Was There A Problem With Car Keys?

So my wife got a car a couple years ago that was “push to start.” In other words, it doesn’t have a key, and you push a button to start it. You only get a fob to unlock it or for remote start and the like. I had never heard of this until then. My first thought was, “oh, I never had a problem with keys, but cool.”

Fast-forward two years, and I’ve learned just how uncool it is.

Firstly, last winter the car battery died, so I couldn’t unlock the car. Great, I’m locked out of my own car for no good reason. If only it had a key.

Well, my wife informed me there is a little key hidden inside the fob, so after yanking the thing so hard I thought it would break, the little sucker popped out. Then I had to rip off this little plastic thing on the door handle to reveal a hidden keyhole. Okay, that’s one crisis averted. Except, if it was just like normal keys, there never would have been an issue to begin with. Why are all companies trying to make all their products smooth and flawless-looking? Does anybody actually want that? Even the site I’m writing this on is guilty of this smooth and blank appearance at the cost of user-friendliness.

Like TV’s for instance; they’ve got to hide the buttons on the back or make them these invisible little things you press your fingers on that are impossible to see unless you squat right in front of it and shine light on them.

Anyway…getting off topic here.

The biggest issue I’ve had, when again there shouldn’t be one at all, is what do you do when the battery in the fob dies?

My wife told me the car will warn you when the battery is low. Okay, great. I don’t drive the car very often. It’s been like over a year. So when I went to drive it a couple weeks ago, the car wouldn’t unlock, so I had to use the trusty hidden key trick, only to discover that when I tried to start the car, it told me no fob detected or something like that.

Well that’s great. Thankfully I was at home, though it did cause major inconvenience for others and I nearly missed my nieces third-birthday party because of it…

But what if someone was at work or somewhere else when it happened? You would have to call a tow-truck in some scenarios. That’s a great conversation to have.

Tow-Truck Guy: So what’s wrong with the car?

Poor Person Swindled Into Buying A Keyless Car: Oh man, the batteries dead.”

Tow-Truck Guy: Oh okay, I can just jump you.

Poor Person Swindled Into Buying A Keyless Car: No man, the battery in my fob.

WTF? How is there not a backup plan in case this happens to someone? And okay, the car warns you when you need to replace the battery. 90% of people are forgetful and/or huge procrastinators, so I guarantee this happens to people all the time.

And how did the battery in the fob die? It’s only four years old! I’ve had cars four times that old and the fob always worked.

They just don’t make em’ like they used to, I guess. And that’s a real big problem. I mean seriously, who looked at car keys and said, “man, I wish they would get rid of these.” Especially after they make those nice little ones that tuck into the fob. Ugh…this world…

Jurassic Park Series Ranked

Thanks to an Amazon Prime Day sale, I finally was able to see all the Jurassic Park movies. Having only seen the first two several times way back in the 90’s, and Jurassic World a few years ago, I’ve always wanted to see the entire series again in this millennium. Plus I’ve wanted to see the third one since I heard it was coming out. It took 15 years, but I finally did! Oh yeah, and the fifth one too. I didn’t have to wait too long for that one.

Any who, here are all five movies ranked from my least favorite to most favorite! See how it compares to your own opinion!

#5 Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

jurassic world fallen kingdom

This is a good movie, it just kind of went in a weird direction, what with auctioning off dinosaurs like they are sex slaves or something. Though it makes sense, since it builds off of a story in it’s prequel. It just feels very different, since they are not roaming around in a dinosaur habitat, with all that lovely suspense that comes with it.

Also, I’m not sure if the Jurassic World movies only acknowledge the first movie, because when they are trying to clear out the island, they have to find some other island that the dinosaurs can live on, and no one seems to mention the fact that there already is an entire island with self-sustaining dinosaurs on it…

#4 Jurassic Park

jurassic park

There is nothing wrong with this movie, but something about it seemed lacking. I guess because this is more of a suspenseful, almost horror-like film, it seems kind of slower-paced. Or maybe I was just adjusting to the style of Jurassic Park, where all the carnivores seem to exist for the sole-purpose of devouring everything in sight, whether they are hungry or not. That and the ludicrous idea that these animals could actually survive in today’s environment/climate was hard to swallow at first. But really that’s not the point, and scientific facts should not take away from this movie.

