Perhaps. I won’t find fault with someone who took every reasonable measure within their power to try and maintain some degree of ethics. Bitching about Ben and Jerrys corporate management sounds a lot like letting perfect be the enemy of good. Just my take on it tho.

Important caveat: IANAL.

I’ve seen elsewhere the response to the Ben and Jerry’s news hitting basically boiling down to “fucking cry about it sell outs, you got into bed with Unilever”. Which, sure, fine if that’s your (general “you”, not you specifically OP) perspective, far be it from me to yuck your yums. That being said, according to the AP article I read, they carved out (or attempted to) the right to continue to manage the social justice aspect of the Ben and Jerry’s brand without interference, in perpetuity, as a condition of the sale. As I understand it, Unilever has done a number of things to erode those carveouts, basically by repeatedly spinning off portions of the business into new companies, which they argue are not beholden to that agreement. For example, despite Ben and Jerry’s public support of Palestine and objection to their products being sold in Israel, Unilever simply licensed the product to Israeli manufacturers who sell it under their own brand names. Additionally, and this is what appears to be what precipitated this departure, they are now spinning all of their frozen confectionary brands off into something like Magnum Foods (because the two things I want to have on my mind while looking for ice cream are guns and condoms).

Like, I understand anyone who looks at the hundreds of millions that these guys received in 2000 and has difficulty mustering sympathy for their plight. That being said, I don’t begrudge them their pay day. They said, at the time, that the partnership would enable them to extend their social justice campaigns beyond what they could do as independents. From what I’ve seen, they’ve largely lived up to that over the ensuing years.

more info than you could ever want about Pitchford’s porn habits

In short, there was a legal dispute between Pitchford and a former counsel for Gearbox. As part of a pattern of suit-countersuit, the former employee alleged that Pitchford had left a USB stick at a local restaurant which contained proprietary company info as well as underage pornography. Pitchford confirmed that all of the above, with the notable exception of the “underage” part. Given nothing came of it, and he was remarkably candid about what type of porn was actually on the USB, I’m inclined to believe him.

I don’t want to yuck your yums, since it’s sort of a subjective call, but I wouldn’t necessarily call 200 meters a “long distance” shot. It’s not close range, but hitting a mostly stationary human sized target at that distance is, if not “easy”, certainly achievable with a minimal amount of firearms experience. I think this holds true even without the assistance of scopes or other optics. For reference, basic rifle marksmanship qualification for the armed forces has you taking on targets out to 300 meters with iron sights, and, despite never firing a weapon prior to basic training, I was able to consistently hit the 200 meter targets (though beyond that range was a coin flip)

Furthermore, calling the weapon a high-powered rifle is, to some extent, redundant. Again, it’s subjective, but pretty much any firearm which fires rifle caliber ammunition is going to be by default “high-powered”, unless it’s .22LR. That’s the only rifle cartridge I can think of that is commonly available that would not qualify as “high-powered” by a reasonable definition.

The only reason I bring up this little bit of pedantry is because, as you mentioned in your post, calling it a “long distance shot with a high powered rifle” leads the listener towards certain conclusions that are not well-founded at this juncture. It’s not inaccurate or untruthful, but I do think it leaves out relevant context.

This sounds like something George Clooney’s character in O Brother Where Art Thou might say.

Personally, a proverbial pile of proctologists pass as performers called “The Soggy Bottom Boys” perfectly.

We cannot get out. They have taken the bridge and second field. Johnny & Kris & Waylon fell there bravely while the rest retreated. Willie’s party went 5 days ago, but has not returned. The watcher in the water took George. We cannot get out. The air hums. Fiddles, fiddles in the deep. We cannot get out. Where did they come from? Where did they go? Where did they come from, Cotton Eye Joe??

I know it’s more agrarian eurodance, but “country metal” is a hard thing to find reference for…

Suggesting Symphony of the Night is well-known because of a goofy menu screen is almost comically missing the forest for the trees.

Wrong! Or, at least, in Lincoln’s case, you’re both kind of correct. Lincoln had, at the insistence of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, at least one company of Union cavalry assigned to his protection. This was in addition to Ward Lamon, a personal friend of Lincoln’s from his lawyer days who took it upon himself to act as his bodyguard. Indeed, Lamon and Pinkerton clashed over the President’s security even before the war broke out. Pinkerton claimed an assassination plot was afoot in the lead up to Lincoln’s inauguration in early 1861. There is some debate over the validity of these claims, as Pinkerton’s intelligence gathering capabilities seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Regardless, the cabinet took these claims seriously enough to change Lincoln’s travel plans at the last minute, and he arrived in DC under the cover of night and with only Lamon present with him during the legs of the journey where Pinkerton claimed the most danger lie. Once inaugurated, and in the midst of the war, his protection became a military matter, which is when the cavalry companies stepped in. However, he routinely delighted in giving them the slip. In 1864, someone took a pot shot at him whilst riding through DC, and he was forced to take his protection more seriously. It was at this point that the DC police assembled a 4 man permanent bodyguard detail.

