Just got mine today. There were a couple hiccups for me though.
First is communication. I didn’t know these were available until a family member mentioned it. The pharmacy has signs for flu shots, why not covid?
Second, supply. I tried making an appointment a week ago, but they didn’t have any, so I had to wait until now.
Finally is insurance. My provider is fantastically opaque about whether they’d cover it. I didn’t know if I’d have to pay for the shot until I saw $0 on the receipt.
To say this has been fumbled would be an understatement. I’m not convinced that any agencies or companies are even trying to get people vaxxed.
Regarding insurance, the CDC has a program to provide free vacinations to those who are not covered by insurance. All you need to do is go to a participating pharmacy. They will bill the CDC program if they cannot bill insurance.
To find a participating pharmacy, go to www.vaccines.gov and select the Bridge Access Program filter after making the search.
When I got to the pharmacy I was sent to by the .gov website, I at first couldn’t find my insurance card in my bag, and they weren’t going to give me the shot, even though the .gov site said it wasn’t needed.
And even though I had entered all the correct insurance information asked on the website form in order to book the appointment.
Eventually I found my old card and it had enough of the right information (prescription bin, specifically) that they were able to bill my insurance.
So, if you don’t have insurance, be sure that’s known when you book the appointment. If you do, bring your card.
I also had 4 appointments cancelled because they were out of vaccine. Even the tech who was only able to give me my flu shot was upset, because she and her extended family were planning on getting their Covid shots and couldn’t, so we bonded over our distress.
Once the government bowed out of it, the private sector just completely bungled it. My pharmacy said I was much easier and productive to buy from the govt. My kids doc said it’s been a nightmare dealing with these companies (the rsv one too).
Logistics aside, you are right about comms. People have no clue there is a new one. It doesn’t have a good name. At least “bivalent” distinguished between the OG vaccines and the new one.
Well, it’s starting to look that way. They’ve reached the point of trying to overthrow our democratic institutions. The only thing left for them to do is openly advocate for the execution of political rivals.
What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having to read it.
For anyone reading this and legitimately wondering if it’s fair to call a person like this a Nazi, I say this:
The Nazi party was first a political party in Germany. It operated for years before Germany invaded Poland, before they implemented Hitler’s genocidal plans. It gained popularity on the same kind of rhetoric the Republican party is using now: claimed victimization of the majority, and blaming societal problems on unrelated minorities.
German people had legitimate grievances about their lives, and the Nazi party capitalized on that by blaming Jews, gay people, the disabled, and others.
When people say that Republicans like this guy are Nazis, they’re not comparing them to WW2-era Nazis. They’re comparing them to the Nazis that led to WW2, because they are extremely comparable.
Don’t be misled by “gotcha” comments like this one.
I’m really surprised that this is the top post here.
It’s not just a noun and a day of the week. It’s a noun and a day of the week used to formally sell tacos.
This is Taco Bell using its size and wealth to take something from smaller players so that it could make money with it.
And the smallest players have always had absolutely nothing to worry about. Part of trademark law is that you must defend it. That can be just a letter.
Well no, they couldn’t. The article literally says that prior to this only that one bar in New Jersey could use it because they had a statewide trademark on it. Because they dropped it, anyone can now use it including other small bars in Jersey.
What this is doing is ensuring it remains open for use by anyone. Taco Bell, Taco Johns, Taco Suzy, whatever. Before, anyone could register for the trademark if no one else had, and start screwing over other small players.
This is Taco Bell using its size and wealth to take something from smaller players so that it could make money with it.
This is bullshit. The other companies can claim that they're abandoning their marks due to cost but the truth of the matter is these marks should not have been issued. Neither were the first to use "Taco Tuesday." The phrase "Taco Tuesday" has entered everyday parlance. Unless you live near one of these restaurants you may not even know they run a "Taco Tuesday" and, most important of all, you may not even realize that they have a trademark on the term because it's so generic.
