Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My husband was right about DVDs

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 428 posts

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#191

Post by still_grokking »

photochemsyn wrote: post #42

One real danger of putting all historical video media on streaming sites is that it makes it far too easy to introduce an Orwellian Ministry of Truth that is empowered to rewrite the past to make it conform to today's acceptable social norms, academic ideologies, government agendas and so on. For example, one could make the argument that Alfred Hitchcock's entire library promotes negative stereotypes of women - and i…

> One real danger of putting all historical video media on streaming sites is that it makes it far too easy to introduce an Orwellian Ministry of Truth that is empowered to rewrite the past to make it conform to today's acceptable social norms, academic ideologies, government agendas and so on.

I see such rewriting of the past, or at least attempts of that, on Wikipedia. It's not really hidden as there is a (hopefully!) integer edit history, but who reads the edit history anyway? Usually you just look at articles as they are at the current moment.

As we don't have much "hard copies" of a lot of stuff any more around the possibility to "rewrite the past" for significant amounts of people becomes a real thread as we rely more and more on digital and purely online data.

Given how "durable" our digital data is future historians will have a very hard time. Maybe our time will become a dark age when seen form the future. Have you tried lately to open some files from the 80'es that reside on some storage medium form that time? And that's only a few years in the past. Imagine 500 yeas in the future. What will be left of all the cat videos on YouTube (and maybe some more important data)?

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#192

Post by fullmoon »

inetknght wrote: post #140
yucky wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are birth defects though. For instance, we still understand humans as being bipedal despite anomalies that prevent a tiny fraction of humans from being bipedal.

`XXY` is a valid combination of sex chromosomes. The person has two `X` chromosomes so is female. The person also has one `Y` chromosome so is male. Which sex is the person? Is it a birth defect?

The term “birth defect” fell out of use because of its stigmatizing word construction.

Chromosomal abnormalities would be the modern term, it applies to both sexual as well as other chromosomal abnormalities like Down.

But to answer the question as asked: Yes, it fulfills the definition of the older term.

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#193

Post by shuntress »

neuronic wrote: post #88
snickerbockers wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix actually removed a segment from an early 90s bill Nye episode because it said there are two genders.

This seems weird. No one disagrees that there are 2 biological (genetic) genders. Gender identity is something entirely else that is being actively researched. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/

You are incorrect in two ways. First, you are conflating sex and gender. Second, sex is a bimodal distribution rather than a fixed binary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#194

Post by gnarbarian »

asddubs wrote: post #168
zdw wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already incidences of this: The TV show Community is missing an episode on Netflix for some reason (edit: reason was Ken Jeong in what could be interpreted as blackface). The IT Crowd is missing one in some geos because it was considered anti-Trans by some - that episode also has the unrelated and hilarious plot where Roy and Moss convince Jen that they're loaning her a "black box that holds the entire inte…

I mean, "was considered anti-Trans by some" is pretty charitable for that episode. It is pretty overtly anti-trans, and the show as a whole was written by grahan linnehan who has also been vocally anti-trans

so don't watch it.

with censorship nobody can watch it.

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#196

Post by 542458 »

eggy wrote: post #186
cgh wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of smoking is something to ponder. It's always so glaring to me when TV shows that take place in the '80s and '90s show almost no one smoking, when in fact if you went into any public place, probably 30-50% (or more, if it's eg a pub) would be smoking, including in people's homes, offices and so forth. I wonder if the huge and realistic amounts of smoking seen in shows like Mad Men will be edited out one day…

I grew up when there was a smoking section on the plane (BTW, why do modern aircraft still have ashtrays? Are there any airlines that allow smoking?). I miss All in the Family. Is it even available anymore?

The ashtray is actually mandatory even in new planes per FAA rules.

Modern aircraft still have ashtrays in the washrooms because they’d much prefer that somebody choosing to sneak a smoke puts their cigarette somewhere other than the washroom trash bin where there’s a history of them starting fires.

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#197

Post by js8 »

wyre wrote: post #136
xeromal wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have that. It's the library of congress that ensures the safety of culturally important media in the US. And of course we have public libraries with all kinds of good media. I don't think the comment your replying to is even talking about public libraries. I believe they're saying if society determines a person is cancelled and it's on a streaming service, it can instantly disappear from most streaming media.

I don’t think it’s about individuals getting canceled. It’s about how the streaming service has carte blanche power to decide the material on the service, regardless of what society wants.

My point was this. Maybe they have that carte blanche power. Isn't a good public library system (where the work is also accessible) a good enough counterweight to that power?

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#198

Post by culi »

photochemsyn wrote: post #42

One real danger of putting all historical video media on streaming sites is that it makes it far too easy to introduce an Orwellian Ministry of Truth that is empowered to rewrite the past to make it conform to today's acceptable social norms, academic ideologies, government agendas and so on. For example, one could make the argument that Alfred Hitchcock's entire library promotes negative stereotypes of women - and i…

Or you can torrent them...

One person's collection serves that one person, but there are some really cool groups out there like DocuWiki[0] that try to archive every documentary out there and serve them on the eDonkey network. There's been numerous times I've failed to find a documentary by even the original publisher. Like I literally couldn't give them my money no matter how much I tried. And even libraries didn't have it. But good old DocuWiki always had my back

Torrents are kind of like a community archive

[0] https://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Special:Newpages

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#199

Post by tpmx »

56friends wrote: post #70
tpmx wrote: post #55

People tend to shit on Spotify (while still using it), but they did manage something that we all want: Access to (almost everything), for a nominal monthly fee. We need the same, but for movies and tv shows. Globally. It's an economical problem that currently has a suboptimal solution.

I think the era of Spotify dominance and music availability is coming to an end. Not sure what the next stage is going to look like - but I personally just canceled my subscription after over a decade of using Spotify exclusively. There is a lot of music that has never been available on Spotify, plus some music is disappearing due to artists and labels realizing they are not making any money from Spotify streaming. P…

I'm super happy with my Spotify subscription. Sure, maybe 5% of the things I want are missing, but 95% is pretty good.

Re: My husband was right about DVDs

#200

Post by mdp2021 »

kawsper wrote: post #159
zdw wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already incidences of this: The TV show Community is missing an episode on Netflix for some reason (edit: reason was Ken Jeong in what could be interpreted as blackface). The IT Crowd is missing one in some geos because it was considered anti-Trans by some - that episode also has the unrelated and hilarious plot where Roy and Moss convince Jen that they're loaning her a "black box that holds the entire inte…

The story about the pulled IT Crowd episode is covered here: https://screenrant.com/it-crowd-controversy-graham-linehan-a...

With a very heavy perspective. Among the recurrent signs, the following suffices:

> inviting laughter and derision toward the... community

No. Just finding an occasion for the selected direction in creativity. Which the writer of the article seems to want to make ideological, with the exception of one use of the expression "«cheap laugh»" (which, for that matter, may bring attention to the other "celebrated" subplot of "the elders of the Internet" - using the same perspective, it would be as if "making cheap laughs through a sort of "ableism"").

Post reply on HN