Enhanced Burgers

         Whenever people bring up Carl's Jr. ads, the first thing that come's to people's minds are the hot girls eating the new Carl's Jr burger. However, what people fail to realize, are the fact that the burgers in the ads, look nothing like they do in real life. The advertisers for Carl's Jr. are trying to trick you into thinking that when you go to Carl's  Jr. and buy one of their burgers, it will look exactly like it does in the ad. But when you finally go to Carl's Jr. and buy one of their burgers, you don't even care to think about how the burger looks. You just dive right into the burger, without realizing that the burger's appearance, didn't match the one in the ad.

         The reason why I dislike this is that either Carl's Jr. needs to improve the look of their burgers in real life, or make ads with the burgers that look more like they do in real life. For example, this is what a the Carl's Jr. burger looks like without all of the photo enhancements. 

          Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this burger right here, looks nothing like the burger up there. So why do this? Aside from the fact that Carl's Jr. wants you to think that their burger's are delicious, they want you to think that their burgers are served with a beautiful appearance as well. And as you can see with the two pictures, the burger's may taste good, but they certainly do not have an appealing appearance. What Carl's Jr. should do with their ads is to use less images of the burger, and perhaps more of what the burger actually is, or include more aspects to appeal to going to Carl's Jr., rather than just focusing on one specific burger in their ad. The ads they are using right now are too concentrated on making customers want to buy just one burger. Instead they should focus on more  things like buy one get one frees, or two for one deals. This way it will get more customers to come to the store in general, rather than getting customers to crave one specific burger. 

Loooooooooonnnnnnnnnng Ads

 

         Recently, I discovered what YouTube RED was and at first I thought that it was rather pointless. There are three things that you get with YouTube RED; you can download videos, have ad free videos, and can have background play(the ability to keep your videos playing while using other apps or with your screen off.) When I first saw these three things that you can get from YouTube RED, I thought that it was ridiculous. Why should I have to pay $9.99 for these three things that should just be free? I also have Google Play Music which is also $9.99 a month so I get unlimited music and I can download music as well. This also allowed me to have YouTube RED on my phone, so I got to see if it was really worth it or not. For the first few days, I didn't even realize I had YouTube RED, until I saw the logo on top of my phone. I didn't particularly like the downloading of videos, because it took a long time to download the videos, and the videos took a lot of space on my phone. Moreover, I still don't understand on how the background play works, so that has also been useless for me. However, the last thing that you get from YouTube RED is the ad free videos. This is the best thing from YouTube RED. It becomes hard to tell that you even have YouTube RED after awhile because you are just so used to seeing ad free videos. But when I started watching videos without YouTube RED, I realized that there was literally and ad for every single video that I watched. Not only were there a lot of ads, there were a lot of really long ads, such as the one minute ads that you can't skip, or the consistent 30 second ad that you couldn't skip and got really tired of seeing after the fifth time it showed up. This is when I realized that having YouTube RED was such an enjoyable thing to have, especially because I am an avid YouTube watcher. Overall I would say that YouTube RED is a big waste of $9.99, but if you watch YouTube a lot, I would recommend YouTube RED just because it is worth it to get rid of all of the annoying ads. 

Bad Trailers and Previews

         A few weeks ago, the mid-season finale of season six of The Walking Dead came out. Now, if you watch The Walking Dead, then you most likely are aware of how intense their mid-season finales are. Either it is a cliffhanger or sudden surprising scene, and then you are left to wait till February to see what happens next. I personally love these cliffhangers and shocking scenes at the end, as it gives me something to look forward to in the next few months. however there is one thing about the mid-season finales that I dislike a lot.
         When the mid-season finale ends, there is always a trailer that follows it, and this trailer is something I also look forward to. The reason for why I like these trailers is that I know what will be on the next five or six episodes of the other half of the season. However, these trailers tend to give us false ideas about what will happen in the next season. This can be good, as it puts us in suspense for the next few months. I particularly don't like this because of how misleading some of the scenes in the trailer are. Usually what happens is that the trailer will show someone in grave danger, or the group about to be trapped, etc. Or a trailer can sometimes show too much of what will happen in the movie. For example, in the Superman v Batman trailer, everyone thought that it would be some huge fight between Superman and Batman. We see them constantly battling each other, and Batman struggling to compete against Superman. However there is another villain in the midst, Lex Luthor, who makes another villain, Doomsday. Doomsday in the comics is the villain that kills Superman. The reason why this character should not have been shown in the previews, is that it completely contradicts with the title, Superman v Batman.
          All in all, movie and TV trailers should make better efforts to not give away big scenes, and not mislead viewers from their trailers. It is fine if the producers want to give us something to think about for the next six months however, as a viewer, I would not want to be thinking about something that doesn't even end up happening. If you show that the character will get killed off from a show in the trailer, then kill of the character!

Why I Don't Like Apple Products

       The other day I was having a conversation with friends, and we somehow had brought phones into the conversation. Then, it ended up being a full blown argument of why iPhones are superior to every other phone. Now, I can't lie and say that iPhones aren't cool; it's true, they really are. However, I think that iPhone's have gone past being just a mere cool phone, in the sense that if you have an iPhone you acquire higher social status. People who have iPhones, discriminate towards those who have any other phone.  Now I won't name names, but a number of people have somewhat noticed that I have an Android phone rather than an iPhone. The question arose, "Why do you have a crappy Android?" There are a few answers to this question.The first one being that I simply have no need for an iPhone, and I don't like them at all, therefore I go with Android. The second one is that, iPhones and their plans are straight-up expensive, and I don't exactly have the money for one either. Now one might say, "Oh, since you can't get one, you are obviously jealous of everyone that has one and that's why you don't like Apple products." I cannot even express how wrong this is. Not once in my life have I ever considered Apple products, whether it's Macbooks, iMacs, iPhones, or iPads, I have felt no need to buy one. A reason for this is that other products are actually a lot better and more financially efficient. The extremely powerful desktop computer my father and I built cost around $800-$900, and before you think that is expensive, look at the price of an iMac or Macbook. As of 2015 the price of an iMac will range from $1,100-$2,200. The price of a Macbook will range from $1,300-$1,800, for just a laptop! One might say, "You get what you pay for." This is also somewhat wrong. All Apple products are quite user friendly, but are limited to the customization that you can make. With the computer that I own, if I want to have more memory, I get a bigger hard drive, whereas with apple you are stuck with the storage they give you, or just buy a new one. Want a new processor? No problem with my computer, just replace it. With Apple? Buy a new one. Want a better cooling system? No problem just replace it. With Apple? Buy a new one. Want a better looking monitor? No problem replace a new monitor. With Apple? Buy a new one. If you can't already tell, this is the problem that I see with Apple. If you want something new and improved, don't make that single upgrade, buy a new product! This is the deception they are making with iPhones. They change a few things, increase the number and add the letter "s" then bam, people are all over it. The reality of it is that your iPhone 6, will be just as good as the iPhone 6s or 7. Is there something you really need that is different from the phone you already have? 

Sidenote: I am aware that I show strong distaste for Apple products, but I am in no way attacking those that use them. Although, if someone does pick on another for not having Apple, that, I do have a problem with.  All in all, if you use something from Apple, rock on!

Is This Even a Sale?

        The other day I was walking through Target, looking for food of course, and down the aisle with all the candy and other junk that won't help me in long wrong, caught my eye. There was a row of those large sale signs, in bright red and "SALE" in large letters. Obviously I went over to see what was there. I looked at a few things and saw that there some two-for-one deals, and some five-for-five and such, but since I only wanted one thing, my mind focused more for the flat out sales on certain things. I glanced towards somethings sour, because that was my crave at the moment, and I saw that the Chewy Sweet Tarts were on sale and I went to grab them. Now as I was checking out at the self check-out, I swiped my item and heard, "You saved 10 cents on this item." As I walked out, I thought to myself, and felt really disappointed about how Target tricked me so easily. 

        

         After that day, I decided to look at price tags more carefully. and I noticed that there is a lot of deception going on with those bright red sale tags. There was a sign that I once saw that said, "70% off" in a huge font but then in smaller font it said "On items over $50." But the focus of this is to ask you all, is ten cents even a sale? It made me quite angry that when I saw the sale sign and had high hopes that it would be a good deal, and that I would be saving money, only to see I would be saving an insignificant 10 cents. 

        

         However, I can see where people might disagree with me on this. I may be overreacting to the small amount of money I'm earning. In this case, the good old saying, "a penny saved, is a penny earned," might be a good lesson for me to learn, but I think that in this day and age, ten cents is virtually worthless. Take a moment and think about how many things today that you can go out and buy for ten cents. Can't think about much can you? The point I am trying to get across is that not every sale is exactly saving money, and that one should be careful and look at the savings or deal they are getting when buying items. Don't be deceived by those bright red sale tags. 

Is Gooder Grammar Needed?

         

      

          Have you ever had one of those real annoying friends who corrected you on every single grammatical error you made? I personally was one of those people who corrected the "you'res" and "yours" while texting my friends, only to get the "-_-" emoji after every time I corrected them. At first I had no idea what I was doing wrong, until I realized how annoying it actually was to be corrected on almost every sentence I said. Orwell said that "correct grammar and syntax...are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear." I agree and disagree on this statement. I believe that correct grammar is necessary while speaking and in essays or articles, whereas in something casual, such as texting or just having a normal conversation with a friend, one should not have to be as correct in their grammar. A meaning can be made clear without proper grammar, but the meaning would be clearer if correct grammar and syntax is used. 

           If you're writing an essay or a persuasive paper, of course a teacher will always have a slight understanding of what you are trying to say, however correct grammar and syntax is still necessary in order to completely sell your paper. However, to a certain extent correcting grammar in papers can be quite irritating. For example, in many of my papers I get corrected on commas. Either I overuse commas, or I don't use them enough. Now I understand that commas are necessary in certain situations, especially to make a certain message clear. But when I see comma corrections on every single sentence, I get extremely frustrated and confused on what mistake I made and why. If someone can write a paper without any comma errors, in one draft, props to them. 

         

  One of the texts I got from one of my friends recently went like this "Omw home u still on?" To begin with, I do not like the use of acronyms and abbreviations, but in this question the grammatical error is that my friend is missing the word "are" thus making the sentence "Omw home are u still on?" However, I don't think that proper grammar is necessary in this context, and I understood the message without the proper grammar. Another example of when proper grammar isn't necessary is when someone asks, "How did you do on the test?" and the most common response is "I did good." whereas it should be "I did well." However, the message was clear, and there is no need for a correction, since the message was understood. Overall, correct grammar is necessary in formal context, but in casual context, it is not.