The reason it's a list of shitty movies is because the producers of these films are looking to make bank. These films didn't do well at the box office, so this is just another revenue stream to work. This is particularly important for them if the film didn't generate enough revenue in theaters to cover expenses.

Couldn't most degrees be distilled down to "Read this stack of books, memorize these sets of facts, and perform these written exercises"?

Anyway, I have an MBA. I enjoyed it a lot. I got a lot of benefit from classroom instruction and interacting with professors. And I got enough understanding of business that I was able to start my own business, which I ran for six years.

I live in a banking town, so there were a lot of folks there getting an MBA with a finance concentration. It seemed to be very beneficial for them, career-wise.

I work in IT. My university did not have an IT concentration at the time, but I do have a lot of thoughts on how IT management should/could have been integrated into my university's program in a way that would have boosted my career even faster. But staying relevant to the job market is a problem for all degree programs, not just MBA's.

MBA enrollment generally trends with the unemployment rate. When unemployment is low, MBA enrollments drop. When unemployment is high, a lot of folks register MBA programs.

Boy does that sound like movie studio bullshit.

Does Sony have 80 years' worth of stories to pull from, featuring characters who routinely cross over into each others' storylines?

Migration? How about war. As the changing climate makes food and other resources more scarce, countries will be willing to go to war with one another to acquire those resources.

Expect EVERY nation to feel the pinch, while the smaller nations start fighting it out. And then it will bubble up to the larger nations.

Climate Change is a "frog in the kettle" problem. The changes are happening slowly enough that uninformed skeptics can dismiss the impacts. And the impacts are hitting poverty-stricken areas of the world the hardest, where there is already a delicate balance of life. You know, those areas of the world that we in the first world don't give a fuck about because we're cozy in our middle class lives. But those impacts will eventually catch up to us.

Not sure what gave you that idea. I just asked what an optimal cost/benefit ratio would be. That would suggest research and testing to determine.

Noise canceling earphones are based on the same concept as the X-ray specs in the back of comic books... that consumers are dumb.

So, you're saying people only work in order to have the bare minimum in life?

The Republican/Libertarian approach is to just guffaw at any spending ideas, without ever asking what an optimal number would be that would maximize the cost/benefit ratio.

You're only talking expenses.

What about revenues? If you pay a poor person $1,000/mo, they will spend it. So, part of that money immediately comes back to the government as tax revenue. And all of it would go towards GDP growth, providing an immediate 17% boost in GDP.

I'd say that we need to tailor the solution to the need. I don't know that UBI will work in every kind of society. But I do know that economic stimulus works from the bottom up, not from the top down. Companies are formed to provide goods and services when there are consumers with money.

Your parents gave you plenty of free stuff. How'd that turn out?