And that's the real issue, and the reason they abandoned the mark. Any IP attorney would have looked at this told them it was a complete waste of money to defend because they never should have been granted the marks in the first place.
Like, the fact that she’s a “good” one and that so many of the Republicans still hate her just tells you such much about the Grand Old Party. But, they knew Trump was going to destroy them and let it happen anyway, so whatever.
The republican base isn’t conservative in the modern sense, they’re reactionary. In a similar vein, evangelical republicans don’t support the people who embody the values that they profess to hold sacred, they fully, and loudly, back people who are quite the opposite.
I imagine that both groups feel that they’re increasingly losing out in modern society and are seeking someone who’ll crush their perceived enemies and return them to their rightful place ruling the rest of us. So, the allure of a strongman to return them to their imagined golden age.
Liz was against it. Liz was called out. Her sister and her fought for what looks like 10 years. Liz admits she was wrong.
Yes, it took the classic “I’m against it until it affects me” routine, but her opinion changed.
The “worst” Republicans of the past are that. Someone I disagree with fully, but given enough time can be convinced to change their mind.
(Also as a quick aside that doesn’t mean that Republicans are “always wrong” or Democrats are “always right”, it’s to show that a production conversation can happen.)
If you look at the MAGA Republican that isn’t the case. Trump has “never been wrong” and will never admit fault.
The funniest example of this being the development of COVID vaccines. Trump led Operating Warp Speed to get the COVID vaccines in record time (ignore if this is true or not, that’s the belief). But who are the most unlikely to get COVID vaccines? MAGA Republicans. Trump even tried to convince them, but was booed for it. The one time Trump was actually correct he was booed. Trump can’t be wrong so he’s shut up about it ever since.
Her opinion changed cause suddenly it started to personally affect her.
That doesnt make her a good person, or a good politician.
We don’t need politicians that only change positions when things personally affect them.
Thats why we’re in the situation with the country as it is, because 99% of problems in America will never personally affect them… cause they’ll always have the money, access, and power to overcome or bypass it without issue or headache.
I agree. It’s a classic problem. She had a view I find fully incompatible with being a good politician. Her reversing that view does not make her a good politician, but it does make her a better one.
The truth is if I had to vote between two politicians, each of which I disagree with on the majority of issues, but one is steadfast in their views while the other is known to waver, I may pick the second of the two.
Many politicians get a bad wrap for flip-flopping on issues, and I certainly want some level of consistency, but someone who can admit their mistake shouldn’t be ignored.
I do agree we need politicians who can change their opinions not only when it affects them personally. However, it’s not a zero sum game. If we can make a little progress, it’s still progress. It’s not enough, but it’s progress.
I have no problem with a politician that changes position based on new evidence or facts coming to light.
But I do not want, and will never support a politician that is steadfast for objectively awful things, until it personally affects them.Because they will continue to fight for awful things, and you wont always be lucky enough for it to affect them.
This is great, but republicans are gonna hate it. They want everyone to hate taxes with a passion, so they make it difficult, time consuming and expensive to pay your taxes, and make government services as bad as possible so even poorer people who don’t pay much tax feel they get a bad deal out of taxation.
If ordinary people found it easy and convenient to pay taxes they might notice that they get more out of government than they put in and that rich people are bearing more of the cost than they are. If they thought that, they might support tax increases or things that horrify republicans like medicaid for all.
These people are too stupid to realize a person comes every week and takes away their garbage. They have soft, lizard brains. They have dudes that drive cars to and from work every day on government health insurance who with a straight face say they do not really on the government at all.
That’s not it. Only reason is lobbying by tax software companies that somehow (read using lots of money) convinced politicians that a government provided solution is bad idea.
It’s the same thing with your health-care and schools system.
That’s definitely also true, but republicans genuinely want everyone to hate taxation as well, so their interests very much align with the companies that want to fleece you.
Lots of countries have pay as you earn schemes where your income tax is deducted but your employer and sent to the government and you don’t have to even lift a finger, likewise the price on the item at the shop, by law, includes tax and it’s completely seamless for you. Republicans will never like such schemes because they want taxation to be hated by all so that they’ll go along with tax cuts that primarily benefit such folks.
