[removed]

Submission statement: This documentary follows retired Israeli general Noam Tibon during the October 7 attacks. It focuses on his effort to reach Nahal Oz and rescue his family.

The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue wants to be regarded as an intimate documentary about courage, family and survival on October 7, 2023.

Taken purely at that level, the story of retired Israeli general Noam Tibon racing toward Nahal Oz to rescue his family is undeniably dramatic. But documentaries are defined not merely by what they show. They are also defined by what they select, what they omit, whose humanity they foreground and whose history they render invisible.

Judged on those terms, I found The Road Between Us less convincing as documentary journalism than as Israeli propaganda: an emotionally sophisticated piece of advocacy that packages an Israeli national narrative as though it were simply an apolitical human-interest story.

When judging the veracity and intent of a documentary made about one of the most contentious political issues on the planet discerning these types of distinctions is critical.

The film establishes its moral universe almost immediately. Israel and the kibbutz are presented as places of community, cultivation, family and civilization.

The October 7 attackers enter that universe as an almost contextless eruption of barbarism.

The suffering of Israeli civilians is individualized, intimate and emotionally legible. The audience knows their names, homes, fears and relationships.
Palestinians, by contrast, scarcely possess a comparable existence within the film’s frame.

That asymmetry is not an accidental omission in a documentary about one of the most politically and historically contested places on Earth. It is an editorial decision.
Professional critics have noticed the same problem even when they have avoided using the word “propaganda.”

Robert Abele of the Los Angeles Times criticized the film for turning Tibon’s mission into something resembling an action narrative while separating October 7 from the history preceding it and the devastation in Gaza afterward. He ultimately described what remains as essentially a story stripped of history and inconvenient perspectives.

POV Magazine similarly criticized director Barry Avrich’s insistence that this is not a political film, arguing that removing an intensely political event from its context does not make the resulting film apolitical.
That is precisely the problem.

Propaganda does not have to consist of fabricated footage or explicit government slogans.

Some of the most effective propaganda uses authentic suffering and genuine heroism.

Its persuasive power comes from selection and framing: one side receives history, personality, grief and moral complexity, while the other becomes largely a threatening presence beyond the fence.

And because the events depicted on October 7 were genuinely horrific, the technique is particularly powerful.

The viewer can condemn Hamas’s killing and kidnapping of civilians, and should be able to do so without accepting the proposition that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began that morning.

Yet The Road Between Us effectively asks the viewer to inhabit precisely that truncated chronology.

Even sympathetic reviews have acknowledged the omission. Nell Minow’s RogerEbert.com review notes that viewers may regard the absence of the circumstances preceding October 7 and Israel’s subsequent conduct in Gaza as slanted, even while accepting the filmmakers’ explanation that they deliberately confined themselves to one family’s experience.

But “we chose to tell only this story” does not eliminate bias. Choosing the boundaries of the story is one of the principal ways documentary bias operates.

Paramount+ makes the context more troubling

The platform presenting this film is also relevant, because media ownership and editorial priorities deserve scrutiny.

The film is being heavily promoted on the Paramount+ streaming platform and the vast majority of people who ever see this film will see it through that media channel.

The Ellison family now effectively controls Paramount. Through their corporate holdings, Larry Ellison and his son David hold the overwhelming majority of the company’s voting power, giving them ultimate control over Paramount and its businesses, including Paramount+ and CBS.

Their support for Israel is not speculative.

In 2017 Larry Ellison donated $16.6 million to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, then the largest individual donation in the organization’s history. He said there was “no greater honor” than supporting Israeli soldiers and spoke of the IDF defending “our home.”

David Ellison’s Skydance donated to the Israeli emergency organization Magen David Adom after October 7 and publicly declared, “Skydance stands with Israel.”

Reporting on the family has also described Larry Ellison as having longstanding ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and noted David Ellison’s own public praise of Netanyahu and Israel.

Paramount+ announced its acquisition of The Road Between Us for streaming in September 2026, well after the Ellisons had assumed control of Paramount.

That context becomes still more significant when CBS News is considered.
The same ownership now sits above CBS News.

