Zachary Anderson20 said:Look, they’ve had two years in office to protect those trees. They had their first meeting with the developers way back in 2021! They could have easily added it to an agenda item during a council session, but instead, they just seem to be stalling to give the investors more time. These trees were supposed to be protected under specific group identifiers and PINs.
You haven't made a single coherent argument on how to actually protect the tree, yet you won't stop running your mouth about it.
I honestly don't get how they managed to save that tree; it's massive. Who even knows how deep those roots go now. If they had just cleared it out without making a whole production of it, they could have simply cut it down and turned it into some kind of sculpture—you know, as a sign of respect. Besides, the bidding process is way behind schedule; it’s bizarre that a forest hasn't practically grown on that lot in the meantime. Anyway, how's the progress on the recycling program? What percentage have you guys actually hit ☕
I honestly can't believe the absolute hysteria over one single pilgrim 🤦 on land worth millions of dollars. Of course they aren't going to plant a forest now. These hypocritical San Franciscans are crying about a tree, yet look at their own backyards—half of them have been paved over into parking lots. Look at the hills surrounding the city... just look. It’s incredibly easy to act all "eco-conscious" when the trees are on someone else's property and you don't have to lift a single finger. Besides, has anyone actually looked at the renderings of how the building is supposed to look? https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=...6H9HxM9-hEnljM To me, this looks like way more greenery than what was there before...
Christian Myers said:I don't really get why everyone’s getting so worked up over these ratings. The review says what it says—the score is just there for show. Besides, it’s not like you guys haven't roasted me plenty of times before. Did you ever see me complaining when you forced me to sit through that tedious slog *Aftersun* with that actor Paul Mescal? There are plenty of other movies people hyped up here that I thought were total garbage, and vice versa. Everyone's got different tastes—and honestly, even the setting matters when you're watching.
Just use a 1-5 scale then. Why bother with a ten-point range if you're only ever going to use three or four numbers? Stick to your own system and let's just have some peace in America.
Christian Myers, you’re seriously screwing people over with those ratings. You’re giving totally wrong suggestions, and honestly, you’ve steered me wrong a couple of times too. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to just stop posting them for a while. At the end of the day, a plain, dry comment about what you watched is way more useful than a wildly subjective score. Just a thought...
Edward Cooper11 said:I actually loved how they kept the face hidden; it added this layer of mystery and strangeness. It’s those kinds of stylistic choices that give a film its unique signature.
Yeah, mystery... 🤦it's basically just how women act when they're trying to hide a breakout.
Some people were already talking about how they hid Michael Jordan's face, claiming he’s such a huge icon that if some random actor played him, nobody would buy it. Personally, I think that's total nonsense. If we follow that logic, they could have just hidden Elvis Presley's face in all his movies too. 🤦 The whole point of cinema and acting is that you should be able to interpret a character however you want. To me, hiding his face was just distracting; you could tell they were trying way too hard, and it made the whole thing feel forced. Why couldn't they just cast a young NBA player or some other athlete? It wouldn't have hurt the movie—if anything, it would've helped. The real Michael Jordan definitely has his fingerprints all over this one, just like in the documentary. Obviously, nothing happens without his blessing.
The pay for a security guard tasked with wrestling naked, drunk tourists through the streets of San Francisco is going to be about $5,400 a month gross, if my math is right. Honestly, I might just go apply for that job myself. ☕
Exactly. You could just make a movie set in the eighties right now—something decent, a solid production—and it would be a hit. People are obsessed with the eighties. It’s not rocket science.
