.

[–] [email protected] 118 points 8 months ago (7 children)

The worst part is that they act like you can set up an account without a number, but then it acts like there is 'suspicious activity' and requires you to verify with the phone immediately.

Just rant into this yesterday trying to set up a work account as my work phone is not a mobile phone with sms.

Was registering really suspicious?

view more: ‹ prev next ›