David Ellison appointed Bari Weiss as editor in chief of CBS News, following Paramount’s purchase of her publication, The Free Press. Paramount has stated that Weiss reports directly to Ellison and has responsibility for shaping CBS News’s editorial priorities.

Weiss is not merely someone whom critics have inferred to be sympathetic to Israel. She has publicly identified strongly with Zionism, and her strongly pro-Israel views have been a prominent part of her public career.

Meanwhile, CBS News has experienced extraordinary internal conflict over editorial independence.

At 60 Minutes, longtime correspondent Scott Pelley accused the new management of instructing him to inject “falsehoods and bias” into a politically sensitive story and to include unverified assertions.

Correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega also accused Weiss of attempting to introduce right-wing talking points into their reporting, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Journalism unions subsequently warned that the changes at 60 Minutes threatened editorial independence.

There have been Israel-specific concerns as well. When Tony Dokoupil was selected to anchor the CBS Evening News, The Washington Post reported that some people inside CBS viewed his interview with Benjamin Netanyahu as an unofficial “audition” for the position because of Weiss’s strong support for Israel.

These facts make it increasingly difficult to treat the ideological environment surrounding Paramount and CBS as irrelevant.

When a family with unusually strong and publicly demonstrated support for Israel acquires control of one of America’s largest media conglomerates; when its CEO installs an openly Zionist editor at the top of CBS News; when prominent veteran journalists subsequently accuse management of ideological interference; and when the company’s streaming service licenses a documentary whose political method is to humanize Israelis intensely while largely removing Palestinians and the history of the conflict from view, viewers are entitled to connect those facts, not as proof of a conspiracy, but as reasons for heightened skepticism.

And The Road Between Us deserves that skepticism.

The events of October 7 do not need embellishment. The murder of civilians, hostage-taking and terror of that day were horrific enough on their own.

A genuinely probing documentary
could tell the Tibon family’s extraordinary story while acknowledging that October 7 occurred within a history and that the suffering did not end at Israel’s border.

Instead, this film creates a tightly controlled moral frame in which Israeli suffering is vivid, personal and historically meaningful while Palestinian existence remains overwhelmingly outside the camera’s field of vision.

That may make for emotionally effective filmmaking.

It may make for a gripping rescue story.

But calling that perspective “apolitical” does not make it so.

In my view, The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue is propaganda precisely because its advocacy is embedded in what it asks us to see, and even more importantly, in everything it asks us not to see.

Submission statement: This documentary follows retired Israeli general Noam Tibon during the October 7 attacks. It focuses on his effort to reach Nahal Oz and rescue his family.

The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue wants to be regarrded as an intimate documentary about courage, family and survival on October 7, 2023.

Taken purely at that level, the story of retired Israeli general Noam Tibon racing toward Nahal Oz to rescue his family is undeniably dramatic. But documentaries are defined not merely by what they show. They are also defined by what they select, what they omit, whose humanity they foreground and whose history they render invisible.

Judged on those terms, I found The Road Between Us less convincing as documentary journalism than as Israeli propaganda: an emotionally sophisticated piece of advocacy that packages an Israeli national narrative as though it were simply an apolitical human-interest story.

That distinction matters.

The film establishes its moral universe almost immediately. Israel and the kibbutz are presented as places of community, cultivation, family and civilization.

The October 7 attackers enter that universe as an almost contextless eruption of barbarism.

The suffering of Israeli civilians is individualized, intimate and emotionally legible. The audience knows their names, homes, fears and relationships.
Palestinians, by contrast, scarcely possess a comparable existence within the film’s frame.

That asymmetry is not an accidental omission in a documentary about one of the most politically and historically contested places on Earth. It is an editorial decision.
Professional critics have noticed the same problem even when they have avoided using the word “propaganda.”

Robert Abele of the Los Angeles Times criticized the film for turning Tibon’s mission into something resembling an action narrative while separating October 7 from the history preceding it and the devastation in Gaza afterward. He ultimately described what remains as essentially a story stripped of history and inconvenient perspectives.

POV Magazine similarly criticized director Barry Avrich’s insistence that this is not a political film, arguing that removing an intensely political event from its context does not make the resulting film apolitical.
That is precisely the problem.

Propaganda does not have to consist of fabricated footage or explicit government slogans.

