No it doesn't.
Since at the very least the dollar sign replacement is older than twitter.
And it was done by people who compared the company to nazi Germany.

I thought it was a huge disappointment, most of all due to the CG.

• Everything looks hueless, often with only a few colors, with weird light angles and enemies often shown as a blur. As if it was made to put everyone on the same level as those who are colorblind and visiually impaired.
• Soundtrack was a dissonance of what went on on screen.
• The towns and villages were beautifully animated and showed wide shots of them, so one could be sure that they were missing any signs of food production or water sources.
• The world did not just look dry in color, but also literally dry. Especially the shire which gives it a plastic feel to it.

All of those put together made me feel it was taking place on a pre-dinosaur earth or not yet fully terraformed planet Mars, rather than a place of fantasy and wonder.

And Saruman's death was absent in the theatrical cut. One of the most important parts of the story was simply cut out.

I grew up with pasta and ketchup at home.
It was my favourite dish.

Explain how it is reductionist to say that when there's over 50% of a whole nation that's in financial woes?
If anything trying to blame the each individual's actions is reductionist.
It paralyzes any political discussion in order to uphold an ever fragile status quo.
How many more people in your own country need to into debt before
you start calling it a systemic issue? 80%? 90%? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?

Whatever your solution is going to be, people's incomes are going to go down,
as everything is being automated.
Grocery stores are being automated.
Fast food chains are being automated.
Any brick-and-mortar store is disappearing.
Artists are being replaced

Your personal anecdote is worthless.
I delivered magazines, newspapers and mowed lawns when I was a kid.
Good luck telling the Gen Z that!

And if you don't understand why, I'll try be as reductionist as possible
in how my (and your) personal anecdote doesn't work anymore:

Internet, AI & robots has set up the us the bomb
All your income are belong to FAANG!!
You have no chance to survive make your time
Move Cap Install Com
For great justice!

Volunteers? I thought fedora/red hat was one of the few professional Linux OSes with this particular distro family focusing in on servers and security?
I could be wrong though.

The original post is that 50% of Americans consider themselves 'broke'.
@sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works a solution that would be considerate if 0.1% of working class Americans considered themselves broke.
@iamdisillusioned@lemmy.world offers an analysis why a 'pull yourself together' solution doesn't work when the issue starts hitting 50+% of a nation. That means there's something systemically going wrong and any suggested 'pull yourself by the bootstraps' solution is going to be met with more and more anger from a larger and larger crowd.

It's invincible against any adversary that still operates with 20th century technology, except for nations that had F-22's prior.

I use Manjaro and little bit of Artix.
If I would recommend anything, it's either EndeavourOS or Manjaro.
They're Arch-based and friendlier.

I stopped using Arch because I got banned from their forum for changing my username.

Ah, singular their.
It's not that common.

Did you marry your cousin, did she marry South-East Asia or was the guy from your high school randomly at his own wedding?

Oh noes!
Does that mean they will start banning TikTok and Huawei soon?

If they're against replacment, then what are they doing outside of Great Britain?

I would say it's not very different, just one league above all the others that I've come across.

The three things that stand out in my opinion is how much their package manager can query packages, it's rolling release and the number of packages they have in the AUR.

It makes Arch the most complete and up to date Linux distro,
with the exception of a user friendly forum,
that doesn't look like the nazi soup kitchen from Seinfeld,
and an installer.

To answer the question:

1. She didn't know she was going to die on that bed.
2. She was asked to tell the story to researchers wanting to find a jewel.
3. She got caught up in her story.

Perfectly normal.

Now for what is not normal is that Rose is extremely coldhearted and selfish throughout the entire story, even when she's telling the story from her perspective and one of her only redeeming qualities that she has is that she's not Cal. But remember, this is HER version of the story. Imagine how the perspectives could have been wildly different from hers.
Anyway in HER version of the story..:

1. Rose denies her husband and children her wealth.
   She never told anyone about it and throws away the jewel
   that could have been extremely useful for her children or grandchildren.
   Their tuition, medical expenses, you name it.
   Not to mention it would have given the researchers
   closure to all of their efforts to find this treasure,
   which we now know will be fruitless.
   And she's did it with glee, saying "Oops" with a smile.
   Oh yeah, spite those researchers and your children granny!
   We've really seen how awful they are, especially her children.
   And if she hated her own children, she could have given the money to charity.
   Or she could have given it to Jack's family. But I guess the family of a hobo
   would never appreciate such a gift.
2. Rose killed Jack.
   She never regretted having hogged the wreckage that could have saved Jack's life.
   Mythbusters proved that the life vests could have been used to give the wreckage more
   bouyancy that would have kept them both afloat.
   They could have taken turns on that wreckage. She could have given him her life vest.
   She could have stayed on the life boats, then Jack would have had the wreckage on his own.
   She could have traded herself in for Jack since she was the idiot having made the dumb decision of leaving the lifeboat.
   Jack died through her actions and for 70 years until her death this never occured to her.
   Not to mention, since she went on the life boat, she's responsible for taking a seat that could have been taken by another person. A child, a man, a lady. That person would have survived.
   Or it could have been her maid Trudy, who died on the ship because there wasn't enough space on the life boats.
3. Rose flips on her secret lover When Jack is being framed by her fiancée of being a thief,
   she lets him down by believing her fiancée's lies,
   despite her telling Jack that she trusts him.
   I guess not.
   This almost gets Jack killed at an earlier time.
4. Rose knows that through her cheating, she is accidentally responsible for every single one of those deaths of that happened on the Titanic, including children and babies and doesn't regret that at all.
   She could have felt guilt for not communicating clearly to Cal that this isn't working out.
   That she made a mistake by going on board with this ship.
   But instead she secretly runs off, kisses Jack on deck, which distracts of couple of crew members that were specifically there to watch the sea for icebergs. She could have felt guilty for not having kissed in a more more private area.
   She could have felt guilty for cheating in the first place.
   And when her fiancée finds out that she's cheating with him, she just reacts coldly towards him, to which he flips the table in rage and slaps her... in HER version of the story.
5. She doesn't let her mother know that she's alive.
   She lets no one know that she's alive after the Titanic sunk. That includes her own mother.
   Instead she takes up the last name of the man she killed. Creepy.
   Speaking of her mother,
   when Rose lights up a cigarette and blows smoke close to her mother's face, her mother asks Rose to please stop doing that, you know I don't like that,
   She then responds to fully blowing smoke into her mother's face.
   Disrespectful.
6. Her last thoughts before she dies are of her dancing with Jack.
   Not of her husband she lived 70 years with.
   Not of her children, not of her grandchildren.
   Just a hobo she had a fling with for two days... that she killed... among a thousand others.
   And she doesn't think of her husband and children and grandchildren during those last,
   she doesn't think of them during the entire movie. Never. Not once do we see them.
   What we do see are eight pictures on her nightstand. Every single one of them are of herself.
   Herself.

Now I said 'one of her few redeeming qualities' because she another one.
That is that she was 17 at the time,
and being played by a 20 year old Kate Winslet that's a bit difficult to see.
However, even 17 year olds would be more responsible as she acts like a 13 year old,
since that's what her character is actually based on, 13-year old Juliet from Romeo and Juliet.
But as much as this would have redeemed Rose's actions on the boat as a teenager,
those reflections should have hit the Rose the grandma to put things into perspective.
That didn't happen.

No way.
I'd have a lot more than just one homeless chick.