Legacy media seems to be about as bad in faith as the Republicans are, they are just better at hiding it. But giving any legitimacy at all to Trump has shown their true colours.

The big ones are pretty much all right wing media, some of them are just targeted at people who find a rant about hierarchies of race, gender, or sexually to be in bad taste.

I have a conspiracy hypothesis that Putin played a role in 9/11 and Russian influence was behind at least some of the "coincidences" that gave some of the conspiracy theories credibility. Pushing those conspiracy theories might have been one of the early Russian troll farm missions, too.

He did say that the only reason a man would travel to Thailand was for underage sex tourism right after having travelled to Thailand...

Netflix reality competition shows are awful for this. Especially the Korean ones where they cut back to show like every single person's reaction to the thing before either showing it or ending the episode.

I'm already watching this shit, you don't have to manipulate me into continuing to watch it and dramatize every mundane thing. Or pad the time out.

Also Dan Brown.

Used right, it can be effective, but some shitty writers lean way to much on them.

Yeah, Dick Cheney has been on borrowed time since during his VP when he spent a while without a pulse and using a mechanical pump after his OG heart died.

Fuck it, I'm going to pick a timezone on Mars and live by that. Bam, extra half hour every day! You can't control me, Earth's spin!

Digital clocks were a thing long before the internet.

I think legalizing weed didn't make that much of a difference because the whole claim that buying random weed from a random dealer put money in cartel or terrorist pockets was a lie.

Not that there weren't any large weed organizations, they just weren't murdering people at the scale the cartels are or doing it to fund violence.

They'd also rely a lot on temporary workers since trimming was really the only labour intensive step, and then it would be sent out into a distribution network that wasn't so much an organization as it was a collection of independent or small scale distributors. Which in some locations might have been gangs, but I'd guess was mostly normal people looking to make some extra money.

Another one that I found gave a kinda similar feel is Dr Stone.

Though instead of diving deep into fantasy mechanics, that one is based on real world physics (well, other than some characters having super-human levels of skill) and rebuilding a modern society from scratch.

I find them similar due to their attention to detail and using their environment to build up their capabilities. The overall plot is very different and DinD has a bit more charm. Not that Dr Stone doesn't have charm.

If I could choose which one I want to see one more season of right now, I'd pick DinD. If I could choose which one gets seen through to the end, I'd pick Dr Stone.

I think it would need to be a subscriber service paid for by consumers who are willing to pay for good reviews. Otherwise the consumers become the product and eventually marketers take over.

Also crowd-sourced reviews are what we're supposed to have already, both on Reddit and Amazon (and anywhere else).

What I envision would be a publication that funds a set of reviewers (maybe a mix of full time and part time, since some products are appropriate for testing as a job while others are more appropriate to just use for a while).

Each product would either be bought by the org directly, or if manufacturers provide review samples, a layer of indirection is used to avoid the reviewer feeling like they need to give a good review to keep the free shit coming (with clear communication to the supplier that free or not well have no effect on the review).

Any issues get included in the review fairly, along with any kind of resolution (which should ideally go through both consumer channels as well as reviewer back channels, the former to show what average customers should expect, the latter to hopefully resolve design flaws).

The reviewer will then keep the product and give updates, either in the form of "still using it and it is like x after y months/years", "doesn't get much use because I'm using this other thing instead because of x, y, z", or "doesn't get much use because I'm not really part of the target audience".

My complete vision includes brick and mortar locations where products are available to try out, and maybe sales handled there, where any product available has a "we vouch for the quality of this product" where flaws are highlighted as much as features are.

Though I think the idea is self-defeating because if it gains momentum, it could halt or reverse enshitification and make it redundant, fail, then enshitification returns. Ideally, enshitification is stopped with legislation about quality and enforcement that questions why a bad design is used when a better one is obvious.

Yeah, the only shoes I've ever had falling apart (or more accurately, worn until there were holes in one of them) were worn for years before that happened.

I've also never spent under $100 on shoes.

And I don't think it's smart to buy shoes you haven't tried on. There's variation in foot shapes, some shoes just aren't designed for your foot and need to be "broken in". I thought all shoes needed to be broken in until one time I got lucky and the second pair I tried fit perfectly right away. Ever since then, I'll keep trying shoes until I find ones that don't need to be broken in.

One exception was when I forgot about that when my cousin saw a sale on good sandals and had him pick me up a pair. Was reminded the first time I wore them. I spent a day at an amusement park and my feet were killing me by the end of it. Figured it was because I hadn't been standing much leading up to that. But then, a few years later I wore the same sandals (now broken in) in a similar situation and my feet didn't feel nearly as bad.

So try on shoes until you feel ones that feel good right away and your feet will thank you. Spend money up front for quality and your wallet will thank you when those shoes last longer than that amount of cheap ones do.

Also take care of them. If they are tie up shoes, untie them to remove them. If they are difficult to get the heel in, get a shoe horn. If you're often walking through puddles and/or mud, wear boots. Always wear socks unless your footwear can breathe well.

I've never put shoes through the washer, not sure how that would affect the longevity, though it likely depends on the materials.

Good shoes will last longer than the laces, too, so just replace the laces when they get worn down. A new lace colour can also refresh the look.

The extra danger to pedestrians might also affect the liability calculations.