The effects are absolutely incredible for a movie made in the early 90’s, and they still look great today. So props to the crew on that one!

#3 Jurassic Park III

jurassic park 3

This movie changes up the formula a bit, and pretty much is an edge-of-your-seat non-stop action movie, featuring several dinosaurs never seen in the first two movies. It’s super intense, and a lot of fun.

#2 Jurassic World

jurassic world

This one takes Jurassic Park a bit further, as the name “World” implies. As the first three movies focus on the idea of a park that fails miserably, this movie shows us a successful up-and-running park for the first time, where humans have more control and understanding of dinosaurs. It also takes the creation of dinosaurs a few steps further. Combine these two factors and you’ve got a recipe for ultimate disaster. This movie probably has the highest amount of deaths in it and the most fearsome dinosaur in the whole series as a result.

#1 Lost World: Jurassic Park

the-lost-world-jurassic-park-review-image-1024x587

This movie is basically just an improvement on the first movie. It does everything that movie did, and just makes it bigger and better. It has big action scenes with a lot of terrifying moments mixed in. There are more dinosaurs, both fearsome and gentle, and we get to see a T-Rex rampage through San Diego, which is pretty awesome. To me, this is the perfect Jurassic Park movie.

The thing is, all these parks would have been successful if it wasn’t for human greed. All the problems come from dirtbag humans trying to score big off of dinosaurs in illegal ways… more or less. It’s like the series is trying to tell us that the original rulers of this planet need to come back and cause the extinction of the blight that is humanity.

Aaaaannnndd, I just found out they’re making a sixth one. Mother f’er, who knows how long it’s going to take me to see that one…

Do You Want An Artist/Band to Play All Their Singles In Concert?

I’m curious if people actually prefer to hear all the singles of someone they go to see live or not.

I know why they do this. These are the songs that get radio-time and are used to promote the band and all, so I imagine a lot of people go just to see those songs performed. I get that, and it’s fair. Bands have to play what the fans want.

But are the people who go just to see the singles really, truly fans?

What about the people who are actual fans, who own every album, know every song, not just the singles?

Playing singles caters to the people who likely will only go see a band once, while the bigger fans will likely see them at any opportunity they can. But there’s no point to see them again, unless you don’t mind seeing the same set list.

It’s weird to me that artists cater more to people who like them less, but then again, there might be more of them then repeat viewers. But I doubt it, because every concert I’ve ever been to, 90% of the people somehow know every single lyric of every single song that every single band plays.

If you go to see your favorite artist, chances are they are going to play each and every single they’ve ever had. This isn’t so bad for newer artists with a couple of albums. But for the ones with lengthy careers with over 10 albums, and likely two singles from each, that’s 90% of their set list for each tour, and each concert. The other 10% is likely songs from their newest album.

It’s fine to see them once, but what’s the point ever again? Usually, the singles aren’t even their best songs, though this will be different for literally everyone, what with each person having their own tastes and all, but it’s a real shame to know you will never even see them perform anything but their singles.

There are a few bands I would love to go see a second time, but not to see a near-identical set list, despite having hundreds of songs to choose from.

And then there’s those wily artists who have so many songs that are typically long that instead of playing an entire song, play one verse and the chorus, then jump into another song.

This drives me insane! I personally would rather hear 12 full songs instead of 25 fractions of songs.

One of the only bands I’ve seen that actually play varied sets is Alkaline Trio. As a result, I am about to see them for the fifth or sixth time.

alkaline trio live blue lights

These guys have a ton of songs from nearly a dozen albums, and each set is unexpected, for they seem to choose from all of them. Of all the times I’ve seen them, they only played one song at each concert, it was their closing song, so I guess they always close with that, and they played another one of their most popular songs all but one of the concerts I’ve seen them in. I may have seen a couple more played twice over the years, but for the most part, they’ve played different songs, which is why I keep coming back for more. Heck, they even did a tour of songs they hadn’t played in a while a few years back.

