Leftists who think, if I don't subscribe to their narrow, personal definition of leftism, I must be an epistemically evil conservative maniac with no middle ground whatsoever.
My take: If you are at a low point in life, have a mental disorder or are depressed, your chances of getting addicted over time is greatly increased and you probably shouldn't consume without medical supervision (even then, THC-less weed might be better for you). It's really hard to get out of the habit once smoking weed slowly becomes the only thing that can give you joy/relaxation, and your mental situation worsens long-term.
In most other cases your risks are very small and you definitely should try it sometime. Every person reacts a little differently, hence the many opinions out there. I say just try it, see how it makes you feel and if you decide to consume regularly, try to be mindful of any negative habitual/bodily changes that long-term use may cause.
Thank you for sharing this, i really appreciate it.
That doesn't necessarily mean the arguments are made in bad faith.
These are very good points, imo. Preemtively banning a sizable community without even a dialogue beforehand will only stir more extreme opinions and division between instances.
This is an interesting graph! I think the phenomenon of longer runtimes has two major reasons:
1. Streaming Studios are much less stringent with how long a movie can be since it's less of a concern how many times it can be shown per day/theatre. Also, runtime doesn't matter as much when the viewers can pause and return to it whenever they please. This is encouraged by streaming services because it also increases the overall time spent in the app.
2. The vanishing of medium-budget movies High-profile, high-budget movies by known directors have always been longer on average, because they can afford to do so and are expected to draw large audiences. In recent years the number of mid-budget movies, the likes we are used to from pre-2010, has drastically decreased in favor of big blockbuster productions (here's an article about it). So the average runtime has increased as a consequence of this.
I personally don't like this trend. Although I really enjoy longer movies, most of them wind up with obnoxious amounts of badly written filler-content.
In my understanding, calling the Ukraine war a NATO proxy war suggests that NATO is seen as an agressor/enabler in this conflict, effectively exploiting Ukraine to further NATO's agenda. I'm not sure if that's what the other commenter was implying (cause if so I would disagree with them), but that's why I'm asking :)
Is it really a proxy war if NATO is reacting to Russian agression, though? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the term, but I don't see much evidence that NATO was rooting for this conflict to escalate the way it did.
I feel like people are starting to lose track of the big picture as the war becomes more and more normalized. I imagine the same goes for Ukraine seemingly taking the allies' support more "for granted" than in the beginning of the war. Obviously, Ukrainians are fighting this war in the interest of the entire western community, so to ask them to be more grateful for western support just seems petty imo.
Is it possible this is a test run for DR to see if he's fit to replace Perez next season, or is that a long shot? What's Red Bull's upside for putting him at AT for half a season?
Well that just makes the title even more useless.