I got curious and did some quick searching. Looks like it depends greatly on the content and network with dramas usually having shorter breaks than sitcoms. The Big Bang Theory for instance averaged 17 minutes apparently.
One interesting factoid I found was that The Wizard of Oz, which is 101 minutes long, took up a 120 minute block in the 60s unedited but a 180 minute block today with edits to make it shorter.
Millennial here: don’t come back until dark wasn’t exclusive to GenX.
3 minute commercial break? So like TV from 60s?
Last I heard the average sitcom comes in at 16 minutes for a 30 minute block.
Plex and Jellyfin are DVRs. They just do other things too.
Won’t load with adblockers. That’s a new one for me. I’ve never seen a site simply refuse to load like that.
Didn’t they undo that?
It is a credit union… we switched to them ~12 years ago because Bank of America was being an asshole with their fees.
We don’t really have less laws. Just far less enforcement mechanisms. For instance I am supposed to be able to use my own modem, the FCC rules prevent ATT from forcing me to rent a modem. But the FCC hasn’t given a shit about anything since the 80s. So ATT forces me to rent a modem. Laws are only as good as their enforcement.
I haven’t had to pay extra yet, but I am anticipating that being a thing soon. But I do have to drive further to get to a bank that still has a notary.
My bank recently switched all of its tellers with a row of ATMs inside the bank. I think this is kind of what they’re talking about.
Getting back on my meds is what helped me get back into college and get a degree. I am angry for you that you are being treated this way.
Admittedly, the morality of this particular point probably relies on further context. On its face, I suppose you’re correct. However, it’s worth pointing out that for instance the only reason DOS was chosen is because Bill Gates’ Mom was on the IBM board (also because the owners of Digital Research blew it, but that’s a story for another time). Further, IBM had funded Microsoft pretty heavily to help development of the NT kernel with super cushy terms because of the aforementioned relationship with the board. So while, yes, on the one hand you could classify this as competition and it’s a little hard to feel bad for giant corporations, on the other hand this was Bill Gates being a twat and taking advantage of what was essentially a favor. There’s a reason the movie about him and Steve Jobs back in the day was called “Pirates of Silicon Valley“.
This is an interesting question with a bit of a complicated answer filled with back-stabbing and duplicity. You are right, it’s not totally correct to simply say it was 100 years ago;
This is one of those things that was never applied to all Indian nations, because it was done individually through each Indian nation. Usually through the removal process. For instance, in my tribe, the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota was signed in 1835 and the language regarding whether it meant a voting or non-voting member is still up for debate. Nearly 200 years later this is still an ongoing issue.
The reason people usually say 100 years is because the Indian Wars ended in the 1920s and that’s when the last removal and reservation agreements were signed.
While you are not totally wrong, we are talking about a time that was the beginning of transcendentalism. High minded ideals were very much at the forefront of what was going on. Even if it was being limited to white land owners.
I’m not talking about a separation of power between the states and the federal government. I’m talking about the difference between the states and the people. There isn’t supposed to be a separation of power between the state and federal government, just things that are one’s responsibility and things that are the other. The federal government was created by the states for the states. They specified what they wanted to Federalize and what they didn’t. I think at this point the question becomes a lot more does the framework created by white land owners in the original 13 states have any bearing on modern reality in 50 states plus dozens of Indian nations plus several territories plus DC.
Story time: There was another operating system very much like Windows called OS/2. This operating system was made by IBM and Microsoft. It even had DOS and NT kernel compatibility and is where the NT kernel came from. While MS and IBM were working on OS/2 MS secretly developed Windows and made deals with third-party PC manufacturers like HP and Compaq for them to run Windows and not OS/2. Despite the fact that Microsoft was where it was then because IBM had chosen DOS for its PC operating system until that time.
OS/2 still got an interesting life though. It was widely used as an embedded operating system well into the 2000s. If you ever used an ATM or cash register in the early 2000s you almost certainly used OS/2.
Windows did not get where it is today through organic growth. It did so by standing on the shoulders of giants and dealing under the table.
I’m a little confused about what’s confusing you. Unless you are just unfamiliar with the idea that the United States federal government was intended to be an experimental hybrid between national and federal interests. The original fear being that a purely federal system would give too much power to too few and allow the creation of a single party state. Not that that seems to be happening right now or anything…
You seem to be mostly pointing out the same thing that I was trying to point out except my point was more if we uncapped the house it would take some of that undo power away from the smaller states and states in general. Also fulfilling the obligation from over 100 years ago to give Indian nations voting members of Congress would also expand the electoral college.
My overall point was simply saying killing the electoral college wouldn’t do anything to remove federal power or create a more democratic nation. Because of the reasons you outlined, we need to do more, either to reinforce the hybridization or do away with the federalization altogether if the goal is direct democracy.
Not if your particular opinion Is that the United States federal government should be a direct democracy, In my experience, most of the people championing the end of the electoral college have that opinion.
Personally, I kind of feel like we need a bigger reforms than that, but that’s just me.
I see this sentiment a lot. And, as a Native American especially, I really hate to be put in the position of having to defend the electoral college. But the problem isn’t the electoral college itself. It’s that the United States is not a country, It’s a federal system. From the very beginning the idea was that the states were the democracy and the United States government was a federal system of states not people. The whole point is that states elect the president and not people.
In fact, the skewing away from the hybridization of national and federal elements of our government, that was the big experiment, is a part of the problem. Right now the house has been capped. Thus the federal side of the government has more power than the national side. Which is part of what makes the electoral college feel like it has more power. Right off the bat for instance there are dozens of Indian nations that are supposed to have voting members of Congress that don’t.
Interesting, it does for me now too. I tried it again to get a screenshot. Earlier it gave me an otherwise blank page with a message that said something to the effect of “Part of the site could not load. Turn off your ad blocker and refresh the page.”