I've noticed a lot of people (in various inches) on platforms like YouTube, who previously were doing okay going in two directions recently:
Pushing sponsors aggressively or clearly struggling to keep up what they were doing previously (getting rid of their support crew and/or losing quality).

Love the sensible armour, the fingerless gloves and the expression that says ,"No no no! Don't paint me yet!"

Damned, you should write to your vampire union. 😄

I see they have been watering down the blood in the office blood cooler.

So you can't see any problems with the idea?

It would contain a short message about:
"Was this paid for by an interested party?"
"At what stage is this research?"
"Has it been rigorously peer reviewed?"
"Which organisation published it?"
The link to the original article.

The publisher would be responsible for it.

Would this potentially work?

So I was thinking what we could do to address this and I saw the labels on foods at Sainsbury's that look like this:
What if we had a "nutritional summary" about science stories that needed to be included in any article where that study is discussed directly?

It's then treated either as wildly incorrect scientific gospel or it's used as evidence that "scientists" don't know what they are talking about and are just making things up every week, giving fertile ground for flat earthers, vaccine deniers and similar.
I think this harms our science literacy.

Sadly I never really got into smart watches, so I am not sure. Depends on how much you are willing to spend. Samsung phone nes are meant to be quite well designed due to their early presence in the market giving them plenty of feedback and experience

I love terraforming mars. A competitive game, but everybody moving in the same direction

I don't think we have the right vocabulary yet to clearly explain this second axis, so we are floundering around. But it should be about setting expectations so that people find the things that appeal to them.

There are of course things that sit on intersections or outside this paradigm and fantasy/sci-fi as a genre breaks this. But it's still a generally useful tool.

Games (of all types digital/TT) have those same rough genres, but there's an extra axis: How do you interact with it to get that emotion?

Taking a step back, genres in trad media are often used to give people an idea of what sort of emotions a work of art is trying to induce.
* Comedy (joy)
* Horror (fear)
* Action (excitement)
* Romance (passion)
It's useful so audiences know if they are in the mood for any given piece of art.

Playing with friends is good, but equally you want to meet and play with new people. So maybe:
Run a one-shot or two with new players so you can work out if you are compatible before moving on to a long running campaign.

Try before you buy (in)

It's also other forms of raw collected evidence such as financial records, interview transcripts and so on.

Ah, classic catch 22, can't develop death rays until you have a strong military. Can't have a strong military without death rays.

This feels like nations with "democratic" in their names.

The harder you proclaim yourself to be a community, the less likely you are to be one.

I can't think of any politicians who are all about maximising science investment at the moment. Plenty who say they will listen to scientists (varying levels of believability there) but none who make investment in it core. Maybe a gap in the market there?

Del Toro didn't do what the book did, which was to make the monster truely monstrous after they are rejected by the blind man's family, reflecting Victors equally monstrous actions.

Also Film!Victor isn't as pathetic as Book!Victor, who spends half the time fainting or on his sickbed.