Grace Sanders24 said:Sure, that wasn't the only interesting part, but for someone like me who thinks they know everything about Michael Jordan, that specific bit was the real kicker. I actually had no clue about that. 😉 I'm trying to figure out if it's even possible to confirm whether Michael Jordan was actually the first pro athlete to land a deal like that, or if someone beat him to the punch. Maybe it was Bo Jackson?🤔
Looks like Spencer Haywood was one of the first guys in basketball to land a deal like that. Before the era of massive endorsement deals, things were different. People forget that back in the day, players didn't have the leverage we see now. Take Spencer Haywood, for example. He was a trailblazer, period. He was actually the first player of such stature to sign with Nike, which changed the entire landscape for athlete endorsements. It wasn't just about the gear; it was about proving that a player's brand had real, measurable value in the eyes of a major corporation. I remember reading about how much friction this caused with the league. There was so much pushback regarding how players approached their business interests. But looking back, you can see how those early moves paved the way for the modern superstar. Without guys like him breaking down those doors, the massive contracts we see today wouldn't even exist. It’s a fundamental part of basketball history that often gets overlooked in favor of more recent legends. It’s Nike again. It looks like that sales cut—or in Spencer's case, the stock options, if I caught that right—was the only leverage they had to actually compete with Adidas or Converse. It reminds me of how the Los Angeles Lakers operate when they can't pull together a massive salary for a player, so instead, they throw in a percentage of a future trade or transfer fee just to close the deal. If those two things are even remotely comparable. 😁 ).
Nowadays, Michael Jordan gives credit where it's due: he points back to Spencer Haywood for being the first player of such stature to sign with Nike, essentially clearing the path for the massive multi-billion-dollar empire that bears his name today.
That’s all you need to know about Michael's avant-garde mother. ☕
Grace Sanders24 said:Back then, that just wasn't how things worked. You couldn't simply look at a kid—no matter how much raw talent he had—and bet the house that he’d actually become the best player on the planet. One bad injury and it's game over. Period. If they had done it then, every other player would have been demanding those kinds of deals immediately. This was the absolute beginning of a whole new era, and honestly, it's wild to think about how his mother saw it coming before anyone else did.🍿
Look, we don't have access to every single contract Nike has ever signed with their roster, so we can't honestly claim that only Michael Jordan's mother had the foresight to spot an opportunity. Everyone loves to brag about one massive win, but nobody talks about how many times they missed the mark before that. The documentary nails this through the gambling metaphor: Nike basically went all-in on Michael Jordan, bet the house, and hit the jackpot. To me, the most fascinating part isn't even the deal itself—it’s the fact that Nike actually had elite talent in place to handle the marketing, management, and production side of things. But I guess that’s too boring for people to care about. Apparently, the only thing worth discussing is how some mother realized she could squeeze out a percentage. 🙄 Because apparently, nobody ever thought of that. 🤣
rowdytinker3 said:In the world of American sports, this is completely normal. We’re talking about LeBron James landing a $90 million deal with Nike straight out of high school. Nowadays, any decent prospect can squeeze insane amounts of money out of gear manufacturers. What are you even talking about? It's like Mercedes... 🤣 What a complete waste of money for that company. Absolute garbage. 🙏
Did Mercedes ask for a variable bonus on top of that $90 million? So, the Jordans were pulling in $250,000 a year flat—which, back then, was one of the biggest deals on the table for either Nike or Adidas / Converse. And then you have this rookie coming in and actually demanding a cut of the sales on top of that? Unbelievable. As if that wasn't enough, he’s out there expecting Nike to just go out and buy him a Mercedes. Total madness. 🤣 Even an Imotski native wouldn't have come up with something like this. 🤦 Are you kidding me? They blew the entire budget for Nika basketball on just one single player. Just to put that into perspective, they actually had enough cash on the table to sign guys like Barkley or Stockton too. So yeah, clearly this isn't exactly "small change" or some modest request...
darkjackal70 said:He shouldn't have gone out and burned those bridges like Americans always do.
It was a completely reasonable decision—honestly, a fair request—given what Jordan had already accomplished before he even finished college, let alone the legendary career he went on to cement after his time in the NCAA. ☕
Both Converse and Adidas completely blew him off. Those were two of the biggest players on the market back then, so that says everything you need to know. The guy basically walked in as a rookie and held his own against legends like Bird and Johnson. It’s easy to sit back now and act like Nike made the right call. Asking for $250,000 fixed every single year on top of a percentage of sales? That’s straight-up insulting, especially considering Jordan was a nobody at that point. Honestly, the sheer audacity of those vultures—demanding a Mercedes on top of everything else tells you everything you need to know about them. You think that’s normal? It isn't. In any real business environment, that kind of greed is unheard of. Are you seriously comparing college hoops to the NBA? Give me a break... just kill me now.
