StorminNorman

"Because drugs" is probably the closest were gonna get to context.

To be fair, they didn't actually say that what the others called it was smart or correct, just that they did call it that. But given nuance can be deduced from people's words, I think we can both assume that the person you're engaging with isn't playing with a full deck of cards...

Your first sentence is somewhat correct, I'd argue that dealing with any kind of absolute like you have done is incredibly dumb though. Of course being outspoken can get you bullied. It may be less likely in a university/college setting, but it's definitely gonna happen. And your second second sentence is so wrong it's almost comical. Bullying at a tertiary education level is so common that I guarantee there's a bunch of studies done on it and probably a wiki page for it too.

Edit: lol, yep, shit loads of studies (and there's plenty more to be found than just these few), and the wiki exists.

Actually, she did have HIV in the movie, the screenwriter confirmed it a few years ago. She did have hep-c in the book though.

Which is totally fine. Your usage of them as you did would be called a scare quote.

You sure as shit don't. They used the quotation marks just fine. So fine in fact, that this usage you are so against is a well established grammatical device, look up "scare quotes".

They don't. Go and reread what I wrote, then come back here and quote the part of my comment where I said that.

And I again refer you back to what I previously wrote, your priorities change as you age. Mine did. I'm far more likely to have sex with a partner who's company I enjoy than someone who's company I don't enjoy. That aside, I didn't say you're gonna just start solely having sex with only people you have good company with. I didn't even say that you'd stop trying to have sex with people you were physically attracted to. I said your standards will change. Which insinuated that maybe you might not have slept with someone when you were 18yo cos they didn't meet your criteria of being attractive back then, but you might now cos your standards have changed.

Bandcamp, qobuz, bleep, Beatport, theres a number of options out there to pick up cheap digital music. And then you also have the aforementioned eBay and discogs etc. Which, true, is second hand. But even splitting the amount the artist makes from that physical release between you and the person who previously bought it, they are still making way more from you than they would from just your streams.

And sure, 216 albums doesn't seem like much. But they'd be all yours. Nobody could take them from you (well, besides if you got physically robbed I guess). There's a bunch of stuff that has disappeared off of there. Big Black, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Joanna Newsom, off the top of my head. You also have artists that have never been on there, Tatsuro Yamashita comes to mind. It also used to be a real problem with artists like Tool, The Beatles, AC/DC just not being there at all too. Then there's other times where I've been playing albums, and tracks are just straight up missing (I presume due to licensing issues). I remember being royally annoyed with A Cross The Universe missing a bunch of tracks ages ago, and it used to happen frequently enough with other releases that it made an impression. Plus all the classic hip-hop that is missing cos of sample clearance issues. And heaven forbid if you wanna listen to classical music, or traditional music from around the world, it's as if Spotify has never heard of the genre (both genres are represented, but it's such a poor showing that they would've done better if there was just none at all). And I understand that this isn't all on Spotify, but I've never had any of those issues with my personal collection.

Is it perfect? No. Does it reward the artist fairly? Undoubtedly. Would I take it over Spotify? Every day of the year for the rest of my life.

To be pedantic, there was DRM on music purchased on iTunes prior to 2009. Was a bit of a ballache converting that back in the day. Could've been worse though, I do like to buy most of my music physically so I didn't have to convert too much of my collection (still a ballache though cos it was still way more files than I wanted to convert).

Wait, what? That seems odd. They've deleted music videos from my account (which I had the files for, and the videos in question were also pulled from YouTube etc by the band, so I don't think it's apple's fault they were pulled), but I still have all the music I've made myself. I do back it up every 2 or 3 months (I would cry for the rest of my life if I lost it, I have nearly 2yrs of continuous music), but I've never had to restore it (and this has reinforced why I do back up).

Edit: looked it up, I see the issue now. I don't use Apple music, and every instance I can find of this happening is associated with ceasing that subscription. But I just use iTunes and the iTunes store. Dunno how this would work for you since it's your own music (and I dunno if it'd work for music not in the iTunes catalogue, ie stuff from Bandcamp, qobuz, cough cough less than legal methods, etc), but it would appear all you have to do is log in to your account again and re-download the deleted files.

Second edit: just realised I have lost some actual music from my account. The series of live albums that iTunes directly released from the iTunes festivals they ran like 15yrs ago just came to mind. They're gone from my account. And probably a bunch of others. They were never deleted from my hard drive though.

You're still gonna be attracted to 20yos physically. There's over 100k years of evolution that wants you to mate with the fittest, most attractive mate that you can. But is that a person you actually want to spend time with outside of the bedroom? So, yeah, your standards in regards to physical attractiveness are gonna drop as you age, but your other standards will likely change too.

Literally has videos on his channel of him card counting and winning big. Consistently.