I think the concept behind smartphones is pretty straightforward, which explains why they've become so huge. They fit in your pocket, have color screens, full internet access, decent cameras, and enough storage for hundreds of photos or a massive music library. It’s not even that groundbreaking—PDAs have been around for a while—but they didn't really hit that sweet spot of being affordable for everyone until recently. Plus, having reliable 3G mobile data was a huge prerequisite for making the internet actually useful on the go, and that's only been a recent thing too.
What I don't quite get, though, are tablets and all those people lugging them around like giant cameras while they're out walking through the city. It feels a bit primitive to me, honestly.
Here is an interesting read: Don't be an asshole with your iPad
I have an iPhone 4, but since my company provided it and covers all the bills, I really don't have any complaints. It’s actually a decent phone, and the screen is quite nice. Besides, when everyone supports almost every app anyway, the specific model doesn't seem to matter that much. Honestly, I wouldn't spend another cent on a phone, not even $33 if I had to buy one myself. I guess people who drop $700 or more on something like this might need a little help from a mental health professional. There are so many better ways to spend that money—like getting a solid bike, a week of skiing in the Alps, or maybe just buying about 200 boxes of condoms...
If you ask me, the only truly innovative little gadget lately has been the e-reader. Though, I didn't even buy mine myself; I definitely prefer it when people give them to me as gifts.
Peter Thompson4 said:No, they seriously aren't all that special. I mean, we all knew the whole thing was just a massive show fueled by Photoshop users, but it’s honestly kind of pathetic that after spending a fortune on themselves and their looks, they still end up looking like absolutely nothing—I won't even say worse—just like some average girl who doesn't have the cash or the time to invest in herself.
For Christ's sake, they have entire teams dedicated to them, they eat perfectly clean and train constantly, yet they still end up with skin looking as wrinkled as some old grandma, even though they're only in their twenties.
Maybe it's just because they're regular girls who happened to get lucky enough to enter the industry, and regular girls just look like regular girls?
Ashley Bailey6 said:Doesn't it seem obvious to you that all these women just pose naked at home and keep everything neatly saved on their C drive or some virtual disk 😁?
Look, if even one of these two photos isn't fake, it's a miracle.
I don't think it's suspicious, honestly; I guess everyone does this nowadays. Women take photos for their boyfriends or husbands and then just send them via WhatsApp or email from their phones. It isn't exactly a direct transfer from one phone to another through those apps; maybe the phone hides old messages after a while, so if you check your history, it pulls them back down from the internet, which probably means all those messages and photos are stored on some servers somewhere.
Richard Lee3 said:You really have to be living in a vacuum if you swallow everything the mainstream media feeds you or everything you see on CNN, while simultaneously ignoring—or at least totally glossing over—the actual objectives of Russia's opponents, specifically the USA and the West, both in Ukraine and in other strategic hotspots like the Middle East.
It’s also pretty hilarious, in a dark sort of way, how you try to draw parallels between war criminals and those rare statesmen who actually stand up against American policy... (bolded) It’s not "right-wingers" they're attracting; it's anyone who refuses to buy into a unipolar, one-note world order.
Oh, absolutely. We're talking about nothing but philanthropists, humanitarians, pacifists, and economic experts here. People love them so much that the police and military exist solely to maintain the regime. These are all highly developed nations where freedom and prosperity reign supreme. I won't add any emojis on purpose.
Anthony Jackson2 said:Is anyone tracking how people here in the States are reacting to what's happening in Ukraine?
I was watching the news today—seeing these old-school hardliners fighting on the Russian side—and it struck me that some of the "patriot" types on this forum have been backing the exact same side. Is it actually possible that even twenty years after our own conflicts ended, these self-proclaimed patriots and those same old radicals are basically standing shoulder to shoulder? 🙏 🤣
It seems like a really interesting phenomenon that isn't just happening here on the forum, but maybe even a bit wider. You see people easily justifying invasions of foreign territories or the downing of civilian planes, yet they suddenly turn a blind eye to any actions taken by our own local police or official institutions. They might cry about domestic anarchy or foreign dictatorships, but honestly, you'd have to be quite narrow-minded—maybe even a bit malicious—to see things that way. I suppose what I've realized over the years is that people who lack critical thinking tend to gravitate toward strong personalities and powerful leaders. So, it probably isn't surprising when supporters of figures like Maddox end up in the same camp as followers of Harmon or Pavelić, simply because they are drawn to someone like Putin, Chavez, Castro, Lukašenko, or Assad.
