When companies respect an "unsubscribe" request I'll consider the idea they won't just obfuscate the bot and barrel through the denial.

Nobody cares. They won't even beg forgiveness. The law is so far behind reality that it doesn't matter. The penalties are fiction.

"My family doesn't want to" is the argument I cannot refute. But it is a choice. And I'm not even down on the choice. It's called discretionary spending for a reason, and if that's where you choose to spend it you aren't making a bad choice. Just not a frugal one.

I'm really only pointing out that with a small amount of restraint you can have a wonderful palate of content for under $25 a month.

Baked into your reply is the bald assumption that it's okay to pirate. I think it's stealing and it's not okay. So your point may be valid for you, but not for others and not for the law.

Besides... your way carries costs too. VPN subscription, time spent searching torrent sites, storage , and non tangible costs like inconvenience. Finding out you grabbed the French version without multi language tracks... finding extra files in the torrent... streaming from a NAS if you consume in your living room...

Well those people have a self inflicted problem. I can't help them. But I don't know what end they are driving at. Periodic episode erooo pi s takes immediate gratification off the table anyway. If they can't just wait until the last episode drops to binge the series they're doing it wrong.

The best way to make streaming cost effective is simply to subscribe to a different service each month. If you insist on continuously carrying a suite of services, the value per dollar drops off. But maintain a single service in rotation, and there has never been a better media entertainment value for your dollar. It's vastly better than cable ever was.

Of course sports junkies have a different scenario...

The story isn't that sales have fallen 20%. It's that 80% of the demand still exists.

What we've really taught these companies is that they've traditionally undervalued their products, and if component prices return to "normal" there is no reason at all that retail prices need to track it. The supply side has all the power, and they know it now.

The new normal sucks.

It's a victim of its hype. I enjoyed it fine, but I got exactly what I expected. A nostalgia trip, and a pretty decent one.

Comparing it to WFRR isn't fair. That cost almost $200M in 2026 dollars, and I believe it was the most expensive movie in the 1980s. And that's not even comparing fairly. A dollar, even adjusted, doesn't go as far in moviemaking as it did then.

In that context its rating is maybe overblown, sure. But it hit the mark it was aiming for. It's worth watching.

My bias is that while watching these cartoons in the 70s, while my family used the road runner shorts as pee breaks, I loved them the most. Slapstick was my jam.

Seriously. The moment you can buy Chinese DDR4/5, jump on it. Vote with your wallet. And you shouldn't spend one single second feeling guilty about it. It's like choosing to spend time with the boyfriend who doesn't beat you.

The gap between "mistakenly and with hostility boarded a vessel" and "started World War III" is so vast as to render the title fucking stupid. China would make hay over the incident, for sure. But they are not interested in being front and centre in a global conflict. It's not in their best interests, and they are a rational actor.

I don't disagree, but I think that's there's a nuance here that needs mentioning.

Trump is a special case. Everything he does is some form of a grift. It's not hidden - it's completely transparent. Those who fall for it are ignorant by choice. If they choose not to examine it, or (more likely) to ignore what's in front of them, they are to blame.

The other politicians would have a different standard to meet because they would have fooled the people. Trump cannot be other than he is, and those who are fooled have chosen it.

Do I think it should be allowed? Of course not. I'm only pointing the finger and doing my best Simpson's Nelson.

Not to be judgmental... but every one of those investors who lost money on the Trump coin deserved it. Okay. Well... yes. Im being totally and irredeemably judgmental. Yeah, I'm judging. Whether it's sycophancy, ignorance, or stupidity, they deserved it. Am I supposed to do otherwise? They bought the Brooklyn bridge from a guy on a street corner.

Unlike your other listed disbursements, they're likely to actually get this. Unlike politicians, companies generally make good on their offers. That already makes this far more legitimate.

Well then, the best answer would be for them to offer to pay directly for upgrades to homes that would help mitigate the effects. Acoustic treatments for instance. And if those complaining were honest, they'd shake hands and get it done.

But most wouldn't use the payout for that. The assumption is that they can be bribed. Which is fine. Absent any legal issues, there's nothing inherently wrong with a bribe. The question then becomes what the cost is to buy off the complainer, not what it costs to enhance the property. Those are two completely different questions, and you shouldn't just swap between them.

They aren't trying to make the problem go away - they're trying to determine what it costs to get people to ignore it.

And I think that's a reasonable starting point. Nobody is forced to sign on. Forgo the offer and press for more, if that's your preference.

But, this being a charm offensive, refusing it probably not going to change the trajectory of the project. So there's that.

It's not lying if you believe it when you say it. And Trump is just bent enough that he believes these things while he's saying them. He's far less a liar than he is just broken.

Not true anymore. Hasn't been for a while. Better let that one go... it's an anachronism.