Most other bands, after I realize they’ve played nothing but singles is one and done. I won’t go see them again.

So what do you think? Do you like it when artists play singles and nothing but? Or do you prefer a varied set to encourage seeing them again?

How Is Google Stadia Considered A Console? And What Is It’s Purpose? Let’s Take A Look!

I play a lot of games and own a lot of consoles, and am a serious gamer. So you know, I’m part of the target audience for Stadia, right? Maybe? Truthfully I’m not sure. Maybe it’s for more casual gamers who don’t really own any consoles?

I remember when Google first announced their plans to create a streaming console. They said something along the lines of “stream all the new big games, no console, no discs, just instant access to whatever you want to play, for nothing more than a monthly payment.” All Stadia would be is a controller that connects to your TV or what-have-you, and away you’ll play.

I was immediately turned off to the idea of a console that requires you to have a steady internet connection just to play it. So I stopped paying attention to it.

Well, thanks to the collector in me, and a very good deal, I found myself with a free controller and one month subscription (also for free) for Stadia and here’s what I’ve got to say.

So either they falsely marketed it, or did a very bad job communicating their vision, or in the years up to it’s release they changed what it’s all about. I never read anything about it after it’s initial announcement so I can’t really say what went on.

So firstly, the “console” isn’t based off the controller. The console is a Google Chrome-only accessible…website basically, that is more or less an online store like epicgames.com. The convenient thing about this is you can access this literally on any device you have Chrome and a Google account on. So you can game anywhere where there’s an internet connection, so gaming on the go on your phone is out.

The controller can be used to connect to your computer, TV, phone, whatever, by inputting button codes telling the controller what to connect to. This works very well. After you download a couple apps on your phone needed to connect to all of them. Oh, and you’ll also need a Chromecast Ultra if you want to play on your TV, which does come with the Stadia Premium Edition, which it’s cost has been lowered to $99, probably due to lack of interest. You can play straight away on PC though, no apps, controllers or other accessories required.

So as I said, Stadia is an online store. Except it’s a very, very small store. You can browse through it’s entirety in about two minutes, if that.

So when they announced it, it sounded like all you had to do is pay for the subscription and unlimited access to every game on the store is yours.

Well, I hate to inform you that this is not the case. What you have “free” access to is an ever-growing handful of games that are given to subscribers, much like Amazon, Sony, and Xbox subscribers receive each month. But unlike those consoles, the Stadia games seem to stay up forever, instead of only giving you a month to claim them. The subscription fee is $10 dollars by the way, which is pretty gosh-darn reasonable.

Once claimed, you can play these games as long as you’re subscribed. Once you unsubscribe, they will still stick to your account, but you will be unable to play them until you subscribe again.

This would be okay, but there are only like 20-30 games (though it’s always growing), and most of them are indie games, and the low amount of big name games are several years old.

As for the brand new big name games they boasted about being able to play when first announced, there’s a few. Not many, and most of them are UbiSoft games, because they seem to have some type of deal with the popular gaming company, and you can even link your Stadia account to your UPlay account.

How do you play these new games, and the small selection of other games on the store? Well you have to buy them of course! At full price? You bet! Though they do run some pretty good sales by the looks of it, and subscribers get even bigger discounts.

Games you buy are at least playable whether you subscribe or not. But there’s a small catch. If you are not subscribed, you cannot play your games in 4K or use the best sound quality. Drats…No big deal to a lot of people I imagine.

I did try out one game, the latest Hitman (maybe?) and played it for about five-ten minutes. It ran fairly well, only hiccuping a couple times for like a second, which happens plenty of times in games that aren’t being streamed, so at least it works.

And that is all the details about Stadia.

So let’s break down Google’s “console.”

If you want the Chromecast and controller to be able to play anywhere but your PC, you have to pay $100. If you want to just play on PC, all you need to do is subscribe on their website/store for $10/month.

Once done, you can play a handful of free games you don’t want as long as you subscribe, and have to pay for games you do want to play, but in worse quality if unsubscribed.