I guess I’d say producers should probably have a bit more breathing room to be original, and that shows aren't (mostly) just built on special effects. It makes sense, though, since major studios tend to play it safe and shy away from being unique, and movie theaters are really only a safe bet if they offer an experience you just can't get at home. For anyone looking for engaging, complex plots, deep characters, and something a little provocative—series seem like a better pick than today's movies. That said, plenty of shows are definitely overrated. I've heard so much hype about certain series, but when I finally sat down to watch them, my reaction was kind of like, "oh boy, this is silly."
"Kon Tiki" feels like this epic adventure caught right on the edge of the old world and the modern era. It was basically six guys with enough guts to dive headfirst into the great unknown. In today’s age of satellites, smartphones, GPS, and constant social media updates, these kinds of expeditions would probably feel way too staged. I guess they did prep as much as they could—they even had their own radio expert on board—but it still feels like such a much more innocent time. They nearly ran aground on Bora Bora, which back then was maybe one of the most isolated spots on Earth, whereas now it’s just full of five-star resorts. After their journey, those guys were actually invited to meet with world leaders; nowadays, some random tourist at a resort would probably just snap a photo of them on an iPhone and post a "mega fail" meme to 9GAG.
I guess it might be a little naive to start at the summit by asking about the production costs for a full 30-episode series. It feels like a bit of a mismatch if you haven't actually produced any audiovisual content before. Maybe try starting from the ground up—perhaps attempt a one-minute puppet or animated short just to see how it goes. If you can pull that off, then you could look into bigger steps.
If you're just curious about the general side of production without actually getting your hands dirty, I think what was said above is right. It involves so many people, tons of gear, and an incredible amount of work.
Noah Roberts46 said:The "rebels" aren't even citizens anymore; they're just a bunch of terrorists, or at least more than just insurgents. So, when a protest breaks out that's largely fueled by foreign interests, is the President supposed to just step down because of a mob of terrorists? How, yes, no. And what do they actually gain from that?? Just look at how Libya ended once Gaddafi was overthrown—total chaos. There are plenty of other examples.
If such a tyrant is what you’re portraying, then how stupid does the population have to be to show up at the polls and vote for him by a massive 90% margin? The eyes of the entire West are on them, yet the people just need to stand up a little bit and it's over. Who is actually supporting Assad? How is he holding his own against all that foreign aid being funneled to the "rebels"? How is he winning this war? Because the Syrian people are standing firmly behind him. It’s a hell of a story, and it’ll be even better once they secure a final victory. ☕
Go ahead, tell me it's perfectly legitimate for the US to be over there fueling terrorists. They accuse him of using poison gas without providing a shred of evidence, only for it to turn out that the "rebels" were the ones responsible in the end. 🙄
Maybe if you stepped away from the screen for a moment and looked beyond this whole U.S.-Russia polarization, you might see things differently. This way of thinking doesn't really make sense to me. I don't think I could teach you in just a few posts how to realize that graveyards are full of leaders who thought they were irreplaceable.
I’m not interested in spreading propaganda; I’ve actually been to Syria, so I have a sense of how things really work there. To be honest, Assad's military has killed thousands upon thousands of these rebels—and many of them are just regular people with families and friends. I guess you have to wonder how his rule can still be considered legitimate after killing so many people. It doesn't really matter who the opposition is or who leads them. There are specific reasons why things are happening in Syria and not in the States. Back home, if an American Prime Minister were caught taking a few million dollars in bribes, they'd be forced to resign immediately, yet this guy claims legitimacy just because he used tanks to defend it. How yes no. If Assad had any shred of morality left, he probably would have stepped down, since Syria is essentially a living hell right now and he’s largely responsible for that. Maybe he seems like a better option than the radical opposition at this moment, but his hands are definitely stained with blood. I suspect there's no way he could lead a unified, peaceful Syria after a war like this. Even before the conflict started, it was basically a police state where officers were on every corner, though I suppose some might argue that's just because the people love their leader so much.