IIRC that’s what the income tax was supposed to be like … it wasn’t even supposed to be an “income tax”, it was supposed to be a tax on the employer side based on the amount of money they’re paying their employees. Somehow it ended up being that employees individually have to deal with the headaches and your actual take home salary isn’t obvious.
Isn’t the W-4 supposed to allow for a pay as you earn situation? It just never works out right and you either give the government an zero interest loan for the year or you get a surprise bill. Seems like they could be more on top of that.
That second paragraph doesn’t make sense to me. You are saying that “ordinary people” will notice that they benefit from the cost/return ratio compared to “rich people”, so they’ll get greedier?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for medicaid for all… but I don’t follow that logic at all
Russia. It gives them breath and cover at a time where the US is stymied against supporting Ukraine. Creates another thing for the media to “do” that isn’t covering Ukraine.
It’s a very bad physical destruction when there’s now 5 times more than 60 years ago. When I destroy something whole or in part there’s usually less afterwards. See Jewish population in Europe before and after ww2.
So the medieval-style siege (only done 'in retaliation" ofc, as is tradition for Israel) does not intent to destroy the population in the Gaza Strip just because the bad sand people didn’t die yet? The definition clearly states that it’s about intent.
In any case, 45% of the population in Gaza is 14 years or younger, so the mental harm bit of the genocide definition also applies. What Israel is doing and did in the past centuries is horrific and that constant backup they get from the West has to stop.
By the way, I’m not arguing that Hamas are the good guys, everyone knows they are jihadists that like to pretend they fight for their people but in reality only use them as shields. I argue that Israel is a nationalist, ultra-right state led by an insane nutcase that openly admits to be a proponent of zionism and unironically thinks Hitler got the idea for the Holocaust from a Palestine Grand Mufti.
I’m not arguing for Israel being the good guy, just for genocide to be melodramatic. They treat them like enemies, which with a support of 60%+ for hamas which declared goal is to drive all Jews (not only the rightwing asshats) into the sea.
Hamas and many Palestinians celebrate the deaths of Jewish civilians. Since even before Israel existed there have been multiple attempts to bring all sides together. There were offers where Palestine would’ve been its own nation with the capital being in eastern Jerusalem. They refused every single time. You want intent? The clear intent of hamas is the extermination of every single Jew in the region without exception. Both sides are bad and the Israeli government is far from innocent. But I only see one group celebrating when civilians get killed. And I only see one group thinking the Holocaust didn’t go far enough.
I’m not arguing for Israel being the good guy, just for genocide to be melodramatic.
It’s not melodrama, it fits the UN definition of a genocide, but if you think “ethnic cleansing” is more appropriate, I’m willing to compromise.
They treat them like enemies, which with a support of 60%+ for hamas which declared goal is to drive all Jews (not only the rightwing asshats) into the sea.
Palestinians support Hamas not because of their ideals, but because they are the only one’s that pretend to fight for them. Israel’s kill count is orders of magnitude higher than Hamas’. How many Palestinian would vote for Hamas if there were fair, anonymous elections in Palestine is impossible to tell. You are extrapolating Hamas’ extremism to the general population.
Since even before Israel existed there have been multiple attempts to bring all sides together. There were offers where Palestine would’ve been its own nation with the capital being in eastern Jerusalem. They refused every single time.
True, because their Holy Scripture tells them it’s their land which is ironically the same reasoning Israel uses to stake a claim on the land.
The clear intent of hamas is the extermination of every single Jew in the region without exception.
Yes, and the clear intent of Israel is to exterminate every single Palestinian. That’s why they are huddled up in Gaza and the West Bank, guarded by the IDF. They are not allowed to enter Israel and Egypt refuses to let them enter their territory as well.
And I only see one group thinking the Holocaust didn’t go far enough.
The only group I see thinking the Holocaust didn’t go far enough is the West by continuing to give military support to Israel and fueling the madness.
