He said it was blown out of proportion, don't put words in his mouth.
There were literal TV spots on whether or not planes will drop from the sky. The threat was overblown.
Lots of people did tons of work to keep systems online, but even if they all failed the end results wouldn't have been that bad. Money would be lost, but loss of life due to Y2K would be exceedingly rare.
Don't defederate from hexbear, they aren't that bad.
They aren't great, it's like a bunch of very confident college kids refusing to listen to anything that challenges their beliefs. There is a high percentage of trolls, but it's the Internet. I've seen some shockingly bad takes, like tiananmen square had no casualties, or as highlighted by this thread, criticism of the USSRs well documented atrocities is tantamount to Holocaust denial.
Just ignore them and move on.
I think more convenient and user friendly is a bit of a stretch.
My wife gets confused by the remote and different profiles. My parents needed me to explain how to use Netflix more than once. Saying going to your PC and finding a torrent is convenient and user friendly isn't true. But the point that having to search where to stream a particular movie or show isn't user friendly is also true.
I don't know if I agree with the central thesis of the piece.
Wrath of Khan came out in 82, and the shift to super villains in trek wasn't until 2002 according to the article. I find it hard to see how that's due to Khan and not due to studios.
Brooks retired.
In the few interviews he's done he's been very clear that he's finished acting and no desire to work. He just wants to listen to jazz and enjoy his life. Can't blame the guy.
As far as longevity of models go, I built a necron army when they came out in 3rd ed. Two sets of models would be suspect now, wraiths and the tomb Spyder. One set of models no longer exists in the game, pariahs.
That was about 20 years ago. You'll be fine.
Paint what you buy and don't buy if you had models to paint. Also know that your models look great.
This is a lousy article rehashing an article behind a paywall.
The cost they have is $87 a month. There is so much that's confusing about this. They don't specify how many streaming services they are counting in that, but it's a good guess that is about 5, each at about $17 a month. I feel I have too many streaming services and share accounts with family, and I can stream from about 7, pay for one and watch 1.5. If I couldn't share accounts, I wouldn't have the accounts. I pretty much watch star trek and whatever show someone tells me to watch.
They also don't specify what $87 a month gets you in cable. Around me that's about basic cable prices, which is significantly less content presented in a less convenient format and is almost entirely reruns filled to brim with commercials.
Not only is the article missing key information it also misrepresents the information it has.
Note: I'm sure people will tell me to pirate everything, but there are reasons to not pirate. And it doesn't address that this is a poorly written article giving incomplete and incorrect information.
Sure, but why?
What is gained by a holo-display in your hand? It looks futuristic? If you wanted the experience of talking to someone face to face, why would they be a 6 in version projected into your hand? Why not face to face?
It's solving a problem that doesn't even need to exist. Hologram stuff is poorly thought out in media.
That's because you are weak. I bet you have a peanut allergy too.
Worse than that, when they are talking on a hologram phone the speaker is always looking down at the hologram and the hologram is looking up at the speaker. On both ends. If it was a hologram of the speaker they would be looking down.
Funny how one instance is the one everyone wants to defederate from.