Some of the most effective propaganda uses authentic suffering and genuine heroism.

Its persuasive power comes from selection and framing: one side receives history, personality, grief and moral complexity, while the other becomes largely a threatening presence beyond the fence.

And because the events depicted on October 7 were genuinely horrific, the technique is particularly powerful.

The viewer can condemn Hamas’s killing and kidnapping of civilians, and should be able to do so, without accepting the proposition that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began that morning.

Yet The Road Between Us effectively asks the viewer to inhabit precisely that truncated chronology.

Even sympathetic reviews have acknowledged the omission. Nell Minow’s RogerEbert.com review notes that viewers may regard the absence of the circumstances preceding October 7 and Israel’s subsequent conduct in Gaza as slanted, even while accepting the filmmakers’ explanation that they deliberately confined themselves to one family’s experience.

But “we chose to tell only this story” does not eliminate bias. Choosing the boundaries of the story is one of the principal ways documentary bias operates.

Paramount+ makes the context more troubling

The platform presenting this film is also relevant, not because corporate ownership proves that anyone ordered this documentary to say particular things, but because media ownership and editorial priorities deserve scrutiny.

The Ellison family now effectively controls Paramount. Through their corporate holdings, Larry Ellison and his son David hold the overwhelming majority of the company’s voting power, giving them ultimate control over Paramount and its businesses, including Paramount+ and CBS.

Their support for Israel is not speculative.

In 2017 Larry Ellison donated $16.6 million to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, then the largest individual donation in the organization’s history. He said there was “no greater honor” than supporting Israeli soldiers and spoke of the IDF defending “our home.”

David Ellison’s Skydance donated to the Israeli emergency organization Magen David Adom after October 7 and publicly declared, “Skydance stands with Israel.”

Reporting on the family has also described Larry Ellison as having longstanding ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and noted David Ellison’s own public praise of Netanyahu and Israel.

Paramount+ announced its acquisition of The Road Between Us for streaming in September 2026, well after the Ellisons had assumed control of Paramount.

That context becomes still more significant when CBS News is considered.
The same ownership now sits above CBS News.

David Ellison appointed Bari Weiss as editor in chief of CBS News, following Paramount’s purchase of her publication, The Free Press. Paramount has stated that Weiss reports directly to Ellison and has responsibility for shaping CBS News’s editorial priorities.

Weiss is not merely someone whom critics have inferred to be sympathetic to Israel. She has publicly identified strongly with Zionism, and her strongly pro-Israel views have been a prominent part of her public career.

Meanwhile, CBS News has experienced extraordinary internal conflict over editorial independence.

At 60 Minutes, longtime correspondent Scott Pelley accused the new management of instructing him to inject “falsehoods and bias” into a politically sensitive story and to include unverified assertions.

Correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega also accused Weiss of attempting to introduce right-wing talking points into their reporting, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Journalism unions subsequently warned that the changes at 60 Minutes threatened editorial independence.

There have been Israel-specific concerns as well. When Tony Dokoupil was selected to anchor the CBS Evening News, The Washington Post reported that some people inside CBS viewed his interview with Benjamin Netanyahu as an unofficial “audition” for the position because of Weiss’s strong support for Israel.

These facts make it increasingly difficult to treat the ideological environment surrounding Paramount and CBS as irrelevant.

When a family with unusually strong and publicly demonstrated support for Israel acquires control of one of America’s largest media conglomerates; when its CEO installs an openly Zionist editor at the top of CBS News; when prominent veteran journalists subsequently accuse management of ideological interference; and when the company’s streaming service licenses a documentary whose political method is to humanize Israelis intensely while largely removing Palestinians and the history of the conflict from view, viewers are entitled to connect those facts,not as proof of a conspiracy, but as reasons for heightened skepticism.

And The Road Between Us deserves that skepticism.

The events of October 7 do not need embellishment. The murder of civilians, hostage-taking and terror of that day were horrific enough on their own.

A genuinely probing documentary
could tell the Tibon family’s extraordinary story while acknowledging that October 7 occurred within a history and that the suffering did not end at Israel’s border.

Instead, this film creates a tightly controlled moral frame in which Israeli suffering is vivid, personal and historically meaningful while Palestinian existence remains overwhelmingly outside the camera’s field of vision.