The extermination of Palestinians clearly isn’t their goal. Allowing the population of Palestinians to grow from 1 million to 5 million would otherwise look pretty foolish.
But why is Egypt refusing to let them in? Maybe because they don’t want to deal with Hamas either?
A population growing to 5 times the size it was before clearly does not fit the definition of genocide. Am I agreeing with how Palestinians are treated? No. But calling it a genocide when the population has been growing and growing is ridiculous.
The comment about the west I’ll ignore because it makes you look like a tanky.
Then holocaust deniers can’t read stats. As it took the Jewish population in Germany until 2018 to grow back to 1/5 of what it was in 1933.
Is the Israeli government being dickheads about Gaza? Definitely. But calling it a genocide seems melodramatic seeing as there’s now 5 times the amount of people there was 60 years ago.
And honestly, if what being done in Gaza qualifies as genocide, where’s the hate for Egypt? They keep the border closed too. But for some reason only Israel gets blamed. Why isn’t Egypt stepping up supplying aid?
And honestly, if what being done in Gaza qualifies as genocide, where’s the hate for Egypt? They keep the border closed too. But for some reason only Israel gets blamed. Why isn’t Egypt stepping up supplying aid?
Because they seemed to care about that during any of the wars they fought against Israel.
The real reason (according to everything I found) Egypt keeps the border closed is because they don’t seem to want to deal with Hamas and not because Israel is telling them to.
It’s not as common now as it used to be, and even back then it wasn’t really common, but it’s kind of like the word “inauspicious.” I had never heard anyone use the word before, but then I went to India and every English speaking Indian seemed to use the word regularly. It was weird.
But yeah, indefatigable is a word I’ve heard before, both spoken in older movies and in older books.
I’d put money on the nurse being a roleplayer / watcher. It’s a character attribute you can have in DnD 5e and I believe pops up in a few other tabletop games, so like, golems/robots “don’t get tired.”
Also totally possible he just likes older media of course.
1580s (implied in indefatigably), from French indefatigable (15c.), from Latin indefatigabilis "that cannot be wearied," from in- “not” (see in- (1)) + defatigare "to tire out," from de- “utterly, down, away” (see de-) + fatigare "to weary" (see fatigue (n.)).
Old English hat "hot, flaming, opposite of cold," used of the sun or air, of fire, of objects made hot; also “fervent, fierce, intense, excited,” from Proto-Germanic *haita- (source also of Old Saxon and Old Frisian het, Old Norse heitr, Middle Dutch and Dutch heet, German heiß "hot," Gothic heito "heat of a fever"), of uncertain origin, perhaps related to Lithuanian kaisti "to grow hot;" both could be from a substratum word.
Hadn’t made my way onto this page (de-) before, makes more sense in this context with the upper interpretation than what I was thinking from the second paragraph.
Welcome to English, no it doesn’t make sense and it contradicts it’s own supposed “rules” constantly, but it’s made of a hodgepodge of other languages, as well as slang that evolved from both it and those other languages, so what do you expect?
LOVELESS Yes, Mr. West, I’m sure a well- endowed blackamoor like yourself must find it absolutely impossible… that a freak like me could fully enjoy the pleasure of a woman. But having witnessed my use of mechinology so far… wouldn’t you think I could provide myself with something for the lower half of my body that was hard-pumping and indefatigably steely?
It’s sad that a teacher could possibly have no private life. It’s even more questionable how the account was “found”. I see no one is mentioned as having found it and reported it.
I think it was foolish of the district to fire her; if no student knew about it. The article also neglects to mention parental outrage; so it would seem that not even a parent discovered this either.
If all of this was done explicitly outside of the school, off grounds, and not mentioned ever; it makes no sense other than a few adults finding it awkward.
Yeah it’s most likely she didn’t know they would fire her if they found out she was also an adult entertainer.
