helaoban

Nope, Ive's firm also designed the exterior.

>Our presence on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok is not an endorsement [...] We stay because the people on those platforms deserve access to information, too. We stay because some of our most-read posts are the ones criticizing the very platform we're posting on. We stay because the fewer steps between you and the resources you need to protect yourself, the better.

Does this not apply to X users?

This makes no sense. The vast majority of driving is not being done for pleasure.

>Another culture clash, this time between Discovery’s unscripted empire and Warner’s premium sensibilities, a wannabe mogul overpaying so he could cosplay as Robert Evans (ask Claude), and a 5x debt-to-EBITDA ratio. The good news? The sequel had a short runtime. CEO David Zaslav slashed costs, engineered a good bank / bad bank structure to spin WBD’s declining linear assets, and ultimately orchestrated a bidding war that restored shareholder value. As an operator, Zaz is Ed Wood (see: the worst branding decision in history, deprecating HBO), but as an investment banker, he’s Steven Spielberg.

WTF is this slop? I've never seen a an article so riddled with analogies and pop culture references that actively degrade the ability to understand whatever argument might be lurking behind the obscurantism.

What body of work has Scott Galloway produced that should cause me or any other reader to suffer this kind of self-indulgence normally found in a 8th grade creative writing class, in the hopes of learning something meaningful about these topics?

Gurus are going to guru I guess.

So now heads of state are fair game for unilateral elimination without a declaration of war

This should be fun.

If you instigate a war you are responsible for all casualties.

I like Special Military Operation better.

Does the term landslide have a widely accepted definition? One definition could be winning every single swing state, which Trump did.

I think you also have to factor in the degree of political polarization today, and in particular Trump's polarizing nature, which means that there is smaller pool of "effectively independent" voters to fight over. So 1% today is worth more than %1 in 1984. These, are of course, not particularly quantifiable measures.

The point is taken tough, "comprehensive victory" would have been the more appropriate description.

If you want to challenge a point, then challenge it. Don't cower behind ambiguous snark.

If that is the case, you have to explain why right wing propagandists have been so much more successful than left wing ones.