Posts by Matthew Anderson4

Yeah, a movie where zombies eat farts is basically the blueprint for how a zombie flick should be.

To me, this was just mediocre, if that. Annoying characters, trash dialogue, that stupid fart MacGuffin because they couldn't think of anything better, the whole thing with the main guy's sister controlling the zombies... it's fine for one watch, but even then, there's zero tension. It isn't even funny, yet it acts like it is. Looking at the massive pile of zombie movies out there, I'd put this somewhere above Demented but below Cockneys vs Zombies.

My phone handles calls, texts, alarms, a stopwatch, and even some ping pong.
Anything more than that is just extra work, imho.

Someone who was thirty back in 2014 probably hasn't even touched a torrent in their life. We're just hitting that age where we grew up with the web being baked into everything we do.

Anyway, side note—I don't think movie theaters have ever been this packed. I wasn't saying piracy would kill off the cinema experience, just that some new tech is gonna step in. It’s not hard to imagine that in fifty years, people won't be staring at a screen, they'll be using the fifteenth generation of an Oculus Rift. Honestly, I think theaters just won't be able to keep up with the tech, and they'll end up like libraries—a relic. Sure, people will still go, but it'll be a niche thing. What can they even do? Bigger screens? Better AC? Who knows. Even 3D didn't really move the needle much. Next up is holograms, but man, that isn't "film" anymore—that's just a virtual theater or a play. Camera tech is already miles ahead of what you see in a theater today.

Interstellar is actually pretty solid.

Theaters are alright too, but with torrents out there... man, even if you've got the cash, what's the point? Going to the movies isn't the big deal it used to be. Won't stay that way much longer either. People are just ditching the big screen.

ok

Honestly, hitting up a New York City bar at least once should be on every American's bucket list.

Is sukki just ghosting us?

I'm just messing around, I've been blind since I was four lol

so basically can I stare into the dark without issues if I just act like I'm looking at regular sunlight instead of bugging out staring directly at the sun like an idiot for five minutes?🤔

yeah, but how is UV gonna fry my eyes if we can't even see ultraviolet light? 🤣 so it could still cook them even if I've got my back turned 😕 🤣

third beach volleyball match tomorrow 👍

where's Nimoy 😢

I’m banking more on Vince than Colin here. I’ve seen Colin in a million movies—everything from comedies to those heavy dramas—and honestly, he probably won't top his work in *In Bruges* or *Phone Booth*. And don't get me started on McAdams; she just rubs me the wrong way, and her face seems to blend into the background of every scene.

As for season two, I’m not holding my breath compared to the first one. It’ll likely be worse, even if it still ends up being good. Real bummer that Fukunaga isn't directing anymore; he was basically the secret sauce for the quality in season one. They've got Justin Lin—the guy behind the *Fast & Furious* flicks—handling the first two episodes, so I'm staying cautious. 😁

9.7... pretty solid, right?

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Nobody actually died, lol. One just gave the other a little nudge. It's all love when people scrap like that. 🕺

RIP sorority life 😢

you're right, RIP 😢

Ashley Bailey6 said:Cats face more risks and die more often in developed nations where they live indoors and enjoy a safer environment. If the data actually shows a higher number of stray dogs—which I’m skeptical about—that surplus can only exist in developing countries under uncontrolled conditions. That would basically imply that dogs are better at surviving in the wild.
Now it’s clearer.

I'm weighing one against the other.
Of course how you treat someone matters when they're the boss. They hold the power to make decisions that change everything for you.

There’s really no point in Googling it. Global statistics are easily manipulated, and for most of the world, the data is either non-existent or just plain sloppy.
At the end of the day, we have to trust our own eyes.

Explained above.
If the records are even remotely accurate, you'll find them in the most developed countries.

Don't see the point arguing with someone who just picks their own side of the truth.
Peace out. 🙂

Ashley Bailey6 said:Sure, let's just cherry-pick numbers to fit our own narrative.
You aren't slapping anyone around, but go ahead and cite your source first. Let's see if they're even relevant. Besides, statistics don't prove intelligence.

Fair enough. I’m using Western culture as my baseline for comparing dog and cat intelligence simply because it's what I know best.
The sample size is massive.

I have no idea where you're getting your data, but even in an organized country like the US, they maintain detailed and accurate records.

