Case in point for Lemmy being a shit hole.

If by "paragraphs" you mean two sentences, sure.

If you'd bothered to read past those two sentences you'd see that I was making an offhand comment before answering the question.

I'd hardly describe it that way. It took untold trillions of predator/prey interactions over the hundreds of millions of years that single celled life existed for it to happen. That's more or less brute forcing the problem and it took geologic timescales to happen.

If you ask me to point at a hurdle stopping civilizations from developing that looks awfully reasonable.

A - fucking - men

Fuck me, really?

What the cinnamon toast fuck is wrong with that company? I don't care if you're fucking Bill Gates, when you spend four billion dollars you might want to ... ya know ... have a game plan and not rush a script out the door.

Boy, Lemmy sucks donkey dick. For every one legitimate answer there are two or three edgelord answers like "capitalism" and "the internet".

Here's an answer that hasn't come up yet: cooperation among mono cellular organisms. I don't mean the development of polyp analogues or colonies of single celled organisms; I mean getting down to mitochondria. Brace for wild oversimplification.

Before mitochondria, life had a hard time creating enough energy to do much more than barely stay alive. The current line of thinking is that one organism ate another and didn't digest it. The two organisms worked symbiotically, one handled energy production and the other handled getting food and staying alive.

Just about every living thing utilizes mitochondria and if the current idea that mitochondria were actually symbiotic organisms is true, that means that what was likely a chance "sparing" of prey is the underpinning of all complex life.

The odds of that happening are ridiculously low. There could be simple life in tons of places even within our own star system, but if the mitochondria-like symbiotic capture never happens for those extraterrestrial organisms, then complex life is probably unlikely to develop.

Read like any history book.

Or just about any book, really.

As succinctly as possible:

Disney paid a billion dollars for a franchise people cared about. It doesn't matter what the franchise was or anything else, what mattered is that people cared and many considered it to be culturally significant.

Disney then made a trilogy without a long term plan other than "make a trilogy".

The writing was at best lackluster, at worst laughable. Specific examples abound ("somehow, Palpatine returned") but the major problems are that the core conflict of the middle film of the trilogy was contrived and the third film then had to scramble to cover the glaring, obvious problems. This writing issue eclipses other (still very serious) problems like a lack of character development with the main character, setups without payoffs, and trivializing or bastardizing supporting characters.

No, no. I'm referring specifically to you.

Nobody likes a propagandist.

Less so when it's low effort.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Even then it's not easy. They went through all the trouble of conceiving of a joke, drawing the and coloring the characters, and then they completely throw it all away by having the most difficult to read handwriting I've seen outside of a doctor's office.

I'm not saying my handwriting is any better, but my work doesn't hinge on legibility.