It's sad this is marked as "Troll." Not only is everything you said factual, but it doesn't even suggest any bias beyond stating that the media is untrustworthy (which really *shouldn't* be an opinion held by only one political side). You don't say whether you think KR is innocent or guilty, whether his attackers were justified or unjustified, whether he should have shown up or stayed home...it's just stating facts and mentioning some falsehoods that people somehow, with no excuse whatsoever, manage to believe.

That's not what's going on here at all. Your "general rule" would be closer to meaning that, hypothetically, Rosenbaum wouldn't be justifying in swinging at Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse shot him, since Rosenbaum initiated the conflict by charging at Rittenhouse.

Saying, "They were justified in attacking him because he happened to be holding a gun during a riot" (which is essentially what you mean when you say it's not self-defense) is just the "she shouldn't have been wearing that if she didn't want to be raped" argument. It's victim blaming, and it's stupid no matter what the situation is.

Is it too much to ask for a definition of "NFT" in the summary?

So you're comparing immunizations that have been around for decades that literally prevent you from getting that particular illness for the rest of your life, to vaccines that have been around for less than a year that require a booster shot every couple of months.

There's a reason most places that requite a smallpox vaccine don't also require a flu vaccine. They share a name, but they're completely different.

Did he direct her to do that, or is that just her acting style? I started watching the Marvel movies recently, and Black Widow has got to be the least interesting character in a cast of dozens.

Wouldn't a profit "exponentially higher" than 10K a month be...100 million a month? I seriously doubt this kid is making that much, no matter how well he's doing.

If people are paying for online companionship, I suspect their financial woes are less due to a bad economy and more due to bad spending habits.

That's one thing that makes it so hard for so many people to believe Covid is as dangerous as we're all told. It's supposed to be this incredibly contagious disease, but there are so many "unless"es and "except"s that make you wonder just how serious it really is. You have to wear a mask AT ALL TIMES...unless you're eating in a restaurant. You need one when working out at the gym...except if you're swimming in/walking around the indoor pool. Athletes can play their sports without masks...as long as they put them on as soon as they come off the field/court. You must be tested for Covid regularly!...unless you're vaccinated, even though you can still catch/spread it with the vaccine. And I've heard (can't prove) that it's virtually impossible to transmit Covid outdoors, yet people still wear masks when walking, biking, heck, even when driving their cars. And then they grab and shift and move and touch their masks like crazy, or don't have it over their noses, or any of a number of other things that completely defeat the point. The rules all seem to go only as far as the point where most people can agree it would be pretty inconvenient for them, then all bets are off.

I say, just treat it like any other disease, take any precautions you personally would take for any other sickness, and go on and live your life. Covid is never going away, and at some point we're just going to have to get used to living with it without all these restrictions and mandates.

Every time I see this portrayed as a problem, it baffles me. Each generation SHOULD be poorer than their parents, because their parents have a 20-30 year head start on accumulating wealth. Are you really making the case that a 20 year old (with no savings, investments, or assets to speak of) should be richer than their 50 year old parents? Or a 30 year old (who has probably just taken on a mortgage and the financial burden of one or more kids) should be richer than their 60 year old parents (who have paid off their mortgage, are no longer supporting kids, and have probably peaked on their income and wealth to the point that they can live on it for the next few decades)? You surely aren't concerned that minors are poorer than their parents. So what, exactly, is the problem here?

This is an argument that uninteresting people use to excuse the fact that they're uninteresting. All the things people did for fun 50 (or even 20) years ago - those just suddenly vanished? What happened to going on a bike ride together? Grabbing a ball and shooting some hoops? Playing cards? Heck, just sitting around and "hanging out" - talking and enjoying each others' company for its own sake?

When you say "there is literally nothing to do out there," what you really mean is "there's nothing to do that I, personally, enjoy doing." And that's a failure on your part, not the world's.

Perhaps so, but then it's also his editor that's responsible for the ongoing widespread appeal of Dickens over a hundred years later, rather than leaving him to be some niche author that stood out in his day for the wrong reasons and was soon forgotten.

That's because their parents were largely immigrants, farmers, and other sorts of folks with almost no net worth. Once a family has broken free of that, you should EXPECT each generation to do worse than their parents, because the previous generation has had more time to accumulate wealth. Someone in their 40s SHOULD be doing worse financially than someone in their 70s, for both the reason you mentioned (no mortgage) and others besides (no kids to support, etc.)

And then that oldest generation dies, leaves their inheritance to the next generation, and suddenly that next generation is the one who's doing the best. And so on. Why would anyone expect anything different?

As plenty of other people here have said, it's all about where you get your energy. Introverts recharge by being alone. Extroverts recharge by being with others. There's nothing inherently derogatory about calling someone either.

And, as boudie2 said, they'll have the least to say. Most people are bad at conveying information in a way that's useful to their audience, and introverts are certainly no exception. They may even be guiltier of it than extroverts.

The article does address that, by way of citing a contemporary newspaper article: "The machine...has 5,400 characters (the most commonly used of the 80,000 in the Chinese language)"