Grace Sanders24 said:Honestly, that part was the most fascinating to me because I had no clue that everything hinged on that single decision. But I'm genuinely curious—how did they even think to ask Nike? From what I gathered back then, having the Jordan family representatives (in this case, his mother) handle that wasn't exactly standard practice in pro sports at all.🍿
It's highly unlikely his parents just suddenly thought of it; they don't have much connection to the real world, let alone an understanding of high-level economics. It’s more likely one of his agents came up with the idea (it's a known fact that Jordan has been incredibly smart about investing his money over the years). On the flip side, look at Tony Kukoč and the agent who totally screwed him over regarding that hotel in Switzerland. Tony lost a massive amount of cash there, and he probably missed out on several future investment opportunities because of it.
At the end of the day, the whole Jordan and Nike partnership boils down to one thing: Nike was the only ones willing to give him a cut of the sales. All that massive circus surrounding signing Jordan, designing custom kicks, the colorway drama, the fines—it was all just smoke and mirrors for revolutionary marketing, when really, they just cared about the bottom line. 🤣 It honestly shows how desperate Nike was, and how greedy Michael's parents were being... And man, look at how much Converse tanked. 🙏 Honestly, only Americans could turn a movie about sneakers into this huge dramatic spectacle and somehow make it actually watchable. ☕ It’s definitely not Oscar material, though. Give me a break. At certain points, I felt like I was sitting through some undergrad lecture on Marketing Management (we used to deal with these fake, watered-down case studies back in school).
I honestly believe not a single foreign tourist would mind if San Francisco went completely cashless and everyone just paid by card. It would save them the hassle of hunting down ATMs and dodging those annoying transaction fees. But our local geniuses would probably go ahead and scrap all the ATMs in the downtown area while simultaneously expecting tourists to keep spending money?! They might as well wrap the remaining ATMs in barbed wire so nobody can get near them... p.s. I don't see them having removed the OTP ATM across from Peristyle yet, and that's the only one they haven't recessed into a building 🤣 Watch this: people are literally embedding ATMs into their own private property, but apparently, that's still not good enough because you can technically still access them from the sidewalk 🤣 Well, where else are you supposed to access them from—the ocean?! They could just put the Raiffeisen one right next to the Index cafeteria; you have to walk through a glass lobby just to reach the machine there, and guess what? You're still entering from the street.
vividraven79 said:Who's being ridiculous? Ivošević or the geniuses running the ATM networks who cluttered the entire city with them? If they want to act smart, why not actually mess with them... I wouldn't just stop at benches; I'd throw some planters in there too.
What’s next, dictating exactly what people can do inside their own private businesses? This is a straight shot toward fascism.
After Bojan Ivošević cleared out all the ATMs from downtown San Diego and then went bragging about his little "cleanup" on social media, people finally pushed back. Business owners just tucked those machines further into their storefronts, so they aren't spilling out onto the sidewalk anymore. Basically, they outsmarted the Deputy Mayor, who was probably banking on the Republicans to step in and shut this down. Clearly, that didn't happen, but Ivošević won't let it go.
Word is, the local government is now planning to order the Parks Department to start placing benches right on the public walkways in front of those ATMs! They're essentially trying to block access to the cash...
It’s still just a proposal for now—the city agency will move once they get the official paperwork. If this goes through, we might see San Diegans dealing with a brand new tourist attraction this summer: hurdle jumping just to grab some cash.
Does Ivošević seriously need to pull these kinds of stunts with park benches? I mean, this is getting ridiculous.🤦
The parachute idea probably wouldn't work; you'd almost certainly slam into some part of the structure on the way down. As for that phone and drone setup, I actually just read about this: "A driver out in rural Oregon got stuck in the snow on a remote road, but he kept his cool long enough to come up with a brilliant way to get rescued.
Once he realized his cell service was dead, he typed out a text to a trusted contact—including his exact coordinates—then hooked his phone up to a drone and sent it flying a few hundred yards into the air.
After the phone caught a signal, it successfully sent off the SOS, according to CNN.
The fix is simple: just strap the phone to the drone and call it a day. It’ll send the signal 100% of the time. This whole thing is a legitimate concern. Most adrenaline junkies aren't going to quit just because they start getting hit by lightning strikes; if anything, they'll double down. Laypeople just don't get it.