I would speculate that the point of the question is that "diversity", in the corporate world, has some very specific meaning, and in my experience, it doesn't include these categories. My own employer does a lot of lip service to how important it is to have people from diverse backgrounds, and yet, somehow that seems to translate to "young people from many different ethnic groups who all lean liberal, have never mentioned their faith in the time I've known them, and have degrees".

Gabe Newell put forward his thoughts on piracy and the success of Steam as a digital content platform about a decade ago now, saying “The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. ... It's by giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates.” And for a couple of years, I think streaming services achieved that. Netflix and Hulu really did seem to capture the market in paid services because they were so convenient. But as the market fractures into smaller and smaller services, I think a lot of people are going to turn back to piracy.

There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).

Correct, and the events that user described is exactly what happened to Jeffery Epstein, and yet somehow we have no public information about who is responsible, and the official story is suicide.

edit: sorry, this came off more aggressive than I intended. I just meant that I thought you were looking for a solution, but you were actually critiquing, so I felt like I'd wasted the time trying to help. Sorry to be an ass.

Some people have argued that the vaccinations are evidence of his success regarding Covid-19 but I don't see any part of that that wouldn't have been proceeding with or without him. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Trump and Biden's handling of covid has been "Biden knows to keep his mouth shut about specifics and predictions, because he might be wrong" which is exactly the kind of playing-both-sides I've seen from many state and city governments for the last year (talking a lot about how we need to follow the science and keep locking down to keep the spread low, but also taking no steps to enforce the rules or financially support people/businesses.)

A live-action ENG would absolutely ruin the pacing and energy of the movie.

I guess I just struggle with understanding how this changes anything.