Where is the console part here? This is basically Steam, UPlay, EA Origin, like all the other DRM’s out there, except you have to pay for it, so it’s more like UbiSoft and EA’s versions that you can subscribe to, but you seem to get a whole lot more with them.

Steam has a controller. It’s not called a console. I just don’t get why it’s considered a console. And I don’t get why anyone would ever subscribe to Stadia. There’s literally no reason to. And if you don’t have a great connection, then what’s the point? There’s too much competition, and not only in just the gaming market. There’s just entirely too many streaming services in general, and Stadia just isn’t worth yet another monthly subscription to add to Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, and the other 2000 streaming services out there. So I really don’t get it, and I imagine most people are on the same side as me, as it appears to be flopping pretty hard.

So basically, I wouldn’t be surprised if the store shut down thus all the games you bought are lost. That’s pretty infuriating even just to think about, and will be even more so, like 100fold, when it inevitably happens.

A Lot Of People Wonder About Nintendo’s Console Decisions, But It Makes Complete Sense When Looking At Their Sales History

I see on the internet all the time and am even asked about it in person a lot. That is, everyone says something along the lines of “I don’t understand why Nintendo make such weird consoles and dumb decisions. Why can’t they just make consoles with good graphics. GRAPHICS, GRAPHICS GRAPHICS!”

Firstly, just improving graphics is super boring, and Nintendo is all about doing something the competition isn’t. Unfortunately, most people have that, “if it doesn’t have good graphics than it’s not a good game” mentality. Interestingly, Nintendo’s unique consoles probably have benefited not only themselves, but Sony and Microsoft as well, for many people have a Nintendo console plus one of the “high-powered” consoles, and some people have all three!

But all one needs to do to understand Nintendo’s console decisions is look at the console sales.

NES-Console-Set

Doing a quick wikipedia search, the original NES sold just under 62 million units, which blew literally everything that had come out prior to it completely out of the water and revitalized a dying industry. There wasn’t really any competition against this console, hence it’s high sales.

snes classic

The SNES, as the name implies, is really a super version of Nintendo’s original console. Sales dropped to 49 million units, probably due to the stiff competition from the Sega Genesis. It was during this rivalry that the “Bit Wars” really took off. Sega kids and Nintendo kids constantly argued about graphics and processing speed. This takes us right to modern day, where nothing seems to have changed. PC, Xbox and PlayStation fans are always talking specs and obsessing over graphics and frame rates. I believe this stems from the veterans of the 90’s bit wars, and most people heavily involved in today’s arguments and technical interests were probably kids in that era. And since current kids always look to be more adult, they have fallen into the same tech-obsessed attitude.

n64

Winning out against the Genesis and it’s many add-ons, Nintendo’s next console, the N64, ushered in the first 3D-gaming and four-player multiplayer. This new console sold around 33 million units, seeing even more decline in sales. Sega might have had something to do with this, but the monster Nintendo created is actually to blame.

After backing out of a deal with Sony to make a disc-based gaming console, Sony made their own. The PlayStation took the world by storm for some reason. Probably due to it’s discs, which allowed for bigger games and full-motion video. The console got a lot of exclusivity from third-party developers and also brought a lot more mature games to the industry. At this time, a lot of the kids who played Nintendo and Sega consoles were now teenagers and young adults, so I imagine, like humans inevitably do, they associated those companies and their games to stuff only kids play, like watching Power Rangers and Nickelodeon. It was time to move on to something for big kids. Hence PlayStation became by far the highest-selling console of all time (at that point).

gcn

Seeing how the world was absolutely obsessed with power, Nintendo entered into the next generation with a powerhouse…the GameCube. From what I understand, this was the most powerful console on the market, surpassing Microsoft’s new Xbox, and Sony’s PlayStation 2.

