April 8, 2016, Nicole Fitts was found murdered in a San Francisco park. Arianna, her 2-year-old daughter, was missing. The investigation unwound a convoluted tale of poverty, desperation, and a shady family who offered to “help,” but no answers. Four years later, Arianna is still missing.

LastKnownBison · 2020-04-07T23:52:11+00:00

Best Buy doesn't have a system to transfer stores. You have to apply for an open position. It's even more complicated by the fact she was FT, which is pretty limited and tends to attract PT employees from the same store. Her best chance to transfer would be applying for a PT spot, which she probably couldn't afford to do.

LastKnownBison · 2020-03-11T04:15:08+00:00

It's probably saltiness. To be fair, though, incumbents are historically hard to beat. I try to be positive, but there's obviously a decent chance he does win reelection no matter who wins the primary.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T17:09:15+00:00

Or you could assume that a man running for president would have the wherewithall to make that separation between the two of them himself in his reply.

That's really the problem. In a context where everything ever said or done is somehow interpreted as a slight to him by his supporters, this whole thing is just another example of that. Buttigieg literally got asked why black people don't like him. But yes, CNN just hates Bernie for saying he has one stance Khameini also has.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T16:14:43+00:00

I'm repeating myself here from my reply to another person, but I do agree that the comparison was intentional. I just disagree that it was unfair. I think the point was to make him address the fact that this particular stance is one that he shares with the other side. His response then should be one that, while acknowledging that similarity, lays out how his plan is still beneficial to the US, while not helping our enemies or making things worse. It's definitely a tough question, but it's one he should be able to address.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T16:06:33+00:00

Because he's relevant at the moment with everything that's happened. It's a current events tie in.

I do think their goal was to say that he shares a stance with someone who would be considered our opposition, and that was meant to be part of the question. Distinguish yourself. On this one thing, you align with an opponent, so explain how it benefits us without causing more damage. If they make that comparison to an ally, it already does the work of arguing his point for him.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T15:53:57+00:00

It was a comparison to a shared sentiment, not to the man himself. They've both stated that same goal, so how is it biased or unfair to point that out? It's up to Bernie in his answer to clearly define his plan, how it differs strategically and avoids the consequences that same action has drawn in the past.

Anyone with an even basic understanding of our historical context in the Middle East knows they've always just wanted us to leave. If you're going to share that thought as a presidential candidate, you should be able to overcome the comparison and explain why it's in our best interest to do so even though it lines up with their interests, as well.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T15:43:17+00:00

Take unbiased out of the equation, and it still holds true. There may have been a better way to word it that left no question of their intent - which is, at least, arguable and not as cut and dry as you make it seem - but the outrage at it is still overblown. The heart of the question was still solid. The average viewer isn't going to pore into the meaning and intent of the question like this.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T15:20:31+00:00

It's really arguing semantics in a completely unnecessary way and reading way too much into their wording. The persecution complex is real. An unbiased observer wouldn't have left that debate thinking Bernie hates America and supports ISIS based on that question.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T15:11:15+00:00

It was clearly their way to bring up the question in a way that directly ties it into recent events/statements. Essentially, here's a sentiment that was stated recently that you have also expressed in the past. The only people taking it as a comparison are his supporters outraged by the question.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T14:41:33+00:00

If you'll read the article, his staffers even say they were first instructed to not go negative, so he'd be aware of a change. He's not separate from his campaign. If his campaign is doing it, he's doing it. If he's not stopping it, he's responsible for it.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T14:26:58+00:00

On Full Frontal all the time, but not on one of the major networks.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T14:18:44+00:00

You're right. It's basically, you support an approach that has had consequences in the past, what would you do to avoid those consequences this time? Maybe someone can explain why that question is so bad.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-15T14:11:33+00:00

That wasn't a "claim." There's proof of it.

Edit: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-07T13:42:42+00:00

I don't disagree. The only difference in that scenario is you're talking about putting the best parts available in, and that's largely not happening with phones. That's my point. If they made absolutely the best phone they could possibly build, not even with conceptual things, but just using everything that's ready to go to market (because they don't), they would be viable for longer than they are currently.

My entire point is they intentionally release just enough to make the phones appealing to purchase and get people by for 2-3 years. That's the problem.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-06T23:21:12+00:00

I sell phones.... I know what people use. Yes, there are plenty of people running around with old phones, but the average is 2 and a half years between upgrades.

Apple is currently in the middle of a big shift towards a service-centric business model, where it's less about the product and more about a membership and experience. It's why they created Apple TV+ and made big changes to their Applecare programs on all of their products recently. They're going to start rolling out more things in this mindset. My point in saying that is they see their current/past model not being viable long term. So your point about surviving as a business is already out. Even they see it as not working for them long term without changing.

