BranWafr t1_jeewivy wrote

I'd just like one less thing I have to plug in. It sucks that the first thing I have to do when checking in to a hotel is see where the plugs are so I can figure out which side of the bed I have to sleep on and/or if the plug is on the same side as the night stand so I don't have to put it on the ground.


BranWafr t1_jeew5ib wrote

My preferred mask is a nasal pillow, which I use 95% of the time. But when I get allergies or colds that cause stuffy noses, I use the full face mask that covers my mouth, too.

But, if I could take a medication to handle my apnea, I'd be down for that.


BranWafr t1_jdtfzul wrote

People have answered the question you asked. If you do not like the answers, then you either didn't ask the right question or you are just being difficult. The one person you thanked for answering the question didn't even answer the question, they just said they watched OTA TV. You can't even be consistent about complaining people aren't answering the question.

Is your actual question not why people watch OTA TV, but why do companies still put it out? Because those have different answers. The answer you reject out of hand so strongly, that people don't want to (or cant afford to) pay for TV, feeds into the reason OTA still exists. While 80% of people live in urban areas, the 20% of people who don't are still a huge market. No company wants to ignore 20% of the market. Plus, someone watching OTA TV is probably not going to be able to skip commercials like someone watching online. So they get better view rates for their commercials. And, as I have said before, poor people still need to buy products. And being poor, they are more likely to be brand loyal. If an advertiser can get a poor person to pick their product, they are more likely to stick with it as long as it is price competitive. I seem to remember reading somewhere that they get better bang for their buck with ads on OTA because people are watching live and not skipping them or blocking them.


BranWafr t1_jdtbidk wrote

> I have no idea why I am being treated this way.

Because every time someone gives you an answer you either ignore it or disagree with it. You aren't acting like you actually want to know, you are acting like you want to disagree with people. People are reacting to how you are coming across, which is either a troll or someone who thinks they know better than everyone else and can't understand why people don't think exactly like you.


BranWafr t1_jdtardr wrote

I'm sorry you seem to be too dense to understand, but you HAVE been given many answers. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

> Not everyone lives in the city, but most do.

Roughly 80% of the US lives in urban areas, but that still leaves 20% who do not. They watch TV, too. OTA often is the best option for them.

> If these people are that poor, what money are they making?

Just because they don't make enough to pay $200 a month for internet and/or cable doesn't mean they make no money at all. Someone on a fixed income still buys products. In fact, they probably buy many of the products advertised on local stations.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that just because a pay option exists that everyone should choose that option. But many people would rather get it for free. I'm surprised you aren't asking "why do libraries exist when you can buy books on Amazon?"


BranWafr t1_jdstijn wrote

There are many people who live in remote areas where high speed internet is hard to get or is very expensive. In many cases there will be data caps, so streaming everything would eat up all their data. Broadcast television may be their only option for reliable viewing. Plus, some people only care about local programming. They may just want the local news and sports. Why pay a monthly bill for that when you can get it for free with an antenna?

As others have mentioned, just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for the others who want it. And I'm not sure why you seem to care so much.


BranWafr t1_ja91s3a wrote

> He has been in an insane 138 movies over the years!

While impressive, it is amateur hour compared to James Hong who has 456 acting roles listed on IMDB. No shade on Jackie, just went on a James Hong deep dive after his fun antics at last nights SAG awards.

But, to tie it into Jackie Chan, the first version of Everything Everywhere All At Once was written with Jackie in mind. It was going to be him as the main character and Michelle Yeoh as the mild mannered spouse. But they decided it was just another action movie with little new to add, so they swapped it to have Michelle Yeoh be the main character and make it more about the mother/daughter relationship.


BranWafr t1_j9lom5k wrote

It is surprisingly difficult to find reliable information on this statistic. I know that prior to Covid there were one or two theaters around the world that had been playing it longer, but without knowing the specific theater names, no way to see if they continued to play it during that time period. (Don't even know if they had shutdowns that would interrupt the streak)

Because of Covid shutdowns I am pretty confident in saying that Clinton Street Theater in Portland, Oregon is the longest running uninterrupted streak in North America. Sounds like this theater in Germany might have them beat if they didn't have to shut down due to Covid, or they didn't move locations like the one theater in New York.

Any idea what the name of the theater is? I'd like to add it to my trove of useless RHPS trivia.


BranWafr t1_j9kvl9o wrote

That would be The Clinton Street Theater, which has been showing it non-stop for longer than any other theater in the country. It has been showing there since 1978. At one point there was a place in New York that had been showing it longer, but they moved locations at some point, so there was some question about if their run was unbroken or not. I also don't know if that theater showed it during lockdown. So, to my knowledge, Clinton Street is the longest running RHPS in the world.


BranWafr t1_j61jp1l wrote

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. 2 of your 3 examples are disaster movies.

Edit to add: Also, The Martian would, I think, fit your definition of a fun, "science" movie. If not, I especially don't know what you are trying to say.


BranWafr t1_j5wy8hm wrote

Yes and no. What really tanked Heroes was the network deciding that they liked the season 1 characters so much that they made them change it from an anthology show that was going to have different characters each season to just bringing back everyone from the first season. Sylar was a great one season villain. Trying to turn a psycho murder into a sympathetic anti-hero was just a bad idea all around. The show still would have tanked, even without the writer strike. It probably just would have taken a bit longer.


BranWafr t1_j1tnwbw wrote

Because the average price for an Electric Vehicle is almost $60k right now. A $7500 tax credit doesn't really do much to make it more affordable. (Especially since it is a tax credit, not a rebate. So you still have to pay the full price upfront. And chances of getting the full $7500 credit are pretty slim with all of the fine print.) And there's still an average 8 month waiting list to actually get an electric car these days so, if the tax credit makes them more popular, it's going to take even longer since they can't keep up with demand as it is, so increasing it will only make it worse.

I don't need to be currently shopping for an item to point out that a promotion for that item has some drawbacks or isn't really that good of a deal.


BranWafr t1_j1st58y wrote

I maybe should have been more clear. While I want an electric car in the overall sense of "it would be nice to have one", I am not in the market for one right now. I've got too many other things I need to take care of so a new car, of any kind, is not in the budget any time soon. My main point was that with the average electric vehicle being at least $20k to $30k more than a gas powered vehicle, a $7500 credit isn't going to be the thing that suddenly makes me able to afford it.