My father was once driving with a friend when his friend, Dave, said, "Hey, look at that black Datsun."

My father immediately - and for no particular reason - lied, "All Datsuns are black. That's how they save money."

Years later, Dave wrote him a postcard with one sentence: I saw a red Datsun!

(yes, I'm aware of the Ford quote)

Not OP, but I think I could answer.

Traditionally, mail is uncountable. One can count letters and packages, but not mail. Thus "I received three mails" is currently grammatically incorrect, while "I received three pieces of mail" or "I received three letters" or "I received three packages" would all currently be grammatically correct.

It seems logical that email should follow the same rules of grammar. Thus "I received three emails" should be incorrect, while "I received three pieces of email" or "I received three messages" would all be grammatically correct.

But English grammar is not consistent. Email is a new word and the folks that use it have decided that it is countable.

I don't mind this, but it seems OP does.

I've been reading it. The folks here are most definitely in the minority.

And that's fine. I don't know why it would bother anybody.

You are strange for not loving the film. It is generally loved so, yeah, not loving it makes you strange.

There's nothing wrong with that. Some folks don't love chocolate. Or puppies. Or sunsets. Or whatever seems to be loved by most folks.

Not everything is a sequel, reboot or remake.

Every week, original films are released. Most lack money for advertising and are commercial failures. If we wish to see more films like them made, we need to see them - preferably with people who wouldn't otherwise have, and spread the news about them in person or Lemmy or whatever you wish.

Or you could just wait. The movie industry has gone through this many times.

I walk a lot. Head down to the river and whistle for the crows that know me to come down so I can give them some peanuts. Talk with friends and family.

To be fair, though, I do pretty much the same thing when I don't need to cope.

I'll cheat the question a bit.

I'd like all critics to have standards and to hew to them. I don't mind if each critic operates by different standards, so long as all critics can articulate their standards and are consistent in their application.

Most movie critics, for example, are offering their reactions to movies. They may review a movie. But nearly all of them are utterly inconsistent (hypocritical?) in their work. They explain their bad review of a film because of X and then praise another film despite it being just as much X as the film they loathed. If they address this conflict at all, it is with a great deal of handwavium - "This film makes it work."

If critics had standards, it would be possible to really compare the things they critique. Without those standards, each thing gets its own bespoke write up. Very entertaining, but useless when we want to know which is better or worse.

Sounds good. Please cut 30 cents off my bill.

I do feel like I ought to be paid when a business offloads their work onto me. Not much, I suppose. But something.

Hopefully, the mixture is 1% anger to 99% admiration. And that they are inspired to demand more for their labor as well.

Japan. I've never used whatsapp. It is neither popular here nor important for business communication.

Each lawsuit has its own reasons, of course. But here are a few common issues:

1. There aren't enough judges.

• • There simply are not enough judges in the US to handle every lawsuit filed. Many judges encourage lawyers to settle cases that can be settled to avoid clogging up the system. Sometimes they do this reflexively or without good, er, judgement and a case is settled that probably ought be fully tried.

2. It takes a long time to receive justice.

• • A typical civil case takes months to resolve. An atypical case could take years. And then be appealed for additional months or years. Many times, the plaintiff simply can't wait that long. If you're broke right now, you're not in much of a position to hold out for the big payout (and justice) you deserve.

3. Justice is expensive.

• • A personal injury lawyer would charge you at least $200 / hour to work on your behalf with an upfront retainer fee and final costs in the range of $1000 to $10000. That's for a simple case. A more complex case will cost more per hour and end up at a higher total cost. You could have them work on contingency instead, which saves you a great deal of money during the trial but your attorney may take 50% of what you are awarded. If you are paying hourly, you may very well prefer a settlement because the longer this goes on, the more you're likely to just break even. If you are paying a contingency, your lawyer may prefer a settlement because 50% of something right now is a lot better than 50% of maybe something a couple years from now. They got bills to pay, too.

4. A settlement might bring about more change.

• • In a quiet settlement, the defendant may agree to change their offending behavior in exchange for keeping the matter quiet. Assuming that they are true to their word (I'll let you decide how likely that is) this may be the best justice for the plaintiff. If the whole thing goes to a public and embarrassing trial, the defendant may be willing to go scorched earth, put the plaintiff on blast and deny any wrongdoing no matter how many confidential documents were found in their shower.

In short, there are many practical reasons why legal matters are settled rather than going to trial. It may not be the kind of justice you want to see done, but it is often the best option in an imperfect system.