Or just hit the strategem button and release. It saves about 1.5 seconds.

My wife and I once had enough saved up to buy a used car from the dealership. The sales manager told us their incentives were structured around financing, so paying cash up front wouldn't count towards their monthly sales figures, and to them it was "useless".

Ended up financing with an open loan and paying it off, in full, on the first payment. Probably lost them ~$1000 in processing fees but they knocked off another $150 for my first interest payment.

In John Wick, when he interrogates Francis the bouncer outside the Russian nightclub, John asks him if he's lost weight. Francis responds, in Russian, "yes, 23 kilograms," but the subtitle converts it to "over 60 pounds." This completely destroys the fact that Francis was using code to tell John there were 23 guards inside.

I don't know. Patrick Stewart seems to have done ok too.

No you're understanding is incorrect. There is a big difference between an expired cheque and a reissued cheque.

If I walk into a bank with an expired cheque, they will not honour it, so there is no risk of 2 people cashing the separate cheques. If I walk in with a valid certified cheque, they MUST honour it, even if someone already cashed the reissued cheque.

You are correct that the recipient could wait ~1.5 years for the cheque to expire and then issue a new cheque, but that's a significant delay and the estate likely wants to close its books before then.

It's amazing to me how quickly we forgot that carbon pricing was a conservative policy proposal. It was literally a concession the Liberals made to the Progressive Conservatives in the early days of planning to address "global warming" back in the days of the Kyoto Accord. PC's wanted market solutions instead of regulatory heavy handedness to shape Canada's way forward. LPC preferred cap and trade, but couldn't get it passed, so they agreed to support carbon pricing because it was better than nothing.

Fast forward to today and suddenly carbon pricing is Liberal policy and ignore/deny is the CPC strategy.

They don't want insidious "woke" teachings to enter our school curriculum. Teachings like LGBTQ people should be treated like everyone else, same sex relationships are normal, people of different racial backgrounds can be friends, we should demonstrate respect and tolerance for people of different religions (or non-religious people).

In essence they want the freedom to hate and vilify those deemed unclean by their preferred stone age text that was written decades after the events it purports to describe and has been translated across a dozen or more languages. And they want the freedom to pass that hate onto their children without anyone from the government/school suggesting to their impressionable young children that there are acceptable alternative points of view in a plural society.

The Nazi party was outlawed following the war. The Nazi ideology was not stamped out. The reason why the Nazi party didn't fight a guerilla war to maintain power was because they didn't have to. Prominent Nazis with valuable skills were pardoned and welcomed into mainstream life (e.g. Werner von Braun became one of the lead rocket scientists for NASA). I don't believe they even had to recant their ideology or party affiliation.

One need only watch a few far right rallies before a swastika flag or three will show up and announce that Nazism is still alive and well 80 years later.

So Danielle Smith campaigned on replacing the RCMP with an Alberta Provincial Police force that nobody in the province wants, then complains that the federal government seems reluctant to commit to contract policing. WTF?

I strongly recommend the book "The Four" by Scott Galloway. He does an excellent job of breaking down how the Four Horsemen (Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook) destroy regional competition by leveraging their power as content gateways yet constantly skirt regulations that apply to broadcasters. Their cries of "we're not a broadcaster, we're just an aggregator" ring hollow when their algorithms determine what articles & headlines people see and they have shaped public opinion on various topics (e.g. elections, supreme court decisions, labour negotiations, public demonstrations, etc). He outlines how Google outmaneuvered the NYT and became the defacto gateway to all journalistic content because they were able to freely link to content created by others, while still putting an editorial spin on stories through their aggregation (eg should the story talking about "BLM protestors" appear before or in place of the story about "counter-racism demonstators" (narrator: they are the same story).

Because when your boss is doling out shit for everyone to digest, everyone sits there with a wide smile on their face to show how impressed they are with boss's fecal dissemination talent.

This is demonstrably untrue, and contradicted by your own statement. Guardians 3, Spider-Man Across the Spiderverse both did very well in theaters despite being big franchise movies. Audiences aren't tired of the theater, they are tired of spending big dollars for badly written movies at the theater.

Disney and Marvel have been cranking out a massive flood of titles over the past 5 years, and that has diluted the talent pool and shortened the development pipeline forcing way more cookie cutter scripts going through far less review with much worse CGI hitting the big screen. It isn't cinema people that is keeping people away, it is bland, uncreative cinema with bad writing.