I wonder how many millions of dollars they paid for the “design” of the name of the company -or of the logo let’s say.

It’s the collection of business people who profit from selling goods and services to military. They have corporations, companies, and even small business that provide for the military. Companies that produce ships, airplanes, tanks, other military vehicles, all their parts, missiles, ammunition, dresses, shoes, rations, communication devices, toilets, tents, computers, software, etc.

There are also academicians who work for them. Journalists who fork for them. Politicians who works for them. Intelligence organization personnel, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc. all who work for them officially or clandestinely.

All these people comprise a social network like a “state”. They actively push for policies that would result in more military spending.

Shamelessness, irresponsibility, indignity, insolence, and impertinence on an advertorial board.

Seems like a call to murder, rape, steal, and aggression.

IMHO, you don’t like them not because you are old but because almost all of them are trash.

If there is a shenanigan in the filming style, it’s because there wasn’t a good story to tell. So they try to “elevate” the film by gimmicks like found footage etc.

Someone can say there a a few good ones. Well, exception proves the rule.

“Water production”

Chinese Communist Party keeps genociding Uighur people on those lands, just because they are a Turkic people. US corporations like Apple, NBA and Hollywood are benefiting from that regime. Western politicians like Trudeau, Biden etc. being pals with the socialist dictator of China. Enjoy the view.

I cannot conduct a full review in the scope of a Reddit post. However I will state a few as a reward for your downvotes.

The study conflates correlational studies with experimental ones. Which should have been enough for desk rejection. However, the paper advances an ideological position that Nature already adheres to. Hence they published it.

The selection and exclusion criteria was so complicated that they needed a giant chart to make it more understandable. However it doesn’t hide the fact that authors excluded articles that do not fit to their ideological position. It is very clear even at that outset of the paper that authors were pre-determined to teach to a specific conclusion: “digital tech is bad so people should be restricted”. Introduction starts with a reference so Nazism. Incompetence of the authors were all over the introduction. If an individual references Nazism in a conversation regarding freedom of expression, then you are not actually in a conversation. You are listening to a leftist apparatchik who do not believe in individual rights.

They used only palates indexed in WOS and Scopus. Corporations that own wos and scopus both have a systematic bias against freedom of expression and academic freedom. This bias is well-documented now. We all are aware of it. It’s obvious and very natural that authors share and enjoy that bias. Editorial boards of those journals adhere to radical leftist ideologies and do not pulsing any research that is not in line with their ideology. Nature itself is one of them. And their radical leftist change in policy was news a few weeks ago. Leftists are against individual rights including but not limited to freedom of expression. They want total control of individuals and dissemination of knowledge by governments and government adjacent corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, Twitter, Washington Post, AT&T, etc.

Authors did not conduct a scientific research. They write the ideological manifesto then put some jargon to make it like a research report. All the articles they reviewed were ideologically filtered.

You can understand it yourself. Look for “effect size” in the paper. You will find the truth yourself.

This study does not use sound methodology. It’s conclusions stem from fear of technology. They are afraid of the democratization of information. Oligarchs mad at digital technology because it shattered their monopoly on dissemination of knowledge.