Nintendo had the power, but not the third-party support I suppose, and this one only sold 21 million, coming in third just behind the Xbox. The weakest of the consoles, PS2, for reasons unknown, sold an enormous amount and is still to this day the highest selling console of all time.

nintendo-wii

So with an overcrowded market of everyone competing with power, Nintendo, at an all-time low, must have said, “Clearly it isn’t just all about power, the heck with it, let’s do our own thing.” Thus they birthed the Wii, a console that sacrificed power for innovation. The Wii, especially in it’s first few years, completely obliterated the Xbox 360 and PS3. This was due to the fact that the console was half the price of the others, and more importantly, because literally everyone was curious about the first fully motion-controlled system. The Wii targeted casual gamers like no other console has done before as well.

But after a while, people reverted to criticizing the graphics, thanks to it’s significantly lower power and lack of HD. And casual gamers didn’t really do all that great of a job supporting it through it’s lifespan. Third-party support began to dwindle due to this as well, not to mention the extra work required to put their games on the console.

But that didn’t stop it from becoming by far the highest selling console of the generation and one of the highest of all time, destroying even the NES sales with almost 102 million units sold. But unfortunately, by the end of it’s lifetime, the masses lost interest in the console.

wii u

Which is probably why no one cared about the Wii U. This console tried to capitalize off the commercial success of the Wii, keeping it’s focus on casual gamers, but also putting more of an effort to please serious gamers as well.

While it was the most powerful console out for a year, the new Xbox and PS4 were just around the corner, which again completely overpowered it. This, with the lost interest of the Wii, led to low sales, which basically made the console lose almost all third-party support after it’s first year. That and again the difficulty to develop on and lower power. This became the lowest-selling console ever for Nintendo with only 13.5 million sales.

nintendo-switch

The Switch fixed a lot of the problems with third-party and they relaxed on some of the rules as well. The console is easy to develop on, they got rid of region-locking, and are far more open to putting third-party games on the console. And the console was deliberately weak from the start, so no one can really complain that it was failing to compete with the other consoles, because by now, clearly they don’t care. Though this does still create issues with development, for the Switch is missing out on some big AAA releases, though it does seem to get ports with all DLC included years later, so clearly it’s powerful enough to run the big guns.

But the biggest appeal to the Switch is the fact that it can be played as a home console, or as a handheld, something people have been wanting for a long while.

For whatever reason, while Sony generally dominates the home consoles, Nintendo has always been king to the handheld market ever since the original Game Boy came out in the late 80’s.

There has never really been serious competition in this market, save for the PSP, which sold very well, but the DS, it’s competitor, nearly sold double. While the 3DS fell short of of even PSP sales by just a little, it’s main competitor, the PlayStation Vita, sold practically nothing at all. I don’t know really anything about this handheld so I can’t imagine why.

So with the Switch giving both handheld and home gamers something to love, with all the support from other developers one could hope for, the system has become very successful and is currently the second best selling system by Nintendo to date, and will likely rise to be one of the highest-selling consoles of all time.

I have no idea if anything I said is true, but just looking at the sales and the consoles and their competition, it’s not hard to come up with these theories, and it’s easy to see that this was what Nintendo was thinking, at least to some degree. I’m sure they put a whole lot more thought into it, but this is the gist.

Maybe. But I think it’s clear a hybrid console will be what Nintendo will be sticking to, at least for a while. They might realize they made more money with separate home and handheld consoles and probably will eventually switch back to that, but at least the next gen console will be a hybrid as well.

 

Nintendo’s Metroid Series: Proving They Might Care About More Than Just Money

In case you haven’t heard, Nintendo is hard at work developing two brand new Metroid titles, Metroid Prime 4, and the newly announced Metroid Dread, the long-awaited Metroid 5.

A couple years back, Nintendo announced that they would be scrapping a couple years worth of work on Metroid Prime 4, giving Bandai-Namco, the developers on the project, the boot, and replacing them with Retro Studios, the company that made the first three games in the Metroid Prime series. They made this decision because Nintendo felt the game, and the direction it was going, wasn’t really up to snuff, so much in fact, that they had to start completely over.

This move really impressed me. I feel like most companies would just shrug their shoulders, and instead of wasting all the resources up until that point, would just carry on and say, “Hey, so what if the game is crap, it’s a Metroid game, so people will buy it up regardless.”

