On the backside of the box, there is microscopic branding for TripAdvisor on one of the cards. There is also a closeup photo of the cars that shows the TripAdvisor logo a couple of times across the board design. These could easily be missed by someone who wasn’t looking for them. The branding should have been more clear and the producer likely did mean to deceive. Always check the reviews before buying and take note of the manufacturer’s specific ID number or code for the product.

I’ve almost entirely stopped purchasing online unless I am familiar with the specific product or I have watched a thorough review of it. If you had the box in your hands, you’d be more likely to spot the branding on the back, and the side faces might have branding too.

There are fringe instances where the outward distinctions between manufactured products are so trivial that you’d really have to be in the know to differentiate between them. The only occurrence that I can think of which I’ve experienced is buying CDs that have the swear words censored vs. uncensored.

I agree that the other commenter’s analogy doesn’t make sense with the packaging/marketing context.

Well yeah, a new year is a new revolution, that’s how planetary orbits work

Microsoft Teams isn’t all bad! For example, it bogged down my work computer so much at start up that I would basically get an extra break.

Ok, just verifying that that fallacy wasn’t the crux of your argument

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Are you implying that a negative categorically cannot be proven?

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Let’s start with clarifying an element of the question:

Which characteristics define a god? Do these characteristics violate the laws of physics and/or internal logic? If these characteristics do not violate the laws of physics, then what aspects distinguish a god from a mundane or natural entity?

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Skill issue

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

I wouldn’t count anything that isn’t at least arguably as long as a movie. Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Day Out and the SpongeBob episode “Gary Takes a Bath” otherwise would count as well. There’s probably an otherwise qualifiable clone-focused episode of The Clone Wars, too.

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Wikipedia says All is Lost has only 1 character, but I did find a SPOILER scene that shows Redford by someone else’s arm for only a couple of seconds. I’d figure this is the only scene with anyone else onscreen.

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Bo Burnham: Inside?

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

What the hell did this man do

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Me wrist-deep trying to find the King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms (Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu)’s prostate

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

I had originally meant for the meme to communicate Person A buying one $25 card for Person B and one $25 card for Person C and Persons B and C buying the same for each other and Person A simultaneously, which would be $25 * 2 * 3 = $150 spent.

However, I also figure a non-simultaneous gift exchange could occur, which engenders a couple of other scenarios:

Person A could buy one $25 card for Person B, which Person B re-gifts to Person C, who then re-re-gifts it back to Person A, which would be $25 spent.

Alternatively, Person A buys one $25 card for Person B, Person B buys one $25 card for Person C, and Person C buys one $25 card for Person A. Each person then re-gifts their card to the remaining person who has never owned the card. The three original cards are again re-gifted from their third owner back to their original owner. $25 * 3 = $75 spent.

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

I was more meaning material that was written/recorded decades ago, but that’s notable too

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

There’s this recently uncovered tape that I was referencing. It’s decent quality, but definitely not as pristine as what Steely Dan is known for.

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

“Look, you’re a nice guy, but your political views that you express without solicitation are incredibly problematic and frankly I’d rather not be within the same society as you”

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

At least you’re not being anti-semantic

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

I’m not from Canada either

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

pop nihilists be like “but Dr. Pepper, I am Pagliacci”

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance