I don't think people feel entitled to free entertainment, they're just tired of being so badly ripped off.
It used to be that you'd pay one company a little extra, and get all the extra channels you actually wanted. Now you pay multiple companies _a lot_ extra, and still might miss out on what you want.
They very much do. There's an Australian streaming service called Stan that bought the rights to the English Premier League this year. They post highlights videos to YouTube.
Every single video they post is full of comments about how short the video is, how it didn't replay this or that important moment, and finishes with an ad for Stan.
Compared to 20 years ago where the only highlights you could get for free were in a news program that might spare 1 minute for just the most important match if you were lucky, these videos are incredible.
Yes, I remember when Netflix was going to "save" us all from the cable company.
When there is only one streaming service, being subscribed to that streaming service means you get everything. Now there are 15 different ones to choose from, each licensed to show a different set of content.
Watching NHL hockey in Canada is a strange situation right now, but I'm not sure how it compares to the original cable situation.
It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide.
>It's your mess, now clean it up.
The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.
> It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide.
10,000 dead in 2 days.
> The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever
Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways.
Again, "genocide" doesn't have to do with the scale of the killing. It's a specific word with its own meaning.
>Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways.
Governments don't have "morals". They do whatever is most expedient. We have never done something because it's the moral thing to do, and we never will. That's just not how hegemonic powers like the US work.
They are not. It's the eastern imperialists that are causing this. And if it's a choice between eastern imperialists (China and Russia) and western ones, it seems that Iranian people by far prefer the western ones.
For three main reasons.
1. Culturally Iranians are way more aligned with west.
2. Western imperialism results in more democracy. Not 100%, but not this bad.
3. Economically countries under west's influence do much better. Iran is extremely poor right now.
What can we do about it? Genuinely want to know your thoughts.
I'm in agreement with everything he says, but I've struggled to see eye to eye with anyone not in my age group. How can we have a constructive conversation about this, come to a consensus that things are not okay now, and move forward?
I guess try to improve stuff? There are experiments going on with banning social media to kids for example. I'm a member of actionforhappiness.org and figure we should emulate societies that people are happy with.
The problem is that they are both correct _and_ they were young back then. What happens then, is their arguments are dismissed because of the latter.
Another issue is it's difficult to explain something to somebody that has no frame of reference of experience of it. He talks of "delayed gratification" a few times. Try explaining how not getting everything you want is good for you to anyone under 40.
This is beneficial to both parties, it's not just to throw spikes on the road for applicants without care.
The less nonsensical applications they get, the more time they can give your application.
> I understand that recruiters/hiring managers/whatever get a lot of junk applications, but frankly, it is your job to sort through them. You are paid to do this.
Indeed they are, and that is what they're doing by asking for a written application.
The barrier of entry has gone up from nearly nothing to signing up (and presumably paying for) your service. This is a significant increase, which will simnifically decrease BS applications.
It used to be that you'd pay one company a little extra, and get all the extra channels you actually wanted. Now you pay multiple companies _a lot_ extra, and still might miss out on what you want.
Many people still remember the original deal.