There is no way there are more stray dogs than cats. It’s just the nature of the animals. And even if there were, does that mean dogs are better at surviving on their own?

Here is the first thing I came across:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/St...ownership.aspx

Even this logically disproves that 1:3 ratio.

p.s. Those people aren't part of our cultural sphere.☕

So, if dogs being less exposed means they're smarter (literally quoting here), but cats being less exposed says nothing about intelligence? Pick a side already.

Ashley Bailey6 said:Sure, let's just cherry-pick numbers to fit our own narrative.
You aren't slapping anyone around, but go ahead and cite your source first. Let's see if they're even relevant. Besides, statistics don't prove intelligence.

Fair enough. I’m using Western culture as my baseline for comparing dog and cat intelligence simply because it's what I know best.
The sample size is massive.

I have no idea where you're getting your data, but even in an organized country like the US, they maintain detailed and accurate records.

There is no way there are more stray dogs than cats. It’s just the nature of the animals. And even if there were, does that mean dogs are better at surviving on their own?

Here is the first thing I came across:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/St...ownership.aspx

Even this logically disproves that 1:3 ratio.

p.s. Those people aren't part of our cultural sphere.☕

You aren't even comparing dogs to cats, really. It's about how people actually treat them, and you're totally missing that part.

Ashley Bailey6 said:Sure, let's just cherry-pick numbers to fit our own narrative.
You aren't slapping anyone around, but go ahead and cite your source first. Let's see if they're even relevant. Besides, statistics don't prove intelligence.

Fair enough. I’m using Western culture as my baseline for comparing dog and cat intelligence simply because it's what I know best.
The sample size is massive.

I have no idea where you're getting your data, but even in an organized country like the US, they maintain detailed and accurate records.

There is no way there are more stray dogs than cats. It’s just the nature of the animals. And even if there were, does that mean dogs are better at surviving on their own?

Here is the first thing I came across:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/St...ownership.aspx

Even this logically disproves that 1:3 ratio.

p.s. Those people aren't part of our cultural sphere.☕

Lol, just Google it. I couldn't find a single official census for pet owners either—it’s all just "estimates," though they usually lean toward cats. Didn't see anything on stray dogs, but the numbers for stray cats are definitely up.Alright. That's the situation, at least in the area this article covers.

Ashley Bailey6 said:Sure, let's just cherry-pick numbers to fit our own narrative.
You aren't slapping anyone around, but go ahead and cite your source first. Let's see if they're even relevant. Besides, statistics don't prove intelligence.

Fair enough. I’m using Western culture as my baseline for comparing dog and cat intelligence simply because it's what I know best.
The sample size is massive.

I have no idea where you're getting your data, but even in an organized country like the US, they maintain detailed and accurate records.

There is no way there are more stray dogs than cats. It’s just the nature of the animals. And even if there were, does that mean dogs are better at surviving on their own?

Here is the first thing I came across:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/St...ownership.aspx

Even this logically disproves that 1:3 ratio.

p.s. Those people aren't part of our cultural sphere.☕

How does that even make sense? You're talking about Americans when the 3:1 ratio applies to the whole damn world.

Ashley Bailey6 said:What did I miss?

Asian culture when it comes to dogs and cats? Seriously, are we really going to use that as our benchmark?

That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Bringing people into this is just a desperate attempt to bait me.
Dogs don't die off nearly as much because they aren't exposed to the same risks. It all comes down to intelligence.
Period. ☕

You’re basing your take on an entire species living all over the globe just on what you see in your own backyard. 😂🙏 Man, you're using American culture regarding dogs and cats as the baseline for every pet on Earth and then calling me desperate or unserious. 😂

But fine, since you want to keep this going late into the night...

According to the WHO, there are over 200 million stray dogs worldwide. Stray cats? Over 100 million. In Mexico City, you've got 3 million strays. That's pretty close to our vibe here, and it happens everywhere. Get this: 'In 2007, before a NATO meeting in Mexico City, 40,000 dogs were poisoned.'
Here's another one: 'Cats are the world's most popular pets, outnumbering dogs by as many as three to one.'

So yeah, your theory that dogs are less exposed than cats is totally busted. And if we follow your logic, it makes cats look smarter, since we just proved they aren't as exposed as dogs.
. ☕