In both physical & digital copies of video games: when I've visited an store, upon looking at the price tag (they range at 90 AUD or more for a copy, seriously?!) I've also browsed through their Steam store front which isn't any better, 110-30 AUD for a digital license?! When you consider regional pricing, they end up costing more than USD (depends, like a +20% increase which is insane to me). To put it into perspective, games are cheaper in my country than they are in Australia.

For instance: boyfriend invested a lot and managed to secure them (they never devalued as he kept them stable for a while) but one day he passed away, the thing is that he is the main shareholder who owns said corporate entity when he was still alive (so he's the only signatory noted on paper) so what happens then? Most of the legal framework and bureaucracy are all under his name.

It definitely won't his girlfriend who'll taking over as it's not even under her name nor was she delegated that responsibility prior as the title and experience of shareholding is under her boyfriend's name. I mean, shareholders are human beings (corporations are formed by people). In this case, he is the founder of the company that managed to take off financially that succeeded.

I mean, think of it this way: it comes down to how often you come across words in any language including English (even in ENG: you may forget how to spell words correctly if you don't use or encounter them often), kind of the same logic with Kanji: a Japanese person doesn't know all Kanji in the same way English speakers doesn't know every single word that exists in ENG.

There are over 5000 Kanji but only about half of that is used in Japanese or closer to 2136 while the remainder consist of ones only present within technical jargon (medicine, science, politics, etc.). or certain Kanji only has limited uses in some words (but mostly written in kana). That is also accounting for grammar being "straight forward" more than English or Euro languages.

The "real" hard part is numerous readings (depending whether it's paired with kana or another kanji, reflected from kunyomi & onyomi plus nanori when applied in people's names). What I hate about most online translators is that it often gets lost in translation (like words used in the wrong context but on their own it's correct, however not right for the situation or topic at hand).

I've seen this video where GOOGOL gear is depicted (it takes 10^100^ years on reaching the final gear) but how many generations will it take? The 5th gear takes about 10 hours in real time, by the time the 10th one starts spinning (you're probably already dead).

The entire thing consists of 100 gears. However, even if you record or livestream a video of the entire thing: would you still be alive by the time the final gear starts spinning? The common life span of a human is around 72-73 median but some can reach 100+ up to 125.

Coming from Europe & Asia, the amount of crap fed in America is just crazy: like "is that for ONE person?" (more like an entire table of 4) since what is considered "normal" is just beyond what my stomach can handle, whenever I see their portion sizes: it makes me puke. (No wonder why they have a higher rate of obesity...)

The scenario is this: the victim's family found out their loved one has been murdered in another country as the victim is a frequent full time traveler (remote / freelance) working on behalf of an agency or hosting a YouTube channel whilst they were on vacation.

There is an issue, the country where the victim was murdered has a high rate of corruption politically speaking (organ trafficking, assassination, human trafficking, sex trade, etc.) so only speculation as to how the victim was killed can be from any of those factors.

If referencing from one of those factors (only theories):

• The victim caught something their government hates showing on camera, so they hired a hitman to assassinate the victim.
• The victim was drugged at the bar by somebody, end up in a organ trafficking ring which resulted in the victim's death.
• The victim was deceived by someone whom they deem friendly but coerced into prositution, then perhaps a pimp killed them.
• The victim may've been abducted to be used as a slave part of a human trafficking operation, then killed for disobedience.

People or onlookers will victim blame in the sense of "TRAVEL ADVISORIES EXIST FOR A REASON, DUH!" basically accusing the victim of traveling in an "unstable region" of the world, but that kind of banter won't help anyone nor will it calm down the grieving family.

Of course, the FBI or equivalent can't investigate it themselves since the crime occurred outside their borders (usually interpol is a intermediary when dealing with international cases) and depends on the country in question, achieving justice is difficult.

The only form of "harm prevention" in this case lies closer to a full travel restriction or outright ban issued by a country's government, advising their nationals against traveling to certain parts of the world due to unrest, crime, war, political instability or terrorism.

However, it solely lies on the individual themselves whether they will adhere to that advice or disregard their word. They are saying that in the sense of it not happening to another person, as these types of cases are a headache to deal with for those involved.

They often lead to a dead end. Yes, cases like that happen: for example, there was a Russian woman who was murdered in the UAE (her body was found in the desert), she was an escort for wealthy clientele (whether they were involved is unclear).

The scenario is this: in the midst of a pandemic, the husband is found dead in his own bedroom but there are no physical scars on his body (autopsy confirmed that he succumbed to Pneumonia) however the wife kept insisting "he died from the virus" as an excuse. She states: "I went to the pharmacy to buy him meds and booked an appointment with our physician as my hubby isn't feeling well" to confirm her words: one must contact both to verify her story if she really was there or if she made an appointment with the doctor.

Investigators called the clinic and they said she made no apppointment and the pharmacy stated a woman fitting her description never went there. Does that make her a liar? Did she neglect her husband for a long time that he passed away? Her defense is that "the virus claimed his life, like it has done to countless people" but the coroners result conflict her statements. Did she use the pandemic as a guise to commit a "perfect murder"? It's because this virus is affecting people's respiratory system.

Now for the legal challenge of proving she intends to murder her husband: she uses the situation of "worldwide pandemic" as a cover up of killing someone as she knows Pneumonia and this "virus" (i.e. similar to COVID) share viral patterns or symptoms alike. "Shortness of breath" for example, is also present in Pneumonia. She might have disguised murder as a homicide sensationalizing off the pandemic by putting on the facade of "my husband died of COVID" (whilst pretending to sob & mourn) towards media outlets.

