yes, this is the way. none of the excess bulk, weight, and transport costs of a liquid detergent; none of the it’s-not-cum-i-swear stains of a pod.

Surely there was at least some kind of breakthrough

probably be harder to chew

no pockets

“this adds nothing of value to the community/conversation”

yeah, they can just go ahead and remove that english language audio from the release. no one is going to want to listen to that.

we suffer together

I’d be easy

an unexpected correlation

The correct phrasing would be that he received a plurality of votes.

Keeping in mind that I am not debating the merits of CNN specifically — unfortunately in a reality where there are no subscription or similar means to pay for professional journalism, and everyone is blocking ads, these services die. Both the ones you approve of, and the ones you don’t.

I think it’s a reasonable response to the ‘why the hell they’re charging a subscription now’ part of your question. Probably not a question you actually wanted an answer to, but regardless of opinions about the quality of their journalism I think it’s important that publishers are investigating alternate ways to monetize their work — publishers want to rely on ads for revenue about as much as readers want to see them. A fragmented subscription model across the whole industry being the right answer seems doubtful, but at least it gives them a revenue stream which doesn’t come with advertiser strings attached. And who knows, maybe it will positively change the content they put out if they garner enough subscribers with high enough expectations to pay.

do you prefer ads?

“aaaaaahhh, who put the pizza table upside-down?!”

“In celebration, all flag poles will be doubled in height!”

A4 effort

listening

but not too long

I don’t

Spray-on leggings