Batman questions anyone and anything and has a plan for any eventuality, PARTICULARY those that pose a global scale threat. It’s nothing personal, it’s just reasonable precaution. That’s basically his true superpower. He also does trust Superman as a person, as a colleague and friend. I don’t think he ever considers there to be a true risk that Superman turns on humanity of his own will. However, Superman is susceptible to mind control, to magic, to unpredictable forms of kryptonite. And he is not the only living Kryptonian in existence either. It would be stupid not to plan for such threats.

Lex depending on the version, may or may not think that Superman actually poses a willful threat to humanity. But even if he also trusts that Superman is what he appears to be, a selfless hero that only wants to help people, he probably hates that idea even more. He usually doesn’t distrust Superman’s intent. He hates what it says about and does to human-kind, and by extension, himself. He things depending on an alien demigod will make humanity weak and complacent. He thinks that Superman holds the Earth back from reaching their potential. That it permanently neuters them from become Supermen themselves. So he makes it his mission to ruin Superman however he can. If he can kill him, good. Not a problem anymore. If he can publically discredit him, sow distrust across the globe, that’s good too, maybe better. People who distrust him won’t depend on him and may, in fact, fear him. As a result they are more likely to better themselves, their technology, their science, to rival and fight back against Superman.

TL:DR: Batman takes precautions. Lex hates and attempts to kill or sabotage. They’re not the same.

“Not my fucking job”

Honestly, I’m amazed he managed to restrain himself from making it mostly gold. Can’t imagine that this ballroom will have such restraint.

Agree to disagree.

It’s not “shit.” That’s just an over correction to its relative success for its mediocrity. Excluding the visuals, it’s fine. It’s not stellar, not terrible, just… fine. Simple. There are plenty of worse movie plots, dialogue and acting out there. It’s nowhere near unwatchable.

It’s a vehicle for the visuals and technology showcasing on a basic film frame, yes. But, it’s allowed to be really good at one thing and appreciated for that.

Like a plain chip in some bomb-ass dip. You could’ve scooped it on a dirty shoe and someone would have licked it clean. But, you gave me a plain chip instead, which is better… even if boring. So, thanks.

dirt flying out of a deep hole one shovel full at a time

Strong “As a _____…” energy. Insert whatever generic common role you think has given you unique insight into the universe that the rest of us, including PHDs with decades of research on the subject, can only dream about. “Mother”, “Veteran”, “Senator”, etc.

Had free pizza for a lunch and learn at work the other day that had chicken, jalapeño, pickle and ranch on it. It was surprisingly not bad, though a bit salty.

Agreed

They get away with stuff like that when they have sold you a “license” to their software, rather than something you gave actually purchased outright. It is argued that a license is a an agreement to access a software product, rather than ownership of it, and putting an EULA in between your license purchase or changing it later doesn’t affect your purchase because you continue to hold the license even if you choose not to agree to the terms necessary to use it. It’s a bit different for a physical item that you have actual ownership over, not a license to use it (pending agreement).

I also find all of that to be loophole bullshit that should be fixed, but that’s a separate issue.

No way this is legally binding. It amounts to a bait and switch. A product was purchased and provided without agreement to any further terms. Then they sneak in supposed terms after the fact based upon the action of opening the product. That is a change in agreement made without any consideration for the purchaser. That’s not generally allowed in contact law.

Furthermore, I really doubt that they can get away with the argument that the act of opening a product can constitute any amount of conscious agreement to some writing on a package. If for no other reason than that this is (afaik) a novel way to attempt to coerce agreement such that nobody would expect such an agreement to be part of the opening process and likely won’t notice it.

And it’s not accessible for every person who may be using this product even if they do notice the words. Are you a non-English speaker? Farsighted? Blind? Illiterate? Would you have any way to even be aware that those words are terms that somehow binding you to an agreement by virtue of your opening the thing you just bought? Would you have any reason to even suspect that that is the case?

Also, they’ll undoubtedly claim that the fact that you have the opened product means that you agreed to the terms, but that is also not the case. Your mom opened it for you and wrapped it as a gift? You bought it secondhand? The packaging was torn open when it shipped to you and you never had any reason to see this text in the first place? It was misprinted? Any of those things and more would mean you never agreed to anything. And they have no way to prove any of those things weren’t the case.

Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.

Unaddressed man-made climate change leading to unprecedented volatility and extremes in weather as predicted since the 70s? “Bullshit.”

A secret cabal of leftists attacking red states (and blue states for… reasons) through advanced undetectable technology (or magic?) that alters the weather creating these extreme events? “Seems reasonable to me.”

The microwave background is like a rainbow. When you move, it appears to move. You’re always at the “center” of it.

• Including anecdotes
• Written in the first person
• Tangents and nonlinear storytelling

Weird that AI can’t handle talking in the first person. Why just the other day I, a human, was saying to my sister, who is also human, about how strange AI is. See, she was grew up in another home with her mother where they didnt use as much technology. We shared a father who fought in Desert Storm. His favorite color was blue, like the kind you see in very thick ice. See most people think ice is just clear, but that is only becuase you need a lot of ice to properly refract light into its true blue color. Refraction works because colors come from different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and those wavelengths bend at different angles when refracted by passing through transparent materials… what was I saying? Oh yeah, AI is strange.

Space and time are the same thing. Spacetime. Time travel would necessarily also by teleportation if you are traveling instantaneously through spacetime. Unless of course your travel is continuous like it is currently for all of us, just sped up, slowed down or reversed.

Also there is no objective point of reference for location in the universe, only relative points of reference. In other words, you are always some distance in some direction from some thing. But you never have objective stable coordinates relative to the universe itself. There is no “center” or other fixed point of the universe. So the earth is moving, yes, but only relative to other independent celestial bodies. And those bodies are moving, too, relative to other bodies. Their movement is always relative to a non-absolute frame of reference. No movement is objective to the universe, it’s all relative.

So it would be illogical to expect the earth to have moved X miles away in Y direction if you teleported one second into the past/future because that would presuppose that your location was objective and absolute in the universe at the point of time traveling and the earth moved relative to your absolute location. It would break known physics if that were the case, as much as time travel itself would.

Crunchy cookies are only acceptable if they soften when dunked in milk.

That’s why I included the last bit. The law is more relevant when you are not someone too special. The higher you get, the less it matters, if only because more people have fallen for your manipulations or are cognizant of them but support them for whatever reason, and will defend you no matter what from actual justice.

Depends what you mean by “further”. It is a trait that definitely serves well in some very lucrative areas like business or politics. But it very easy to ruin other aspects of your life like your relationships, your public image, and can run you afoul of the law. In areas of work where your image is paramount, being a liar and manipulator usually only gets you so far because it’s very hard to maintain those lies and hide the manipulation under massive public scrutiny, particularly if you’re doing illegal stuff in addition to it. Of course the wealthier you are, or the more fanatical your following, the more you will have others lie and manipulate on your behalf, so… accountability can decrease that way.

*woe-min. FTFY

No no no, you’re all wrong. It goes Agles, Beagles, Seagulls, Deegles, Eagles, etc. We’ve proven the existence of 3 of these species already, but the search continues for these other mysterious creatures the certainly must exist. In this TED Talk, I will…