That may make for emotionally effective filmmaking.

It may make for a gripping rescue story.

But calling that perspective “apolitical” does not make it so.

In my view, The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue is propaganda precisely because its advocacy is embedded in what it asks us to see, and even more importantly, in everything it asks us not to see.

Submission statement: A documentary following retired Israeli general Noam Tibon as he travels through the October 7 attacks to rescue his family from Nahal Oz.

The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue wants to be regarded as an intimate documentary about courage, family and survival on October 7, 2023.

Taken purely at that level, the story of retired Israeli general Noam Tibon racing toward Nahal Oz to rescue his family is undeniably dramatic. But documentaries are defined not merely by what they show. They are also defined by what they select, what they omit, whose humanity they foreground and whose history they render invisible.

Judged on those terms, I found The Road Between Us less convincing as documentary journalism than as Israeli propaganda: an emotionally sophisticated piece of advocacy that packages an Israeli national narrative as though it were simply an apolitical human-interest story.

That distinction matters.

The film establishes its moral universe almost immediately. Israel and the kibbutz are presented as places of community, cultivation, family and civilization.

The October 7 attackers enter that universe as an almost contextless eruption of barbarism.

The suffering of Israeli civilians is individualized, intimate and emotionally legible. The audience knows their names, homes, fears and relationships.
Palestinians, by contrast, scarcely possess a comparable existence within the film’s frame.

That asymmetry is not an accidental omission in a documentary about one of the most politically and historically contested places on Earth. It is an editorial decision.
Professional critics have noticed the same problem even when they have avoided using the word “propaganda.”

Robert Abele of the Los Angeles Times criticized the film for turning Tibon’s mission into something resembling an action narrative while separating October 7 from the history preceding it and the devastation in Gaza afterward. He ultimately described what remains as essentially a story stripped of history and inconvenient perspectives.

POV Magazine similarly criticized director Barry Avrich’s insistence that this is not a political film, arguing that removing an intensely political event from its context does not make the resulting film apolitical.
That is precisely the problem.

Propaganda does not have to consist of fabricated footage or explicit government slogans.

Some of the most effective propaganda uses authentic suffering and genuine heroism.

Its persuasive power comes from selection and framing: one side receives history, personality, grief and moral complexity, while the other becomes largely a threatening presence beyond the fence.

And because the events depicted on October 7 were genuinely horrific, the technique is particularly powerful.

The viewer can condemn Hamas’s killing and kidnapping of civilians, and should be able to do so, without accepting the proposition that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began that morning.

Yet The Road Between Us effectively asks the viewer to inhabit precisely that truncated chronology.

Even sympathetic reviews have acknowledged the omission. Nell Minow’s RogerEbert.com review notes that viewers may regard the absence of the circumstances preceding October 7 and Israel’s subsequent conduct in Gaza as slanted, even while accepting the filmmakers’ explanation that they deliberately confined themselves to one family’s experience.

But “we chose to tell only this story” does not eliminate bias. Choosing the boundaries of the story is one of the principal ways documentary bias operates.

Paramount+ makes the context more troubling

The platform presenting this film is also relevant—not because corporate ownership proves that anyone ordered this documentary to say particular things, but because media ownership and editorial priorities deserve scrutiny.

The Ellison family now effectively controls Paramount. Through their corporate holdings, Larry Ellison and his son David hold the overwhelming majority of the company’s voting power, giving them ultimate control over Paramount and its businesses, including Paramount+ and CBS.

Their support for Israel is not speculative.

In 2017 Larry Ellison donated $16.6 million to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, then the largest individual donation in the organization’s history. He said there was “no greater honor” than supporting Israeli soldiers and spoke of the IDF defending “our home.”

David Ellison’s Skydance donated to the Israeli emergency organization Magen David Adom after October 7 and publicly declared, “Skydance stands with Israel.”

Reporting on the family has also described Larry Ellison as having longstanding ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and noted David Ellison’s own public praise of Netanyahu and Israel.

Paramount+ announced its acquisition of The Road Between Us for streaming in September 2026, well after the Ellisons had assumed control of Paramount.

That context becomes still more significant when CBS News is considered.
The same ownership now sits above CBS News.

David Ellison appointed Bari Weiss as editor in chief of CBS News, following Paramount’s purchase of her publication, The Free Press. Paramount has stated that Weiss reports directly to Ellison and has responsibility for shaping CBS News’s editorial priorities.

Weiss is not merely someone whom critics have inferred to be sympathetic to Israel. She has publicly identified strongly with Zionism, and her strongly pro-Israel views have been a prominent part of her public career.

Meanwhile, CBS News has experienced extraordinary internal conflict over editorial independence.

At 60 Minutes, longtime correspondent Scott Pelley accused the new management of instructing him to inject “falsehoods and bias” into a politically sensitive story and to include unverified assertions.

Correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega also accused Weiss of attempting to introduce right-wing talking points into their reporting, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Journalism unions subsequently warned that the changes at 60 Minutes threatened editorial independence.

There have been Israel specific concerns as well. When Tony Dokoupil was selected to anchor the CBS Evening News, The Washington Post reported that some people inside CBS viewed his interview with Benjamin Netanyahu as an unofficial “audition” for the position because of Weiss’s strong support for Israel.

These facts make it increasingly difficult to treat the ideological environment surrounding Paramount and CBS as irrelevant.

When a family with unusually strong and publicly demonstrated support for Israel acquires control of one of America’s largest media conglomerates; when its CEO installs an openly Zionist editor at the top of CBS News; when prominent veteran journalists subsequently accuse management of ideological interference; and when the company’s streaming service licenses a documentary whose political method is to humanize Israelis intensely while largely removing Palestinians and the history of the conflict from view, viewers are entitled to connect those facts, not as proof of a conspiracy, but as reasons for heightened skepticism.

And The Road Between Us deserves that skepticism.

The events of October 7 do not need embellishment. The murder of civilians, hostage-taking and terror of that day were horrific enough on their own.

A genuinely probing documentary
could tell the Tibon family’s extraordinary story while acknowledging that October 7 occurred within a history and that the suffering did not end at Israel’s border.

Instead, this film creates a tightly controlled moral frame in which Israeli suffering is vivid, personal and historically meaningful while Palestinian existence remains overwhelmingly outside the camera’s field of vision.

That may make for emotionally effective filmmaking.

It may make for a gripping rescue story.

But calling that perspective “apolitical” does not make it so.

In my view, The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue is propaganda precisely because its advocacy is embedded in what it asks us to see, and even more importantly, in everything it asks us not to see.

[supprimé]

The first time I saw Akira was at the very latest in the spring of 1990.

A friend had a VHS copy

It wasn’t an imported Japanese only language VHS

I remember being able to follow the story so it either had subtitles or an English dub

I didn’t realize at the time that I was seeing it on VHS about as early as anybody in the United States managed to see it on VHS and earlier than most

Did I see a screener or a production version?

Did I see a pirate recording of an English dub movie theater version? I don’t remember the film seeming like it had been recorded via video camera at a movie theater. It seemed very good quality.

What makes me so certain about seeing it at the latest in the spring of 1990 was that I know what grade in school I was in when I saw it and I know that I saw it before the end of that school year, I actually watched it at school in a library.

The year after that I was attending a different school so I’m very very certain about this.

I am mildly annoyed by the fact that it seems that every other post in the sub claims that the book they are posting about is “known only by a few people” or “ barely anybody has read it” or something similar…

When in reality, many of these books and their authors are very well known and have been very widely read

To unfairly pick on two particular posts that I’ve seen recently-

One post that was claiming such things was about a well-known book by Alan Watts, who is a well-known author, philosopher, spiritual teacher

The other book was the psychology / sociology book “the denial of death”, which is an extremely well-known, academic text that many people in psychology and sociology courses study.

A particular book might not be widely read today by the general public because it was published many years ago or because it’s on a very niche topic or because it’s mostly read by people involved in academics, or because it addresses an interest that only a small percentage of the population has or because of some combination of the above factors and other factors etc.

But that doesn’t mean that the book is an almost completely unknown and unread mystery.

