81–90 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read this like "man fools { security-to-the-backstage }" not "man fools { security } in order to backstage ".
But in British English ‘security to backstage’ would usually be ‘security for backstage’ or ‘backstage security’.
Poor boys from India game a system that was set up by Rich Tech Bros in Silicon Valley to fund their "family foundations" and 20-room houses in Atherton? I don't call it Outrage; I call it "Slumdog Millionaire: Part II"
You're using "Slumdog Millionaire" in the same context that Indians here despise the movie for. Using it as a pretext for focusing on the poverty in India as almost a fetishized poking from the West (ironically by the British)
Reminds of this "Man fools security to backstage at a Peking Duk gig by changing the band's Wikipedia page to describe himself as a family member" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3345074/Man-fools-s...
Is ‘to backstage’ a verb?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you've added another one!!
))
I have always wondered about the ratings. It seems to me that all movies below 6 is trash. Has this always been this way? One would imagine that a 5 star rating would be ok since it is right between 0 (bad) and 10 (great). I guess some kind of inflation in the ratings is going on, but how is such things prevented in these kinds of ratings over time? Is it even possible to prevent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s hilarious. Wikipedia classifies IMDB as unreliable because...anyone can edit its pages.
Wikipedia is not considered reliable either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipe... > Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. But, unlike IMDB, it's (supposed to be) verifiable.
It cites its sources. In fact, all it is a list of citations.
IMDB lost all my respect many years ago when they made clear with their actions that they support fake reviews. When the problem started to grow beyond the occasional vandalism, they still had a very effective discussion section in which users soon began to expose fake reviews. Their response? Of course remove the discussion section! IMDB today has some use for their database only; but they lost any credibility on ev…
Comment sections on many websites across the net got scrapped around the same time. Ostensibly because some people use them to say nasty things, but really I think it's about keeping the masses consuming rather than creating. The corporations prefer that creation of content and narratives be restricted to an elite few, while the masses dutifully consume. At the end of the day it's about protecting their bottom line.
Not really sure I see this. Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, etc. base their entire business model on the masses creating content. Sure there's a Pareto distribution when it comes to creators vs consumers, but the platforms certainly make money from (and encourage) both.
I remember imdb being meticulous in its record keeping ~15 years ago/before it got bought by Amazon (though its quality held up for at least a few years after). I remember looking up details for kinda obscure movies and talent, and my mind being blown when info for either was listed. Now, it takes years to see the filmography of a given actor from a streaming show.
Side note, I'd really appreciate if you could close off your opening (. I don't know where to stop reading with a lower volume in my head.
Reminds of this "Man fools security to backstage at a Peking Duk gig by changing the band's Wikipedia page to describe himself as a family member" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3345074/Man-fools-s...