Kid named Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus Wolfe­schlegelstein­hausenberger­dorffvoraltern­waren­gewissenhaft­schaferswessen­schafewaren­wohlgepflege­und­sorgfaltigkeit­beschutzen­von­angreifen­durch­ihrraubgierigfeinde­welche­voraltern­zwolftausend­jahres­vorandieerscheinen­wander­ersteer­dem­enschderraumschiff­gebrauchlicht­als­sein­ursprung­von­kraftgestart­sein­lange­fahrt­hinzwischen­sternartigraum­auf­der­suchenach­diestern­welche­gehabt­bewohnbar­planeten­kreise­drehen­sich­und­wohin­der­neurasse­von­verstandigmen­schlichkeit­konnte­fortplanzen­und­sicher­freuen­anlebens­langlich­freude­und­ruhe­mit­nicht­ein­furcht­vor­angreifen­von­anderer­intelligent­geschopfs­von­hinzwischen­sternartigraum, Senior

Maybe the golden mean fallacy

We see like 10 seconds of him, most of which is him using the machine..?

They've stopped even paying lip service to the idea that holding office is supposed to be about public service and improving people's lives rather than their own egotism and lust for power.

While Planets of Hats definitely do exist, this one is more excusable for me because I think that it would be possible for the distinctions between individuals of an alien culture to be overwhelmed for the characters by the sheer unfamiliarity of the culture as a whole. And as far as national-scale distinctions, the characters may not interact with a very diverse range of people from the planet, maybe they have one or two crew members being from there, or maybe they visit once specific site on the planet rather than traveling widely across it.

I think they were filming the sky because they heard an unusual aircraft, and they were probably able to put two and two together immediately after the explosion and realize it was an attack

Non-Credible Defense absolutely salivating at the idea

Saffron rice with one (1) shrimp?

Damned either way indeed. I think your original question was clear and people getting angry about it either have poor reading comprehension or critical thinking. Explaining yourself as much as possible before asking an innocent question is an undue burden that discourages people from learning more and is ultimately an ineffective defense against people who view others uncharitably by default.

What's the R² for this?

What's a good example of an item like that?

From the article:
"Unlike a traditional union, the fast-food workers union is launching as a so-called minority union representing a small share of the industry’s workers with the goal of expanding its ranks, though the union could face challenges in growing its ranks. Workers who join the union will pay $20 in monthly membership dues in exchange for union resources and support."

Just a reference to an old ad

haha fuck you too buddy
rangers or devils?