Uh, huh. So 2009…?
Any reason beyond he was a billionaire and you’re apparently Very Smart?
Uh, huh. So 2009…?
Any reason beyond he was a billionaire and you’re apparently Very Smart?
Thinner people are healthier in that they won’t suffer from the same medical issues that plague the obese. A thin person might have high cholesterol, but they’re not going to also have the same increase chance of heart disease an obese person will see. No individual who’s 300lbs is healthy, obesity in and of itself is the disease. The fact thin people suffer from other, non-weight related diseases doesn’t mean there is not point in not maintaining a healthy weight.
Food insecurity is not a solution to the obesity epidemic, but eating a couple hundred calories per day less than maintenance is also not starvation. And ensuring healthy foods and produce are more affordable than unhealthy and high-processed alternatives is a great way to kill two birds with one stone.
Lol. This was Season 1, Episode 4.
The problems with their shitty-ass script certainly weren’t budgetary.
It’s a risky idea but it’s a common formula to help ground a sci-fi series.
That’s pretty revisionist. He’s an asshat now but wasn’t always seen that way.
In 2017, Musk was still pretty popular with liberals. He advocated for a carbon taxes, a universal basic income, and AI regulation. Tesla was still leading the game in EV production. SpaceX was re-supplying the ISS and set to free the US from Soyuz. He supported Hillary in 2016 and quit Trump’s advisory council because he withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords.
It was only around and after COVID he took a hard turn and became particularly unpopular with the left. When this episode came out it made sense, and also fit well with Star Trek’s typical formula of “past historical figure, current notable figure, future fictional figure.”
Honestly it doesn’t feel too far to me, and I generally detest doxxing as a tactic.
We trust and depend on journalists to expose and spread the truth and tell the stories people should see, but it’s never supposed to be at the expense or exploitation of vulnerable people. It’s one thing to expose the personal details of say, a hypocritical politician, but putting an individual’s life at risk just to spice up a story seems to violate most journalistic ethics I’m familiar with.
The difference is “We don’t want to raise the listed prices on our menu.”
No, because the difference of seeing a $19.99 price versus a $20.00 price is that I see it up front. That’s more honest than tacking on a $21.50 hidden fee after the fact.
Also, his purchases of alcohol may have made it to an advertiser. He may simply not have noticed he was getting ads until his wife talked to him about drinking too much.
The whole “phones are listening all the time” thing could be true, and wouldn’t surprise me, but to my knowledge no hacker or privacy monitor has ever found evidence that they do. Always just seemed more likely to me that people just expose information without realizing these systems are much more ubiquitous and complex than just microphones illegally listening.