I think people feel compelled to include statements on their post about the book being barely known or having no or almost no one ever read them because they want to make their post more interesting

I would humbly suggest that people considering making such hyperbolic statements could instead say something along the lines of “the book has to a large degree, been forgotten by the general public” or “outside of certain circles The book isn’t widely known by the general public” when that is more appropriate.

Upsate:

Just a little update to point out that it’s been communicated to me that the large majority of these posts are being made by the same single person who also happens to be the creator and moderator of this sub

The posts this person makes also seem very repetitive and formulaic which has a lot of people suspecting that he is using AI to auto generate these post

Some people have even raised the possibility that the creator and moderator of the sub is not a person at all, but an AI that is doing this as part of it training

In the Explore/search section of the app there is a list right at the top titled “shows friends watched”

As far as I know, this app doesn’t have a friends feature

There are people that I follow and there are people that follow me is that what is considered friends?

If so, are friends people I follow or people that follow me or people that I both follow and follow me or all of the above?

Right now if somebody threatens violence on this platform or uses hate speech on this platform, whether it’s through a comment or a review or wherever there’s no way to report that

Someone just used abusive language towards me in reply to a very reasonable comment I made

I wouldn’t classify this specific comment Somebody else made as hate speech, but it highlighted for me the fact that there’s no way to report something.

If people who want to engage in threats of violence and hate speech and bigotry, find out that there’s no consequences for doing that on this platform, then this platform is going to start to attract people who want to engage in such conduct without consequence

The makers of this app need to get ahead of this and put a reporting system in place now before this place becomes a dumpster fire

I’ve added it to the feature request section if you wanna go there and vote for it

Why is it with the star ratings that for some films and TV shows you can give them a rating and while others you cant?

It doesn’t seem to be based on how old the film or TV show is. There are new films and TV show that you can and can’t rate and old films TV show shows that you can and cant rate.

At least with the star ratings though the overall average appears below the movie info section

What’s the point of the feelings emojis?

I guess if you click one, it will tell you what other percentage of people chose that emoji but I don’t really think it’s a useful feature

First of all the number of feelings you can choose from is very limited and second of all it doesn’t tell you how many people have actually chosen a particular emoji it just gives you a percentage

It just seems like kind of a useless feature that’s taking up a lot of real estate on the screen

Right now when you click on a film or TV show, the cast and crew members are displayed and you can click on one of those caster or crew members and it will show you all the other projects they have been involved with

However, what you can’t do is type a cast or crew member’s name into the search bar and have that cast or crew member come up in search

Please include cast and crew members in the search function

Several other entertainment media tracking apps have this feature

I have requested this on the app in the feature request section

Please vote for it

I am tired of not being able to find something only to realize later that I needed to search the other way

Official data bases will sometimes lost the titles of the same show or film in varying ways.

Sometimes even promotion for the show or film itself will show the title both ways.

I have suggested this on the app feature request. Please vote for it. It should be easy to implement.

They founding developer of TV time and Bingers talks about how the Bingers app is different from the TV time app and his future plans for the app so this is worth a read and still relevant.

This isn’t just an article announcing the launching of the Bingers app.

So these are the two premier apps that will tell you exactly where you can watch the television shows or movies, whether that’s free streaming, paid streaming, cable television on demand, in theaters, by buying physical media or simply not available to watch anywhere.

They also provide links to many of these options, which I assume they make money on through affiliate marketing

JustWatch is much closer to the “how can I watch this by any legal means” service that I’ve described above whereas Reelgood has a heavy focus on streaming

They aren’t perfect, and they will sometimes say that there’s no way to watch something when in fact there usually is some way to watch it

They are especially bad at telling you how you can watch anime and at linking to movie ticketing services for smaller non-major studio films, and at providing links for purchasing physical copies of media that arent extremely popular and well-known

They of course, are not going to list or link to peer to peer downloading sites or pirate streaming sites

They have both developed their own custom databases that allow them to do these things, and they are the dominant forces in this market

Anyway, back to the point of this post

Both of these “where to watch” services\apps have tried to position themselves as entertainment media tracking apps as well and have put further emphasis on that since the shutdown of TV Time

However, both of them are doing that very poorly

For JustWatch, which I normally asses as the superior of the two apps when it comes to actually telling you where you might be able to watch something, their functionality for signing into or creating an account through other services such as Google Facebook and Apple is currently broken and does not work.