Even if it’s buried in her contract; it isn’t something that’s typically discussed; and I doubt that they even so much as warned her once they found out. Literally she has the grounds for a lawsuit, but probably could care less as she makes better bank on OF anyways.
Assuming it’s anything like the multiple ones I’ve signed, the morality clause is not buried in the contract. She would have had to sign that specific section saying she understood it.
She rolled the dice and took her chances, but she got busted.
Missouri is a very conservative place. They would see this as too scandalous, think her to be an immortal person, and not fit to be around children. I’m not saying it’s right, just the perspective of the majority in that area of the country.
Missouri is deeply stupid. But not “conservative”. And I say that as a lifelong resident. Talk about any liberal, progressive, or possibly socialist policy in isolation. Most Missourians would find them favorable. The biggest trick is to avoid their programmed triggers. If you can navigate around their programming. You will get rational and reasonable responses most times. But that’s the trick. So many of them are so heavily programmed and tightly wound. That rationality is almost a foregone conclusion out of reach.
I’d argue this should have been the immediate response to Mitch McConnell blocking nominees half a term away from an election, but if the court can’t uphold the rule of law, it should be fixed (and expansion seems like the obvious solution) or replaced.
The procedural question on this one is whether he could shrink the court to boot say… Thomas, then expand it again to replace him with someone less obviously corrupt. Republicans fail to confirm a replacement? We’ll shrink the court a little more. Obviously, this won’t happen, but I’m interested to know if it’s possible.
I’d argue this should have been the immediate response to Mitch McConnell blocking nominees half a term away from an election
Honestly I feel like that needed a civil war level response, that really should not have been allowed/normalized, regardless of which party initiated the block.
whether he could shrink the court to boot say… Thomas, then expand it again to replace him
I couldn’t agree to that, that’s way too manipulative and dishonors the previous selections from previous presidents.
I would expect him to just expand the court by two seats, if he was going to try to do something along these lines.
dishonors the previous selections from previous presidents.
To what degree should prior selections be honored/respected if the presidents in question won under questionable circumstances, e.g. George W. Bush’s election in 2000 and the stopping of the Florida recount, or Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016 after his call for foreign interference, alongside James Comey reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton just before the election?
To what degree should prior selections be honored/respected if the presidents in question won under questionable circumstances
It would depend on the circumstances, but it would have to be very unique and extreme circumstances. The goal would be to avoid a Tit for Tat downward spiral to Civil War.
George W. Bush’s election in 2000 and the stopping of the Florida recount,
I believe that the mob that raided the office should not have allowed the vote counting to have been stopped. IMO it gave a green light to whomever set that up to go forward and do something along the lines of January 6th.
Having said that, no I wouldn’t for this situation. Almost, but no.
or Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016 after his call for foreign interference, alongside James Comey reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton just before the election?
No. Simple political interference wouldn’t be enough, we’re talking about extreme circumstances only.
Don’t forget Reagan/Carter. Reagan manufactured the October Surprise, making a deal with terrorists to prolonging a hostage situation in Iran, just to tank Carter in the polls.
My preference would be to simply enlarge the court by a few seats, nominate some additional candidates that exceed the number of available seats by 2 or 3, and then hold some sort of Survivor-like competition to see who captures the seats. I would also accept a Hunger Games style competition for this first new court session.
High-level politics should involve physical challenges. Put the judge chairs up a tall ladder and across a balance beam and we won’t see so many justices dying on the bench. At least from old age rather than balance-beam accidents.
Shrinking it (through established legal channels) is impeachment and removal which has a high bar. Enlarging it is just passing a law, which is only hard because the senate has a policy (not a law) to effectively not pass laws without supermajorities. The latter could be done with a simple majority of politicians with a spine.
To correct for the explicitly political gain one team is solely interested in for their own authoritarian redefinition of established precedent that also had their nominees lie their way into their SC positions at the expense of the Constitution and our freedoms. That’s the argument.
The problem is that we’re at a point where Republicans are not hesitating to lie, cheat, and steal their way to power. They have demonstrated quite clearly that they no longer have an interest in playing fair.
