Interesting, Non Political News

Who's taking HIS picture?

I clicked it, hopeful. Maybe they're finally getting rid of that goddam retarded refusal to assign seats that fucks everyone retarded enough to book a flight on SW, but ESPECIALLY fucking anyone travelling with a child

they even acknowledge the problem - its what the article is all about. very hopeful at this point

But those who are familiar with Southwest's system of unassigned seats and boarding by group letter and number know that this can make any group trip with the carrier more challenging to coordinate—especially with kids in tow.

Click to expand...

(Yes, for anyone unfamiliar with this, SouthWest will literally tell you "No, we can't do anything to make sure you get to sit next to your child, you have to work that out with the other passengers yourself." Nazi fucks. )

But their fucking solution?

But now, the company says it's testing out a new system. During their recent Media Day presentation, Southwest announced that families with children six and younger on flights departing from Atlanta Hartfield Airport can board before group A no matter which letter they've been assigned, Beat of Hawaii reports. However, they won't be allowed to sit down in the first 15 rows of the aircraft.

Click to expand...

OOOOOoooooh, that fixes it!

Sure, your 7 year old daughter still has to sit between two strange dudes in the back of the plane somewhere, but thats fine cause she's 7.

Sure, theres still no guarantee you're sitting together even with your infants, you just don't have to fight with as many other passengers now so thats fine.

And yeah, fuck you you go sit in the back of the bus, but that is fine cause its not race its the fact that youre a contributing member of society with actual children. but thats fine cause fuck you!



Fuck you forever Southwest Airlines. Root and stem. Just fucking assign seats like a goddam normal person.

As long as you register the earliest moment you can, usually you're in an early boarding group call. But if you do that late, ya you fucked

Anyone interested in why modern scientific research is fucked may enjoy this.
I'm pretty sure I agreed with this completely. And it is unbelievably refreshing to read someone admitting that the whole thing just failed, and there probably isnt a way to ever make it work.

All we can say from these big trends is that we have no idea whether peer review helped, it might have hurt, it cost a ton, and the current state of the scientific literature is pretty abysmal. In this biz, we call this a total flop.

Click to expand...

The proposed solution is not bad at all.

What should we do now? Well, last month I published a paper, by which I mean I uploaded a PDF to the internet.

Click to expand...

She was in the trailer but all of her scenes were cut from the movie, so her fans sued cause Ana wasn't in it. The studio even raised the point that deleted scenes have been in trailers for years.

“The Court’s holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else,” the judge wrote, holding that based on the “Yesterday” trailer, it was plausible that viewers would expect de Armas to have a significant role in the film.

Click to expand...

Malakriss said:

Ana de Armas Fans’ Lawsuit Puts Studios at Risk Over Deceptive Trailers

A judge allowed two Ana de Armas fans to sue Universal for false advertising, after she was cut out of "Yesterday."

variety.com

She was in the trailer but all of her scenes were cut from the movie, so her fans sued cause Ana wasn't in it. The studio even raised the point that deleted scenes have been in trailers for years.

Click to expand...

I agree with the ruling. I believe that clips not used in a movie should not be used in advertising a movie, if the intent of the advertisement is financial. Companies cannot lie about a product and its abilities. Why is a movie any different? It is a practice that has gone on for too long. If you want to get around the law, show the clips after the initial movie is over. This way the consumer cannot complain about the advertisement because the product was shown in the theater. Oh.....but that takes time....and time is cost....

Universal also argued that classifying trailers as “commercial speech” could open the door to a parade of lawsuits from dissatisfied filmgoers, who could make a subjective claim that a film did not live up to the expectations created by the trailer.

I love that quote. Yes, that would be called false advertising. When you set up a trailer with certain expectations and those expectations are not meant, because the product was falsely advertised. They are upset because somebody finally challenged it. It makes me smile when people finally take a chance and have the resources to do it.

Gaming industry next...

It isn’t a recent thing to be sure. I can remember films from the 80s/90s where the trailer has a scene and it never showed up in the theatrical release

Although to a degree, some of that comes down to timing I suspect.

Trailer comes out, uses some footage

At somepoint in post production, they chop some footage (because of runtime, or ratings board, or audience reactions, etc)

Final movie is missing scenes that were in the trailer

I don’t think scene for scene has to match as I understand things shift slightly. However in this case they clearly wanted people to think this chick was in it when she was not. That was an on purpose lie.

I like the statement above about how other products can’t lie, why can movies?