So that’s a complete failure right from the start. I didn’t even bother creating an account through email to test out the media tracking component of the app.

With realgood that account creation feature actually works, but their media tracking is still abysmal

Once you have created an account, you could go to your profile and go to settings and in the menu there is an option called “only show episodes on services”

For a little background on this, Reelgood allows you to indicate which streaming services you’re currently subscribed to

If “only show episodes on services” is turned on as far as their media tracking functionality is concerned it’s only going to show you or track TV show shows and films that are available on services that you have indicated you have a subscription for

However, their big mistake here is that that “only show episodes on services” option is turned on by default.

Unless someone started combing through the features and settings of the app right from the start there’s no way that they would know this.

There’s no warning that the app gives you that the TV shows and movies that you’ve selected to be tracked aren’t going to show up on your watch next list unless they’re available on the subscription services that you’ve indicated you have a subscription for.

I’m not gonna go through every little feature on this apps tracking functionality that isn’t working well or not working at all, but I’ll mention just one other.

When you hit the track button underneath a show that you want to track it automatically takes you to a screen asking you how much of the show you’ve already seen

Lets say you’ve seen all of the episodes that have been released thus far, so you pick the most current episode. The app does not save that.

You have to pick at least one episode earlier than the most currently released episode.

And yes, there is a “seen all” button you can choose rather than the track button underneath the TV show

However, some people might think that the “seen all” button is for indicating that you’ve watched the entirety of the show and that can’t be true with a show that’s still currently releasing episodes

Anyway, these are two very large apps with their own custom databases that they allow other services to use through some kind of financial arrangement.

They are much larger commercial entities than any of the other media tracking apps like Bingers or Sofa Time or Refract or Trakt, etc., with the possible exception of letterboxd (which only tracks films)

I just find it I’m amusing and ironic that despite their vast resources, they have completely dropped the ball when it comes to developing good media tracking features in their apps

This is relevant to the history of both TV time and the new Bingers app and worth a read

There have been no pomegranates in the Walmart stores in my region of the country for about two years now

I know they are seasonal and that they are much more available in the United States during the fall and winter months however, in the past they were sold year-round

And as I said above, they haven’t been absent from the walmart stores around me only seasonally, they have been absent from the stores in my region of the country for two or more years now.

In the stores near me when they were in stock, they used to sit in the large bins towards the very front of the grocery section where you often see Roma tomatoes, onions, green peppers, avocados, limes, and other produce

Today I checked Walmart stores all across the country, even including Walmart stores in the regions of California where the vast majority of pomegranates are grown in the United States and it doesn’t seem that a single store in the United States is stocking or has stocked whole pomegranates in 2026, including the past winter of 2026 when pomegranates were most available

Walmart still list pomegranates on its website and their ID number is 44391315 and the price is still listed at $1.98

Of course Walmart sells other pomegranate products such as fresh or frozen pomegranate seeds or Ariel‘s and pomegranate juice

But Walmart always sold pomegranates for one to two dollars cheaper than any other place I could find them in the past.

Is Walmart not able to source whole pomegranates at a price they think they can competitively sell them at?

The other grocery stores in my area have pomegranates on sale off and on, so I know that there are whole pomegranates still being produced and sold to grocery chains but of course those pomegranates are selling for four dollars or more.

https://youtu.be/KrOBzFwVzwA

If your iPhone 17, 17 Pro 17, Pro Max, etc. has experienced scratches or chips in the coloring or “paint” over the aluminum body its not your fault.

Apple did not follow industry standards when applying the colored anodized aluminum coating

This is eventually going to happen to all iPhone 17 models once you’ve owned them long enough

Putting a case on the phone won’t prevent this

The only thing that might prevent it is to buy a clear film or covering that goes over the entire aluminum part of the phone with cutouts for the camera lenses

You then have to put a case on top of that

Having chips in the coloring of your phone case significantly detract from it trade-in value if you’re going to upgrade your phone through a carrier as well as it’s private party sale value, if you were to ever sell it to another person

Apples should have to recall every single one of these phones but they of course will not do that because that would be a huge financial liability for them

There should be a class action lawsuit over this