We need Democrats who aren’t afraid to fight back or we’ll lose our Democracy in America and eventually fall to fascism.
There may not be a good ending here, but it’s time to draw a line in the sand.
It’s a sad state when people actually believe one party has a better moral compass than the other. The reality is one party lies better than the other, but it’s two sides of the same coin. I blame gullible people that can’t do anything but parrot what the media tells them to. Sadly, that’s the majority of society.
Dude… both sides are absolutely not the same. Just look at the policies each side is trying to implement. On one hand, you’ve got Democrats trying to do things like forgive student debt and raise the minimum wage. On the other, you’ve got Republicans focusing almost solely on a culture war they’ve started just because they hate people who are different than they are.
I could go on and on with examples here. While it’s true that people parrot things they’re told to believe by the media (like pretty much everyone who watches Fox and actually believes it’s real news).
Our current Republican party has zero plans to actually help anyone they supposedly represent. It’s insane to me that anyone could look at what they’re doing and think it’s somehow beneficial to society…but I guess that’s because I don’t think of hurting people as a way to make my own life better.
There’s the problem. You think one party is inherently bad and one is inherently good. That’s completely an idiotic take. But you’re too stupid to see that.
You don’t have to believe that to believe that the parties are not the same. “Inherent good” is a philosophical construct that isn’t present in the real world- adopting a fatal nihilism in the face of that is the true idiocy.
That’s my entire point. It isn’t a party issue. The whole system needs flipped on its head. You’ve formed a rebuttal without even understanding the argument. Why?
One party is objectively and cumulatively ‘bad’ in almost any comparative context by a reasonable observer, and you projected your own views onto others by making assumptions about how they define one party bad on party good. Your point was to dilute the issue so you can prop up the ‘both sides’ delusion while hurling personal insults at the op. Yeah, the whole system could use a reboot, but playing to that point as gotcha drive-by comments without solutions is just spewing word salad for the sake of typing more words. You are trolling.
The argument seems entirely ost on you in the first place. You don’t understand how your assumptions and insults are the problem rather than ‘the point’. Why?
Dude, your entire comment is based off assumptions. You think I don’t understand the argument yet here you are completely clueless. You don’t even know what ‘the point’ is. You’re just mad because how dare someone criticize your favorite party. You’ve got one party full of bullshit and the other full of incompetence. If you support either one, you’re an idiot.
Only children and idiots take the ‘50%’ approach to arguments and disagreement.
You’re a complete moron if you genuinely believe that it’s a give and take with idiots. No. If they’re stupid and corrupt, then they don’t have as much to offer as those who aren’t.
Sad this needs to be spelled out for you, but I got a feeling you’re taken advantage of a lot by right-wing rhetoric so you feel they have something valuable to offer.
What options are there to fix this active extremist right wing slow motion coup that is trying to overthrow our Constitution by destroying established legal precedent?
This is not a one side versus the other political sport contest, this is far beyond any such sophomoric simpleton bullshit.
As a famous celebrity who has to deal with this a lot, here is an easy guide to tell real celebrities accounts from fake celebrities accounts on the Internet: Ask yourself, would it make sense for the real celebrity to promote these product on social media?
Does it make sense for Academy Award winning character actor Tom Hanks to promote a random dental service? No, therefore, that is a fake account.
Does it make sense for pop superstar Taylor Swift to promote her latest re-recorded albums on her social media? Yes, therefore, that’s a real account.
Does it make sense for Academy Award nominated actress Margot Robbie to promote her latest movie on her first personal social media account in years? Yes, therefore, that’s a real account.
Does it make sense for Matt Damon, Tom Brady, or Kim Kardashian to promote cryptocurrency on their social media despite never showing any interest in technology before? No, therefore, these are fake accounts.
Does it make sense for Elon Musk, the richest man in the world in his 50s, to act like an immature middle schooler and post bad memes on the Internet to sell a cryptocurrency based on a dead meme? No, therefore, that’s a fake account.
