So then you buy the unlocked version, just like the person said. This applies more to people leasing it who are locked in, like they said. Do you not have any reading comprehension?

Look around at the other comments like I said?

That’s MY point. It’s called reading comprehension.

And look at all the other dates others are giving me. They’re not the same as yours. THATS my point. No one actually agrees on the dates and at this point, it’s expanded to include other generations.

Yet I have 10 different people spouting different dates and all telling me I’m wrong. None of you see that you’re the exact point I was making. Everyone tries to shove in some extra years before or after.

Thank you, someone who gets it. The definition has expanded so much it’s essentially meaningless now.

When I grew up and the term was first coined, it refered to the generation coming after mine. It was literally “what will we call this next generation? Well, they’re growing up during the turn of the millennium…”. Then suddenly years later it included my generation. Then suddenly it includes the generation before me? When really it’s just a lazy replacement for “kids these days”.

You’re further proving my point. A person born in 1981 would be 18 years old in 1999. They will have had NONE of their childhood during the Millennium(unless you’re counting the very end of it)

deleted by creator

Because every other “generation” is about 10 years and yet somehow “Millennials” are an almost 25 year gap. Notice how it’s “Older Millennial, younger millennial, etc”. You don’t use those qualifiers with the other generations because they are appropriately sized.

Millennials should be 2-3 named generations. It currently refers to 80’s kids, 90s kids, any kids alive when 2000 happened, and early Aughts kids(probably because the last name sucked and no one wanted to use it). Too many generations wanted the claim of “I was the first generation of the new millennium” and everyone co-opted the term even when it didn’t traditionally apply(newborns because they were closest to the date as opposed to when their major development occured is part of that stretch)

I like how these conversations always ignore the wrong things Skylar did, such as cheating with Ted. It’s always “well Walter was the devil, so anything she did was ok”. She still begins the show by showing very little care for his birthday and making it feel like a chore. She’s literally part of why he feels he’s in a hum drum boring life with no control. His character ark is largely about him going from a meek high school professor afraid to do anything into a completely fearless kingpin who finally has control over his life. Yes, the point is that he goes too far. But it’s also shown pretty clearly early on that he feels powerless and like his life is out of control(you know, like a sudden terminal cancer diagnosis might do).

Was Walter a bad person? Yes. Was Skylar also a bad person who didn’t truly see him as an equal and who, when given the chance, cheats on him remorselessly? Also yup.

Multiple people can be bad. Even Hank, arguably one of the most moral characters, suffers from major blindspots and is a dismissive dick to Marie.

People defending Skylar are the kind of people that say “I can do what I want because it’s a free country” and get shocked when they learn there are consequences to their actions, even if justified.

In a show otherwise filled with adults. This why we hate him. It’s a common trope that when you add a child/baby actor in a show that otherwise doesn’t have them, the show becomes worse. Wesley absolutely fits.

The context that’s he’s supposed to be an annoying child? You’re really not getting that people can dislike a character that is “well done”. Yes, he’s well done… as an annoying child who tries to act like he’s on the same level as Picard and Riker. He’s the equivalent of internet comments.

Bro, this is just a load of shit. Google removed them by choice, not because of some tech need. Better search engines still use them to great effect.

You just posted a very long rambling justification for injecting ads and other shit into the results instead of giving you what you asked for.

It’s like weapons testing. You only move to ban testing after you’ve developed it yourself.

Troll

Doubting it just to be contratian or doubting it because you can point out a flaw in something I said?

There’s a difference. If you’re just gonna troll, then you’re the exact cause of the loss of discourse. It’s up to you.

You should doubt everything you hear. Pull it apart and see if the pieces themselves make any sense. Examine the logic and look for flaws in it that make the conclusion invalid. Ask questions.

You SHOULD doubt me, absolutely. Hold everything up to the light. A very important question to ask is “why am I being told this? Who’s interests is served by telling me this?” Examine every piece.

For example, in the article, notice how everything is “seemingly” “implied” or “appears to”. Those aren’t definitive words. Those are gossip words. No concrete claim is actually made. Just the appearance of one. The sources are just other random Twitter comments speculating.

“It’s probably not true, but you know, it COULD be true”.

That’s exactly how they get you. Then the next time you see a story like this, all you think is “yeah, haven’t I heard something like this before?” and confirm the new BS you’re being fed.

This instance isn’t true. This is someone manipulating you. Like, the manipulation you’re afraid of? It’s right here.

And now you have to wonder, who gains from making you believe this one is real? I’ll leave that one up to you. But in the words of George Carlin: “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it”.

Sorry you’re being downvotted by the misinformed. It’s not even in the format for ChatGPT, especially the part about being out of tokens. It’s been pointed out already that that is psuedo-code, not actual code. It’s meant to look like something ChatGPT would say.

It’s a troll/ragebait account.

This isn’t news. At all. This is basically reporting on “the hacker known as 4Chan”.

Yeah, we’re all talking about what unhinged dicks they are and wishing for them to be disbanded. Great job!

Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it’s vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It’s just unhinged.

“He have” instead of “he has,” etc.

Then you meant to write “‘He has’ instead of ‘he have’”. You wrote it backwards. Thanks for the downvote for YOUR mistake.