Even the smaller subreddits tend to have lots of groupthink. There’s usually a prevailing viewpoint on any given sub and anything contrary is downvoted to oblivion.
Maybe I’m not looking at the right subreddits though, who knows.
I think its wrong to speak about Reddit as a whole. There a lot of small moderated communities where you can discuss anything without "noise". Just ignore most popular sabs.
I've been starting and early stopping many 10-episodes series because of how much they drag (looking at you, Servant, and Disney series). Maybe I became more impatient lately, idk.
My new hobby is watching movies as they were 4-episodes series. It's great, much more to the point.
I sometimes do. But outside of the cultural hurdle, movies aren’t planned that way so depending on what service/app you watch you‘ll need to remember where you stopped.
Rewinding until a point where you can get back the context can also be a PITA, and for many movies stopping somewhere in the middle lands you in the flat part which makes it extra dull to resume watching.
All in all, I’ll often end up dropping a movie if it was 3h30 and there was 40min left to watch, it’s just not worth it in general.
At least here in the Midwest, people grow food all the time. Can’t grow strawberries in December, of course - but we eat up canned goods from friends/family throughout the winter.
Legal research services (access to dockets, case text, etc.) tend to be extremely expensive. I think making that more widely available is a good thing for people with limited resources. It's kind of nuts how impenetrable the legal system is if you don't have any resources.
It's extremely difficult to represent yourself pro se if you don't have access to information about how cases like yours might unfold, arguments that have been used, how well those arguments have worked, how the cases have been decided, whether a company has settled a similar case as yours, and so on.
Is that really a bad thing? Nobody should be representing themselves because they have no idea beyond Law and Order what all is supposed to be happening around them. That's why you get a complementary attorney if you can't afford one.
It's just too important to risk no?
Like DIY surgery. It's quite expensive and impenetrable to be doing your own appendectomy and I'm not mad about that. In both cases you could if you really had to but a high barrier to entry for me is not a bug but a feature.
> That's why you get a complementary attorney if you can't afford one.
Not in US you don't. Leaving aside how you don't have a right to a lawyer when you are on either side of a civil matter, most states will send you a bill should you avail yourself of the "a lawyer will be provided for you" part of the Miranda rights. Now, if you are broke, they'll still provide services to you.
In Canada you actually get free legal advice before any questioning.
To clarify, that's not a bill you only have to pay if you get a windfall. That's a bill that (in some places) will be agressively collected as a part of your fines.
If you're in prison you also have nearly no rights to a lawyer. (For example, if you want to sue the prison system for inhumane conditions)
Edit: For ex you may need to pay fees to be allowed to drive, which you may need to go to work/buy food.
That's (mostly) true, but unrelated to what I meant. I meant to say if the government determines you can't afford a lawyer, it will (sometimes) bill you for the lawyer it provides. Sometimes if you're very poor you get debts that in theory you have to pay but in practice won't be pursued unless you get a windfall, because you don't have any money. This isn't one of those.
Anna Sorokin got 300k from Netflix. Incarcerated individuals may still inherit. Sometimes money comes. The States are not always aggressive in pursuing such funds; but the Feds usually (not always) are.
So poor people with an interest in surgery should have zero access to medical journals? This is all just taxpayer funded information that you and I pay for every year in taxes.
> I immediately notified Austin's police (APD) as I could see where it was going.
Was the tracking good enough to reasonably narrow it down to a single person?
I think people expect too much of the police with a lot of these tracking devices/services. I don't have any experience with AirTags, but I know Apple's Find My can narrow down the location of e.g. a lost phone to a street corner. But if you're in a city there's a decent chance that there's more than one person on that street corner. The police can't/shouldn't stop everyone there and search them. Tracking a stolen item to a house is even harder (need a warrant). And an apartment is probably impossible because I doubt the tracking is good enough to narrow it down to a particular unit.
