I completely agree with you. I'm equally hypersensitive to this PC crap that we have today and didn't really have too many issues with the movie. My biggest one was the replacement of John Connor with Dani's new female John Connor, I didn't have too many issues. That said, I thought that Natalia was a pretty bad actress, so I automatically disliked her in all scenes. I loved Grace, however.

Overall, the only part that really irked me was the death of John Connor. Fuck that.

I 100% agree with you. However, as much as I despise this woke PC feminism crap, didn't find the movie to be bad. On the contrary, I actually liked it. My only real issue with the movie is that they had Dani as the next John Connor, for obvious PC reasons. Fuck that. I really liked Grace and, of course, Linda.

That said, while they did the whole gender swap for obvious PC reasons, from the sense of the storyline, it didn't itself feel forced. It made sense, as far as time-traveling sci-fi stories go. Most importantly, they never once portrayed women as the savior of mankind while men are evil and/or incompetent. It just happened that she was the next leader of the resistence. Of course, it didn't help that Natalia Reyes was a shit actor.

In all, if you can get by the bit of wokeness thaty they interjected, it was actually a really good movie.

I watched it on Friday with my best friend, and not only did we both like it, but literally everybody who did the survey liked it - a lot.

I had some issues with it, but overall I thought it was quite good.

This is exactly why I watch kitboga (youtube; too lazy to link). You get to see what the scammers do and, as a bonus, he fucks around with them for hours so they get frustrated and lose time trying to scam other people. As a bonus, he's hilarious.

Highly recommend.

From what I understand, Gandalf is maaaaany thousands of years old, possibly older than time itself. However, he's "only" about 2,000 years old in human form. In short, unless they make a mega travesty out of this (currently praying to all Gods I can think about for this not to happen), either he'll be an old gandalf (like in the LotR series) or won't be there at all. No Gandalf origin story :-)

His character was....odd. However, from the bit that I know (never read the series and I'm halfway through Fellowship), he actually seems to be quite an interesting character. A forest God of sorts with incredible, but also limited, powers.

I'd actually really like to see them explore his lore more, weirdness and all. Minus the musicals. That part can stay in the books where they belong.

That really depends where you are. In metro regions like NYC, Boston, and I imagine, many others, the cost of one regular (i.e. not IMAX, 3D etc) ticket is $15-$20, and that excludes popcorn and soda. For me, I'd have to watch around 5 movies a *year* for it to pay itself. That said, there is no chance in hell that it'll last that even half as long.

The issue is that the modern workplace, with so many meetings etc, does not even *allow* people to focus. There have been tons of studies showing that humans aren't capable of multi-tasking, much less when one is already getting several calls, hundreds of emails, and meeting invites all at the same time. I, for one, don't miss my consulting job.

The problem is that they say that performance has improved. But by how much? If only by 5%, then what benefit is that? It'll mean that employees are effectively getting a 25% bonus and little to show for it; and labor is typically one of the most expensive parts of an operation. By bumping the costs by an additional 25% you, as an organization, are making yourself less competitive and more difficult to survive.

Another point worth mentioning. To quote the article "employeesâ(TM) motivation and commitment to work increased because they were included in the planning of the experiment, and played a key role in designing how the four-day week would be managed so as not to negatively impact productivity." So, wait. Did productivity increase, or just not decrease? As I'm sure you know (but perhaps the author did not), they're vastly different things. Without knowing what changed it's hard to know if this is a financially viable solution. The article then goes to say "Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage". But why don't they just do this anyway and make people more efficient? (as an aside, I'd argue that internet at work can be beneficial as it let's one rest their head so to speak. But obviously too much internet is wasteful. Not sure if there have been any studies on this...)

Lastly, pure capitalist ideology simply says "if you want to survive, be profitable". How or why is irrelevant. Increasing costs to an already expensive component of an organization does little to help the much-maligned "bottom line" and help you be competitive against those with cheaper labor.

Look, I can definitely appreciate the idea of "less work can increase productivity" (after all, people who work 80+hrs are probably only marginally more productive than those that work 40, while making everybody miserable at the same time), but to assume that simply cutting off a work day will somehow magically solve our work-life balance problem -- while maintaining productivity -- is just foolish.

"...trialled a four-day working week over March and April, working four, eight-hour days but getting paid for five."

Yeah, no shit they're happier. You know what would make them even happier with an even better work/life balance? Get this...work three days a week and get paid for five! The experiment, if you can call it that, was pointless and proved nothing except that people would rather work less than more. I could have told you that. For free, too!

If they can show that the employee's productivity as a whole has increased enough to compensate for their effective 25% wage increase (or at least a substantial part of it), then fine. Good for them, even. But unless that happens, this is yet another socialist pipe dream of "work less, get paid more", which has yet to work out in the real world. Now, to be fair, they do recognize this and are seeking ways such that this does not adversely impact productivity (e.g. automating manual processes etc), but why not just do that anyway and improve the organization's efficiency and competitiveness?

She never signed the NDA, and 99.999% likely she never even read it. He, on the other hand, did. It was his lack of judgment that caused these issues, not her entitlement (which, from my brief glimpse of the video, doesn't appear to be any different than most millenials).

It's the speed, not the logic or computation: do 1+1+1 rapidly, you'll get the same problem. Do it slowly, and you'll be fine. That being said, this is a silly oversight. Should not have happened.

And Roth. Don't forget the Roth. While it's a post-tax contribution, the earnings from said investment are not taxed. Investing in tax-free capital gains when young can mean you get to keep TONS of money when you retire.

While I do sympathize with what your comments, I fundamentally disagree.

Would truly malicious software actually allow itself to be uninstalled? If the Kaspersky people are competent at what they do, and if they are doing it for Putin, then you are in a world of hurt. The question of "Should you uninstall?" is relatively trivial compared to the big questions of "Are you able to uninstall the software?" and "How can you be sure you really got rid of it?"

You're right, If they really worked for Russia, I'm sure uninstalling it would be as futile as resisting an alien invasion. But:

"It's a big deal," says Blake Darche, a former NSA cybersecurity analyst and the founder of the cybersecurity firm Area 1. "For any consumers or small businesses that are concerned about privacy or have sensitive information, I wouldn't recommend running Kaspersky."

Really? The NSA is concerned about our privacy now? Honestly, this stinks as political propaganda (on our part). Furthermore, I had a chat with an acquaintance / friend in computer security a couple of days ago where we literally talked about just that (he worked for Kaspersky). In short, he had great things to say about the people at Kaspersky (incredibly smart and talented people) and agreed with my statements above. Also, he's 100% American, born and raised.

It could very well be that the upper echelon of KL is in cohoots with Putin, but like I said, this whole thing stinks of political propaganda. Either way, the best thing is to use an OS that doesn't rely on antivirus (Linux / Mac OS FTW :-)

Wait, they do hairdryers? And table fans? and cars?? What next, a sphere!?