It’s Edam shame when these things devolve into cheesy puns.
It’s clearly a bicep.
This story speaks very much to the contrary.
Cheerfully withdrawn.
It’s always fun to introduce someone to RAS syndrome, although your definition of fun may vary from mine.
Reviewers aren’t (or really shouldn’t be) beholden to companies, the whole point of a review is to give an opinion on a product, and the less input into that the company has the happier I will be. At the same time, some reviewers do hold a lot of sway, and can strongly influence people’s opinions with their reviews, so there might be an argument that a negative review can impact sales. However, so what? If the reviewer is bringing up their concerns or issues with a product, that is the whole point of what they do, and their viewers will want to hear about those things (working on the assumption that people will tend to watch reviewers they think align with their own views), and would be pretty upset if they weren’t warned about the downsides prior to purchasing.
Doesn’t seem like many world governments are motivated to even do that. It feels very much like the people in charge are actively avoiding having to think about these issues, letting them play out until it’s too late, by which time it will be someone else’s problem.
Seems like a great argument for addressing climate change as a priority.
Pot, kettle.
Fair analysis. Feel like it needed to lean more into the horror side of things, although I can see that that might alienate some of the audience. Instead of all the camera angles and Poirot occasionally seeming doddery I’d have preferred if the audience experienced more of what he was seeing and hearing, make it feel more like there could be something supernatural going on.
It’s been a while since I watched it, but doesn’t the baby come early, and their original plan was to deliver near the waterfall? I may well be wrong, mind.
You could always use the sub-company owned by the monopoly in your city.
That’s not a mug, that’s a teacup.