https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/p1m2bc/who_are_adjust_the_mobile_marketing_vendor_used/

Whatever it is, it's been around for at least 3 years.

Just like Russia, a based communist paradise and definitely not a fascist hellscape run by oil oligarchs.

Well, based off the little illustrations in each chapter he's pretty similar to how he was portrayed in the movies. You can look up Mary grandpré hagrid to see what I would guess is Rowlings original vision.

Fair enough, I will check it out when I get the chance.

Yeah, I know that's how it's explained, but... why though? Why would fighting in one battle fulfill their oaths? Presumably, Isuldur wanted them to fight for the whole war, that's how conscription usually works. So I don't see why one battle would do it, especially since as undead they have nothing to lose.

I feel like most of those things are not accurate, or are not good faith criticism. It's worth remembering that until the whole trans thing, the Harry Potter series was seen as very liberal to the point where some conservatives boycotted it.

-Harry isn't a "cop", like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they're pretty explicitly fascists.

-a pretty huge part of the books is devoted to how good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. Barty Crouch Sr is a whole character who is there to show how the good guys can end up being nearly as bad and brutal as the bad guys because they think the ends justify the means and in times of crisis people are willing to compromise their morals.

-Hermione is ridiculed for sticking up for house elves but she's also right, as Harry starts to realize by the end of the books. It's worth noting that the two most steadfast supporters of house elves are Hermione and dumbledore, aka Rowlings "always right about everything" characters

-Seamus is pretty yikesy in the movies but 90% of the stuff isn't in the books. Idk I thought he was a little racist, although still ultimately a good guy. Cho Chang has a stereotypical name but so what? I don't think it's racist in itself. I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.

-I don't think obesity is used as a failing, gluttony is used as a failing, as in a favorite expression among leftists, the "fat cat". There are plenty of other overweight characters that are good and righteous like Ms Weasly, Slughorn (kinda), and Hagrid.

-I'm not sure who you're referring to with regards to describing teenage females as unattractive but that seems kinda cherry picked. Harry ends up with Ginny who in the books is described as a tomboy. The biggest female villain is arguably Umbridge who is very stereotypically feminine

I'm not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda. You can do the same uncharitable thing with any fantasy series. Hell, off the top of my head I can think of much worse criticisms of lord of the rings or game of thrones but people don't seem to want to nitpick those the same way.

Not a great analogy honestly, you can drive a car your whole life and your odds of dying in a car accident are probably like 1%. Meanwhile your odds of dying, or at the very least having very serious health effects, from using hard drugs your whole life are basically guaranteed.

I think this graph is just skewed by which roads are included and which aren't. Like most urban centers Charlotte has a clean grid for its downtown and then a bunch of squiggly roads in the surrounding suburbs. I think the difference is that Charlotte proper extends farther into these suburbs than many other cities but it's definitely less pavement overall than many other cities like Atlanta. The mass transit options are very lacking but that's a different conversation.

Nah Charlotte traffic/drivers are not nearly as bad as Atlanta, having lived several years in both

Might have a blue light filter on your phone or something

It would be more like, they invented the atomic bomb, use it to take Iwo Jima and then the United States goes back to sulking and wondering how the hell they're going to take the home islands.

In lotr they use the undead to win the battle of pellenor fields but they don't use it to win the war. It's a legitimate plot hole.

Right but, why bother with smoke and mirrors when you have an immortal unbeatable army in the first place.

Even in the book its not really explained why the oathbreakers only help out for one fight; the only difference is in the books they never actually go to Minas Tirith they just help against the corsairs.