Does it make sense for an internationally recognized actress to come into the Fediverse to explain too notch level critical thinking…hmm. Agree with the points - yep. Think it’s actually Margot Robbie - doubtful.
That’s the beautiful thing. It doesn’t really matter if she’s actually Margot Robbie.
If she isn’t, she’s a person (probably - AI/ML systems are really good at tricking us these days) that posts generally amusing, positive, and pro-labor things.
If she is Margot Robbie, then, she’s a person that posts generally amusing, positive, and pro-labor things, while also having been publicly recognized as being skilled and talented at her day job.
Either way, it’s someone that I’m glad is active on Lemmy.
Does it make sense for Margot Robbie to point out what kind of accounts may be real or fake, including her own account in the example? Yes. Therefore it is a real account.
You’re welcome, soloner. Now, would you guys help support our strike and the livelihood of the majority of actors by buying a shirt or a mug? Here’s your chance to look like a real celebrity.
Does it make sense for Academy Award nominated actress Margot Robbie to promote her latest movie on her first personal social media account in years?
does it make sense for academy award nominated actress Margot Robbie to cross the picket line to promote the barbie movie on lemmy during the sag-aftra strike? yep, she’s well-known for her anti-union politics and general disdain for labour. therefore, this must be a real account.
The attitude toward celebrities on Lemmy versus on Mastodon is really weird. Same thing with reddit, a lot of the time. Like, okay, I have no idea if that’s really Margot Robbie or not, but famous people do use the internet. Attention doesn’t make them a different species that forgets how to use keyboards or something.
i thought we were just joking around here, but if you’re being serious: there’s zero chance that’s actually Margot Robbie.
or maybe like a 1% chance it’s actually Margot Robbie, but for the last three months she’s been playing a character on lemmy that’s a goofy impersonation of Margot Robbie that breaks character all the time.
I mean, I have no idea if she’s Margot Robbie, but I figure I might as well treat her as if she is. Doesn’t cost me anything. It’s basically the solution to the solipsism problem with lower stakes.
Personally, I think doing a goofy impression of yourself and occasionally breaking character would be a good way to fly under the radar.
If you have been following me here at all, you would know that I have been extremely vocal about my support of the strike here, and I have been keeping with the strike rules and only mentioned the name of the movie ONCE here after the strike started.
Your smug accusation only shows your own ignorance, while I do try to be nice here, I will not stand for you making light of our fight for survival as some kind of gotcha.
Dune 2 was postponed because of the strike, and I was really looking forward to it.
I mean I’m REALLY looking forward to that movie, but if my minor inconvenience means a better standard of living/opportunity for a large amount of people I’ll wait for however long.
The Margot Robbie is Australian so this comment would have been written as ‘now kindly fuck off, cunt.’ Therefore, I am now questioning the legitimacy of this account.
People made fun of the ad and the lines he said but people also don’t understand that he didn’t write it. Crypto.com was already going to fail by the time their crazy expensive ad came out. Matt Damon on the other hand seems to be doing just fine.
He’s an actor, so I don’t think anyone actually thought he wrote anything he said on that ad, but it was an endorsement, which is more difficult to parse whether or not he actually invested in or supported it. And, probably like most people, I didn’t care enough to read in depth about it afterward.
Ask yourself why you care what celebrities are promoting in the first place.
Even if they are being ‘real’, odds are they were just paid to say good things about a product they never actually use to take advantage of idiots who can’t think for themselves.
“he vetoed this bill because the fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits will be nearly $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.
The fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits is already more than $18 billion in debt. That’s because the fund ran out of money and had to borrow from the federal government during the pandemic, when Newsom ordered most businesses to close and caused a massive spike in unemployment. The fund was also beset by massive amounts of fraud that cost the state billions of dollars.”
The reasoning and background, if anyone is curious
What?! No one else gets unemployment checks while striking. Also, there is literally negative money. Unemployment isn’t for people turning down their paychecks anyway. Their union should be covering this with the dues they pay.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.