This shows Nintendo actually care about their customers and are striving to meet expectations, which always seem to be extremely high for these folks thanks to their ridiculously impressive history of routinely making some of the best video games in existence.

This is even more welcome news, because Metroid is a series that doesn’t get nearly as many releases as other Nintendo titans like Mario and Zelda, so at least they are being very delicate and thorough with the first new release in over 10 years, not counting the remake of Metroid 2 in 2017.

And of course, I am sure they are most concerned about their own reputation and how it might be damaged with a bad game, not to mention possibly destroying the following for Metroid.

And then we have Metroid Dread. This name has been popping up since all the way back in 2005, right after Fusion was released.

The developers said they had to put the project on hold because the DS did not have the capabilities and technology to do what they wanted. They then tried again later, I’m assuming for 3DS, only to hit the same walls.

Again, I give Nintendo respect for this. They could have easily changed up their plans to make a game fit within the platform they could develop the game on, but no. They chose to wait it out for the technology to fulfill their vision and ensure they give us the best experience possible.

This also begs the question, why not put it on Wii or Wii U. Certainly at least the Wii U could have done what they were looking for? Then again, what do I know about developing and what hurtles they needed to overcome?

Regardless, judging by the trailer for Dread, the nearly two decade wait looks to be worth it!

So thanks Nintendo, for making sure you give us the best games possible for one of my favorite series.

Multiplayer-Only Games Over-Crowding The Gaming Industry?

Each year, there are tons and tons of game announcements and reveals. But there are not quite as many as when e3 rolls around, which is just getting started at the time of this wrtiting. For years now, it seems about half the reveals are multiplayer-only games, and most of them are first-person-shooters, and if not those, then third-person-shooters.

There are literally like 3-5 of these types of games to every one single-player game. I remember when e3 was something exciting, as it gave gamers something to look forward to. Not so much anymore. We might get like 2-5 interesting single-player games now. Though I suppose if you are into the countless multiplayer games, then things are more amazing in gaming than ever.

But let’s be honest. All these games are designed to play forever, until servers inevitably shut down, which depending on the success of the game, could take over a decade. So it baffles me that they could make so many of these games. If players are being loyal to one or two games, how can there ever be a fanbase large enough to sustain 90% of these endlessly released games, especially when so many of them constantly add on to their games to hold player interest?

And I imagine if a player wants to become really good, they are sticking to one game, so that they can eventually dominate most matches.

Online multiplayer has become such a priority, that games that are thoughtful enough to give us a single player are usually, and sometimes weak little game, but we still have to pay full price, mainly to help the company sustain it’s multiplayer software.

What’s even more baffling, is local multiplayer, aside from Nintendo games, has become practically non-existent in most games. Why can I play every game in the world online if I pay a subscription fee, but I can’t play with a friend in my own living room? Obviously, the games that are solely huge battle arenas and the like, local multiplayer is not possible or necessary, but smaller-scaled games that can allow 2-4 players to play don’t have a local multiplayer option.

And yes, I did answer my own question. It is probably due to the fact that they want you to pay for PlayStation Plus and XboxGold or whatever it’s called.

I just watched Ubisoft’s presentation, and it was pretty much four multiplayer games, 2 single player games, and a game that teaches you guitar, which I guess can be considered¬† single player.

Happy e3 to you online shooter fans. For a pre-event I also watch contained a large amount of games, more than half of them multiplayer shooters, so you’ve got your great selection of picks, even though you’re probably going to stick to what you’ve been playing the past five years anyway…

Us single players will be treated to maybe 10 AAA single player games and a thousand lame indie titles. Woohoo!

Amazing News Reporting Differences When Attacker Is Black Instead of White

Let me start off by saying I don’t watch the news. I probably see about a minutes worth collectively over each week from when I walk through my living room when I get home from work and my wife has it on. So I don’t see much.

Yet somehow, every few months I manage to see the same type of crime- a black guy sucker-punching some old person in New York City.

Every time, it’s a youthful, say, 20-year-old black guy just walking past a 70-80-year-old white guy, and they just punch said old guy in the back of the head as they walk by. Because, you know, nothing says your tough like knocking out unsuspecting folks who are walking with canes and are 60 years your senior.

