Leaderboard

Good for them... The boss of the US media company Paramount has said he does not want to remove historic programmes from his new subscription streaming service because they no longer meet current expectations. Bob Bakish, Paramount’s CEO, said his company had thousands of shows in its back catalogue. “By definition, you have some things that were made in a different time and reflect different sensibilities,” he said. “I don’t believe in censoring art that was made historically, that’s probably a mistake. It’s all on demand – you don’t have to watch anything you don’t want to.” Streaming companies have struggled with how to adapt to modern cultural expectations when it comes to archive shows, with BritBox and the BBC’s iPlayer among those removing content that is no longer deemed appropriate for modern tastes. Paramount: we won’t remove content from eras with ‘different sensibilities’ (msn.com)

This will show up in a German football quiz in the future. I've been answering random questions with "Michael Preetz" and it's about to payoff.

Give them time.

He did an interview after promotion where he sounded very cock sure that Fulham was in his rear view mirror. That said I think he would be a good addition at that price. I honestly think you could squeeze an extra 3/4 million unless he's in the last year of his contract. He seems like somebody that could grow with the club if they survive and progress up the league over a 3 or 4 year parried.

Yeah, I agree with that fully. I think it's mental that some people expect things made decades ago to conform to modern day standards when really in the last 10 years alone there's been a lot of change to what's considered socially acceptable and what isn't. And it's also mental to just suggest that people not watch films, TV, or listen to music made decades ago because it doesn't comply with modern standards either.

I don't have a problem with those that get offended as it's their problem to deal with but I do object when those same people are throwing tons of objection and emotion into forcing companies into banning stuff that is clearly out of date or out of touch with modern thinking... Sure some things from the past were unacceptable that's how we learn to change but I do object to others dictating what it is I can or cannot watch based on what they may deem appropriate viewing.. More of this type of thing would be welcome elsewhere

Our daughter's subtle hint that I have a beer gut via a Fathers Day prezzie...cough, cough

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat#Contemporary_practice

Same in the sense that it has a fixed rate but its not for the religious body to take, you own wealth or certain assets which liquefied exceed a standard and count as surplus, a year passed on and you still posses that surplus then you distribute a % of it to the needy.

Buttigieg is great, much like Bernie I could listen to Mayor Pete speak on any topic, good man. This is also hilarious.

Nah they're not even bothering with that, the submitted bill simply claims that the recognition was unconstitutional and illegal. Also, Leningrad = St. Petersburg, whereas we're talking about Kaliningrad here

Strong fuck off vibes

Apart from losing a great player, we are also losing a tremendous human being... Sadio Mane is transforming his village to a town. He built a €455,000 hospital and €250,000 school in his village, Bambaly. He gives each family €70 monthly. He provided 4G internet for them. He is building a fuel station and post office. 2,000 people live in his village. What a person he truly is.

Milan-bound today

Good question, I have no idea… lemme check. It was owned by Murdoch until 91, like you say - it was sold to some company I’ve never heard of called K-III until the 2000s, when it was sold to a “financier” named Bruce Wasserman. He’s dead but his family owned it until 2019. Now it’s owned by Vox media. They also own Vox, The Verge, SB Nation, Eater, & Polygon. They seem pretty left leaning, by American standards. So they’re pretty firmly in the centre by normal standards, imo.

I wonder what would happen if a nation like Pakistan, Iran, or any of the many countries that doesn't recognise Israel changed their stance and said "okay we recognise Israel" but then added "as an apartheid state" - it seems that would be a halfway point between fully normalised relations and simply not recognising. It'd certainly make the impasse with the Iran nuclear talks a bit more interesting. According to Iran, the US rejected a deal Iran proposed that kept the IRGC on the sanctions list (which we have been told for months now, has been a red line for Iran considering the way the IRGC is meshed with so much of every day life in Iran)... but this time was rejected because the US insisted Iran recognise Israel. If that's true, I wonder what would happen if Iran said "we recognise Israel as an apartheid state." It's still a middle finger to Israel, but it's obviously a big step from suggesting they don't have the right to exist and that they are not recognised as a real country. And it sets a pathway for countries to actually have normalised relations should theoretically benefit everyone involved - particularly Palestinians and Israelis.

Not sure how the topic got here.. but, the 1s you refer to would basically be the right wing working class. The lost red wall voters. The 1s that feel done over by the perceived white European immigrant influx. Labour was originally about representing the under represented. i.e. A political party for the working class. And obviously minority groups would have perhaps easily found home with the more socially left parties. The slightly odd thing I tend to notice is that MPs like Rishi Sunak & Priti Patel are derided as some kind of race traitors, which seems to me equally as odd as anything the apparently anti minorities, right wing inclined, white working class could do. While the Lib Dems, as the much more clearly defined middle to upper class regions left option vs the Conservative right, do seem mostly white Brits. Oddly more so than the allegedly racist Conservatives. In itself it's probably likely a high portion of ethnic minorities would find home with Labour, purely as working class. But the left-right divide of white voters seems less confused among the wealthy. I think that's perhaps the class-race point of curiosity, if there is 1.

I don’t think so at all. He chooses to because it is the right thing to do, not because of some imaginary pressure. Muslims aren’t a tightly knit group that parse over the financial habits of every wealthy Muslim. I bet the Sheiks don’t donate, I bet most don’t. Not every Muslim, practising or not is orthodox or a hardliner. He also is also Catholic, so that applies too.

Top Gun Maverick - 10/10 everything I could ever want in a sequel. It gets a 10 because I only had to wait about 2 mins in to hear highway to danger zone.

This man is a true hero.