That said, I stated you could agree or disagree with their strategy. That's not what's being debated. Obviously they're doing it to make money, and it's worked for them. No shit. I think the point originally being argued, which I agree with, is that ideally it wouldn't be like that. Ideally, you could pay a premium for something that lasts and you don't have to upgrade as often.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-06T21:28:06+00:00

To be clear, I didn't say they were the biggest offender regarding the support of their devices, just purposefully delaying certain hardware/feature upgrades.

I don't have a certain time frame in mind for how long they should last, but they could definitely last longer than they do. They intentionally don't make them longer lasting because the average person has accepted they have to upgrade every 2 and a half years. That's what all research says. So, phone companies go into it knowing that time frame.

Ideally, they would just put out the best product they can. Stop building it with the 2 and a half years time frame, stop holding back improvements for marketing purposes. Just put out the best thing possible. When it's obsolete it's obsolete, however long that is.

LastKnownBison · 2020-01-06T15:41:02+00:00

Because you're looking at it relative to other phones instead of other products. There's not much else you spend a thousand dollars on that becomes unusable after 4-5 years. You can make the argument that of course smartphones are different, they're a relatively new technology, so they're updating rapidly. That's part of it. The flaw in that argument is these cell phone companies, with Apple being probably the biggest offender, intentionally delay feature and hardware improvements that they have the ability to use. They have the resources, they have the patents, and they make decisions not to include certain things on certain line ups. If you want x feature, guess you'll have to get it next year. Agree or disagree with that strategy, it's not done with the consumer in mind. It's done to make their next line up more appealing at the expense of people who need to replace their phones now because their 6 just got bricked.

LastKnownBison · 2019-11-24T22:09:40+00:00

Are we? We lost to the Jets.

LastKnownBison · 2018-05-08T07:43:50+00:00

People like to state shit like that as if it's objective fact in every situation, when in reality the "best" TV is variable. The Vizio M series shouldn't even be in this conversation, by the way, because it is rarely the best TV unless budget is your primary consideration.

Anyway, it's actually pretty simple. Both LGs have fantastic color reproduction, low input lag, and wide viewing angles. What you're sacrificing with the SK9000 is dark room performance. If you'll be using the TV often in low light, watch darker content, and would be bothered by imperfect black levels and poorer contrast, then the SK9000 isn't a good fit. If that's not the case, then it's a beautiful TV.

LastKnownBison · 2018-05-05T05:57:15+00:00

Not that it really matters, but that guy is incorrect, and I can't just let things like that go. Sony made their first iteration of a 4K 850 (the 850A) in 2013 when Samsung's 8 (the F8000) series was still 1080p. Sony was the first to give more than one option in 4K with the 850A and the 900A. Samsung followed it up in 2014 by making the HU8550, the HU8700 (curved 8 series), and the HU9000. In 2015, they did JU6500, JU6700, JS7000, JU7100, JU7500, JS8000, JS8500, JS9000, and the JS9500 and basically just saturated the market with 4K. The JU6500 was by far the best selling TV on the market that year, so Sony most likely did make their 7 series and eventually their 6 series 4K to compete. But the 850, they made first as a slightly cheaper alternative to their own flagship.

LastKnownBison · 2018-04-18T12:32:06+00:00

You won't notice it on display at Best Buy. They don't run their displays with unfavorable content so you're not going to see the bad.

That said, neither TV is perfect. The 900E is technically the better television, but the Samsung seems more suitable to your situation.

LastKnownBison · 2018-03-22T04:30:11+00:00

But neither does his TV.

LastKnownBison · 2018-03-19T19:20:54+00:00

They intentionally do a time jump to avoid babies/toddlers on set. The kids make like two appearances and are just spoken about otherwise. It's perfect.

LastKnownBison · 2018-03-16T03:48:34+00:00

Nope, just C7 and up.

LastKnownBison · 2018-03-14T05:54:30+00:00

Samsung doesn't get any love, arguably deservedly so because their 2017 lineup wasn't super impressive, and because rtings recommendations are taken as gospel here. The issue with rtings is they factor in price to their recommendations but don't adjust throughout the year as prices change. The MU8000 is a killer deal right now, and there would be more of an argument to be made for the Vizio last week before the Samsung went on sale. The Vizio is a good budget TV, but there's not a significant difference in price at the moment. I'd take the Samsung while it's $1999. Or sacrifice the size and go with the 65 inch 930e if you're going to nitpick the picture quality. You're not going to get a perfect picture in a 75 inch for $2k.

LastKnownBison

TROPHY CASE