This is what happened to me when I was younger whilst on vacation: I hate fast paced environments where a real time reaction response is required (like having to hurry up during airport security when there’s a long line of people) since I’m the type of person who likes to do things at my own speed. My anxiety reached a breaking point during that moment alongside my temper flaring but I had to maintain composure.

I was trying my hardest to be fast as possible but my parents were like “HURRY UP! PEOPLE ARE WAITING!” since you can’t take forever stalling other people behind (it was just after airport security and metal detection) and the officers working there kind of acted the same. I can’t just lash out since there are repercussions for doing so, since it’s kind of like yelling at a cop who may charge you with verbal assault.

I mean, since the last time I've visited: it seems like no one ever carries it. I prefer it because CC charge additional fees (which end up making the item cost more) I have a small rant about that: STOP RIPPING OFF PEOPLE WITH THOSE SURCHARGES?! (It should be 0 rather than 1%) as it may seem trivial, they add up overtime. Are stores allowed to refuse cash payments outright despite them being legal tender?

For me, it has to be True Lies which is upscaled badly (4K discs are expensive already) then decide to charge a premium price for that too. The film grain is gone plus a lot of the actor's faces have been given a "makeover" by turning them into wax figurines. By comparison, The Abyss at least looks better despite that having it's own issues regarding 4K upscaling.

In regards to 4K remasters via Blu Ray, which one have you seen ends up being a complete waste of money due to bad upscaling from the studio's end? I would justify the price of 4K discs if the movies in question are upscaled properly whilst retaining the original film grain (and applying HDR correctly), however if it's a botched job with AI upscaling: it's a rip off.

Both the UK & AU have passed legislation in which they aim to "ban" social media for kids -16 (or that's the excuse they're using) when its the catalyst for mass surveillance (unfortunately, even if you tell them the truth: it's either people including your own family consider you paranoid or a conspiracy theorist). To avoid that, one must gather sufficient evidence debunking or dispelling the lies being shoved into the masses via media.

The common defense for this is "think of the children" from either lazy parents or Christian conservatives as that's the easiest lie ever told besides social media or internet usage (you heard that from games, movies or music restrictions in the past). IMO, "banning" SM outright or trying to reinforce AV towards everyone creates more hassle for both sides (users and companies) as SM companies can face large fines for non-compliance.

If you look at the larger picture: it treads on one's liberties such as freedom of speech & expression as what appears to be "no SM for -16" soon morphs into a 1984-esque dystopia where people will be detained for speaking their mind or the truth. This is what digital privacy advocates fear, basically saying that internet anonymity will cease or be deemed illegal if people lack critical thinking or can't see through the fog.

Even though the laws have passed in both countries: it does nothing as people (kids and adults) can still access SM. They know VPN's exist, banning or trying to lock that under AV will make them look stupid. SM is toxic due to the slop and demographic, but IMO should remain up to the individuals or families rather than the government (all MSM side with the state using "no SM for -16" omitting mass surveillance in the headlines).

There is no internet (let alone social media or body cams) during that era, since Jim Crow in America was still being enforced towards black people at that time, but the civil rights movement is gaining traction (since Martin Luther King was alive). I mean, cop violence has been around for a long time before body cams were invented. How did people hear first hand encounters from those victimized back then without reliance on social media?

I remember watching The Hurt Locker (starring Jeremy Renner), the movie is meant to depict the Iraq War in 2004 but for some reason there's a scene where an iPod Touch (releases in 2007), XBOX 360 (releases in 2005) and Gears of War (releases in 2006) present in the barracks even though these did not exist yet. Another anachronism from this movie is when a American soldier spots an Iraqi recording him ready on uploading the footage via YouTube (the website didn't exist yet until 2005 when the story is set in 2004).