The real breakthrough is her husband's last will & testament is found and disclosed, so does that serve as intent to murder (for his inheritance money)? As she knows that it has a large amount (8 figure sum) being passed down to a beneficiary after death. The "intent" to murder in this case is closer to neglect (she could've taken care of him but chose to ignore his illness and failed to mention it to doctors) whilst using a pandemic as a cover up framing it on the media as if he died from the virus (but that's not the truth).

Having the will in hand alone is circumstancial, to prove she willingly murdered her husband for his money: one has to have the lawyer (or witness who saw her at the law firm) confirm if she made frequent visits with them whilst he's on the death bed dying in pain.

Legal chalenges are this: the driverless EV ran over someone but what happens is that corporations (often) bribe the judicial parties not charging them with a hit & run even though the victims families want justice for their vehicles killing pedestrians. The only "prevention" is harm reduction (investing into technology that's able to detect human presence & sensors that activate in pedestian heavy areas stopping the vehicle).

Usually, when it's a EV (with no human driver behind the wheel): is it still considered a criminal offense if a driverless EV ran over somebody as it just continues driving? In that case it's mainly rideshare companies (i.e. Uber, Lyft, DiDi, etc) face criminal liability. Regardless, the companies who dispatch EV's are sued when their vehicles run over somebody and the EV didn't stop whilst doing so.

In terms of “older” cinema: mainly starting from 1950’s until 2010’s (consisted of Silent, Boomer or Gen X actors) while “modern” cinema is more on after 2015 (where all the SJW agenda started appearing later on just to appease whom they deem their “modern” audience alongside excess use of CGI, make up, plastic surgery, green screen or AI) that it doesn’t even look believable.

Movies from the past used miniatures, practical effects, constructing movie sets alongside being filmed on location (as this was prior to CGI and green screen) like that scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) on how they managed to pull off the “floating pen” effect (a pen stuck on a glass pane) without them using CGI for that (the movie came out in the 60’s before that existed).

The acting from those vintage movies is different from today, as back then the majority are in black and white, only select movies are filmed entirely in technicolor. Back then, actors & actresses have to annunciate their voice as if they’re in a theater (even on film) since only black and white footage has it’s limitations. Technicolor movies have bright sets just to capture the hue on camera.

Movies made today seem “trash” (again, not all) as there’s a trend on actors having to explain to the audience on what’s going on since writers are aware that people nowadays have a short attention span on watching the movie (due to doom scrolling on their phone), while that isn’t the case with older movies from the 1950, 60, 70, 80 or 90s since people were not distracted with TikTok shorts.

Being a movie star in the past required talent and skill, basically grinding from being an extra until you become the main lead when you get the chance. Now, it seems like Hollywood is hiring social media influencers to become movie stars, but making a TikTok short & being famous from that overnight is not the same as professional filmmaking since those are not comparable at all.

Another reason why I prefer watching movies from the past (i.e. 1950-80s) is because they speak “proper English” while movies made now are filled with “Gen Z & Alpha slang” that in itself feels like hearing another language even though it’s not. I mean, you don’t hear skibidi or fanum tax for instance from a movie made in 1959 or 1982 since that kind of speech was non existent nor was brain rot.

However, if you watch “classic” (50s) movies, there’s no presence of social media, internet or an iPhone. Even some of the Hitchcock movies still hold up today due to the acting (i.e. Psycho, North by Northwest, etc.). Directors such as Stanley Kubrick & Steven Spielberg put effort into film making that even now their works hold up (mainly due to acting) and they used props & miniatures.

The thing about movies made now are that: it's CGI overload with low effort plus AI integration, basically killing off practical effects that made older movies stand out (set texture and realism plays a role like in Lord of the Rings: the sets in the movie are real life minatures, photos are taken then added in post as a still image) if done today, it'll just be a computer generated image.

The scenario is like this: boyfriend has unpaid debt (either from loansharks or the bank themselves) however he died from a terminal illness before debt collectors can get to him, but does his death automatically "erase" the unpaid debt he owes as he's gone?

The thing is, they can't pursue him as he's literally dead. The contract he signed prior to death only bares his name (meaning the debt can't be passed down to either his girlfriend or family) as he's the only signatory listed on paper (while his family are not signatories).

Debt collectors or loansharks show up to his residence only finding out from his girlfriend that he passed away (she has his death certificate to prove it), she reiterates that his debt can't be paid the "conventional" way as he's no longer alive to do that.

I mean, due to the war with Iran: will these currencies (mentioned below) lose value because the strait of Hormuz is under threat despite that route being vital for the transportation of crude oil worldwide?

I'm mainly talking about:

• UAE Dirham
• Kuwaiti Dinar
• Bahraini Dinar
• Qatari Riyal
• Saudi Riyal
• Omani Rial

The thing is that, these currencies are known for being stable due to the demand for crude oil (which ensures demand for their currency), strict monetary polcies from central banks & pegged to the USD.

To put into perspective: the Ukrainian Hryvnia has been devalued by 25% following Russia's invasion deeming it a weaker currency than it used to be. The thing is with let's say the Omani Rial, it's pegged to the USD (same with both QAR & AED) while KWD is pegged to an undisclosed currency basket. Oil is the key player as to why GCC currencies are strong.

With the strait of Hormuz under threat as Iran is attempting to obstruct vessels transporting crude oil, would that mean let’s say the Qatari Riyal will lose value? For instance: the Kuwaiti Dinar is a strong currency but with recent events (like fighter jet being shot down by an Iranian drone or Iran themselves attacking US bases situated in Kuwait) will that status change?