But the one I just saw a few days ago changed it up a bit, and this is the one I want to discuss today. This time it was a 40 or 48-year-old black man who sucker punched a 55 or 65-year-old Asian woman. Sorry, I don’t quite remember those age details, but it was definitely one of the those for each of them.

What’s astounding to me is how the news reported it. The attacker was constantly referred to as “a man.” Usually, the terms to describe an attacker are a little more detailed than “the man.” And they had his name, but did not use that either. Not once did they mention the man’s race.

So it seems a little unfair that the victim was immediately identified as Asian. Obviously, the news is trying to rile things up, but as the attacker was black, they could only do so much.

So the news showed footage of the attack, and basically summed it up to, “A man just walked up to a 55-year-old Asian woman and struck her on the back of the head with his fist, leaving her unconscious. Motives behind the man’s attack are unclear at this time. Police are investigating to find if it was racially motivated.”

This astounds me. Because the victim was Asian, everyone immediately jumps to a racial attack, but because the attacker was black, it might not have been. On all the other sucker-punch stories, when it’s a white man attacked, whether it was “racially motivated” or not is never mentioned or even thought of. Hmm…

Now imagine if the attacker was white. Suddenly, in big bold headlines, this story would become “Middle-aged White Male Attacks Senior Asian Woman! Hate Crime! It’s A HATE CRIIIIIIIIIIIME!!!! White Supremacy Must Be Squashed. It’s Burying The Minorities In The Streets Of The Big Apple!”

Following this news report would be all sorts of fun riots and protests.

So yeah, an interesting observation. More evidence that you can’t be racist against white people, but everything a white person does is racist. And fortunately black lives matter, maybe just a little more than Asians.

And by the way, they arrested the attacker. It was his 40th arrest. Why is he still among the living? He has certainly used up his life, and is doing nothing now but wasting valuable resources. They should have drowned him in the Hudson, like…38 arrests ago.

I Feel Plain Awful For The Editors Of “Keeping Up With The Kardashians”

I don’t how much is scripted or how organized such a show is, but imagine having to sift through countless hours of people going on vacation, talking, eating, complaining, or doing nothing at all. Then throw in those parts where they talk to the camera about what they were just talking about before. God, it sounds mundane and dreadful.

And the bleeps! God, all I hear when my wife watches that show is hundreds of bleeped out curses. That must take a good long while too.

All in all, the crew must have to watch each episode like 100 times, and that’s enough to make even the greatest fans of the show cringe.

And to top it all off, with the show ending soon, the editor’s are losing out on their long gig they had going. Don’t worry, y’all will find something else! And it might make you want to shoot yourself a little less…

Dave Filoni is Confirmed To Be In A Position That Could Have Saved The Star Wars Sequels

According to Lucasfilm, Dave Filoni has been Executive Creative Director for several months, since last summer to be exact.

To anyone who has seen his work, this is great news. Dave Filoni is basically George Lucas 2.0 and is known for creating content adored by Star Wars fans for the simple fact that he tells stories borrowing from existing lore, such as characters, items, and awesome little nods to all things Star Wars. In short, the guy gives fans what they want, because he clearly is a fan of the franchise, and understands it and it’s fanbase more than most.

Things that could not be said for literally everyone involved in the decision-making for the recent sequels. As stand-alone films, they’re fine. They just seem to literally go out of their way to make sure these movies were anything but what fans wanted, under the guise that as long as Han, Luke, and Leia are in them, they’ll be hits. And let’s face it, Disney had dollars signs in it’s eyes after buying the enormously popular franchise, so we can’t really blame them for rushing into a new trilogy.

But if you’ve seen Filoni’s works, such as The Clone Wars, The Bad Batch, The Mandolorian, then you know what this man is capable of. Now just take a moment to imagine him being the head of the sequel trilogy.

Yeah. They probably would have been the best trilogy of the three.

That famous scene at the end of Mando season 2 is proof enough.

It really bums me out, knowing what he could have done, but hey, he’s got like a dozen or more projects in the works, so I am excited for the franchises future!