In a very binary thinking sort-of-way, yes.

But it’s kind of like saying: Driving a motor scooter is the same as driving a bus.
Sure, they’re both ICE vehicles. But it’s disingenuous to say they’re the same.

The title card in the actual movie does state Part 1. But none of the marketing did. So people buy tickets not knowing it’s only half the story.

That’s kind of annoying. Even misleading.

The Dems just don’t know how to speak to people like Republicans do. They could do it. But they don’t.

Rather than speaking to peoples pain and anger, they try to lecture and teach. You need to talk to people where they are not where you want them to be.

Bernie does it. That’s why so many Trump supporters like him, when they don’t like the rest of the Dems.

It may be easier. But that’s not why.

If you avoid politicized language, a large majority of the US is quite left leaning, and economically progressive.

One of the Republicans favorite things to hate is the ACA (Obama Care). But if you ask them about the individual policies in the ACA, they approve of each of them by at least 2/3rds. And nearly all agree that the government should prevent people from being forced into bankruptcy by medical expenses.

Class is also an Identity. One that most have in common.
Regardless of race, religion, sex, or gender; nearly all of us are working class.

So policies that help the working class, will help everyone. And those subclasses that are disproportionately held back, will be disproportionately helped by universal pro-worker policies.

In my mind Teasers were made before production started, to announce the movie was being made. They didn’t have any actually movie clips.

Now it seems, if it’s more than 3 months from release, even full trailers, they get called a teaser. That’s the only distinction anymore I think.

The linked announcement is satire. And hysterical.
But the acquisition is also real.

The Onion isn’t news.
What’s this doing here?

Edit: OH! The Onion actually, really, genuinely, bought InfoWars! OK I get it.

If they’re using time travel to create a causality loop, that’s different than a time loop.

Time loops usually reset causality, accept for those actually experiencing the loop iterations.

Memorizing every little detail of everyone’s lives and actions that day always seemed incredible to me. I assumed he lived that day hundreds of thousands of times. Meaning centuries spent repeating the same day.

At least that’s what I imagine it would take, for me to try countless methods of suicide.

Haven’t seen it, but sounds like it. Time travel can certainly be used to create loops.

I say no.

Time travel stories are about going to a different time.
Time loop stories are repeating the same time.
It’s really that simple.

Time loops are anti-time travel really, as there’s no movement in time at all.

Are you using marketing statements as evidence of… Anything?
That’s almost never a good idea.

That quote isn’t referring solely to this specific intersection design.
But yes it’s also safer for bicycles and pedestrians. Just not as safe as not using cars.

And spending $25 million on a 25th train instead, wouldn’t make this interchange 60% safer. Or even 5% safer.

Again. It’s better. Nobody claims it’s perfect.

None of which are problems they’re actually trying to tackle.
They improve traffic a bit (not solve), and are substantially safer. They’re only meant to do those 2 things, and they’re good at it. Nobody thinks a single intersection idea will fix transportation as we know it.

That’s just your status quo bias.
This video explains how it’s remarkably better.

A search index isn’t a public facing search engine or service.
They’re building a common database for them to both use, as well as others.

So trying to beat Brave or any other search provider, isn’t the goal of this project.
It’s about creating a new index, Brave, or Bing, or other search providers could use if they wanted.

Oh! Now I get it. You’re talking about something I wasn’t. It’s true none of that has anything to do with the rules specifically, like I thought. But instead, you want to talk about some broader point we weren’t thinking or talking about. Okay. Yes your right. It matters to the larger situation, beyond the scope of our immediate discussion. Thank you for explaining.

I’m not sure how any that matters to any campaign finance rules that might prevent Biden from giving his war chest to another candate?

People don’t even take turns in a circular firing squad.
I have no idea what you’re talking about any more.