So, depending on when exactly you’re looking, Lincoln’s protection detail could have consisted of 2 companies of Union Army troops, Pinkertons, a self-appointed bodyguard cum lawyer pal, 4 police officers, a Freedman valet/bodyguard (William Henry Johnson), and a partridge in a pear tree.

I’m reminded of the narrator’s distillation of his career from Fight Club. Paraphrasing, but the gist is “I’m here to apply the formula. A is the number of cars on the road. B is probably rate of failure. C is the cost of an out of court settlement. A times B times C equals X. If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we issue one and no one gets hurt. If X is less, we don’t recall.”

In this case, whoever counts Paradox’s beans determined the cost of issuing refunds was going to be less than the cost of staying the course (from a PR perspective, if nothing else).

Perhaps, but I think that misses the point of Gunn harkening back to Silver Age comics with this movie. Puzzling out the “logic” of who knows what and why is sort of antithetical to the exercise being conducted. It’s like the folks who get wrapped around the axle about the conclusion of Superman 1978 not making a lick of sense to someone with an elementary understanding of physics. Oh, Superman can turn back time by flying around the Earth backwards? That’s absurd!! Yes, it is, now shut up and pass me the popcorn.

If it is necessary for the story, Superman’s identity will become relevant. Otherwise, everything operates on a shrug and a hand wave, and I’m sort of fine with that. Secret identity management is a fun aspect of a character like Spiderman, for example, because his whole thing is the burden of being a gifted individual. Great power = great responsibility and all. Therefore, making Peter Parker suffer because of Spiderman is kind of baked into the text of the character.

Meanwhile, I think Gunn’s approach to Superman/Clark is that neither is burdened by the other. I’m not even really sure he views it as a duality in that way. The text of the film seems to indicate that, in Gunn’s view, Clark and Superman are indistinguishable from one another, or even that Clark (the human) takes primacy over Kal-El/Superman. This intentionally contrasts with the Snyderverse interpretation of DC heroes, which was much more interested in how INhuman the DC canon of heroes were, Superman most of all.

I mean, tbh, I would consider VIP protection to be far less military-adjacent than police adjacent.

This sounds like the plot of John Scalzi’s Redshirts

There’s the kernel of a pretty good 3 minute YouTube skit in here.

What’s going on in the upper right of the motel building? I see a laundry room, but is that a mail room next to it? With all the packages and the location’s “seedy” nature, makes me think some of the guests or employees might be operating a small scale distribution center of some kind…

Well that’s just adorable

ItellyouhwatmandangolgraveyardsmakingmoredoggoneracketthendangolMegalomartsportinggoodssectionnowadaysmanitellyouhwat. Dangolliberalnecromancersmakingthedeadwokemmhm.

I mean, John Williams can say anything he likes about the quality of film music, he’s certainly earned the right.

That being said…

I mean, I guess I just don’t view entertainment options as a finite resource. Amusements abound. Games, movies, shows, books, lectures, theater, articles, podcasts, music, sports, etc. The means to dispense with my free time far far far exceed the amount of free time I have to fritter away. So, while you may view backlog management as unhealthy min/maxing, I would counter that your preoccupation with “running out” of entertainment is, at least, equally as unhealthy a min/max mindset.

Also, I can’t speak for others, but your clothing analogy made me think of this: when I talk about not wanting to purchase a game because of my backlog, usually I don’t mean “aw man, I’d really like to get Baldur’s Gate 3, but I haven’t finished my Madden dynasty yet”. Rather, it would be closer to, “I’d really like to get Baldur’s Gate 3, but I bought both of the Owlcat Pathfinder RPGs last sale and I haven’t even booted those up yet”. So, it’s less about deciding whether or not to buy a shirt based on how many pairs of jeans you own, and more about deciding whether you need the latest, most fashionable cut of Levis when you’ve got 3 pairs of Costco jeans at home still.

Ultimately, it’s neither right nor wrong of you to hoard digital games. It’s your money, you do with it what you will. It just seems like a wildly hot take to come into that conversation swinging around accusatory statements like “that’s an unhealthy min-max mindset”.

That’s not really what’s implied in that statement. A better comparison, using your streaming service analogy, would be that you subscribed to Apple TV because you heard Severance was really good. However, one thing led to another, and now it’s months later, and you still haven’t watched Severance. So, instead of starting a new series (say, Ted Lasso) you queue up Severance instead.

It’s still not a great analogy, because the streaming service implies a real, ongoing cost to maintaining access to the service, which is not the case with most people’s game libraries. That being said, with Gamepass and GeForce Now etc, it’s not necessarily out of the question.

The purpose isn’t to “deplete entertainment options”, it’s to utilize the options you already have financial investment in before sinking more money into more options simply for their novelty.

The “point of the product” isn’t to provide theoretical novel entertainment value by sitting, unplayed, on my digital shelves. Bold take here, but I’d suggest the point of a video game is to be played.