131–140 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really common trap that smart people fall into, thinking that just because you know everything about one field, your huge brain must be able to quickly understand just about anything.
I've adroitly avoided that trap by understanding just about everything.
Star Trek Discovery: "the Probe used a SQL Injection attack"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes me want to watch the movie
The movie is great fun but its accurate ASME I BPVC code compliant pressure safety valves really are limited to a single 2-second scene I am afraid.
Probably a short enough list of depictions - does IMDb list them?
This applies to the real world as well. I've had a couple of times when I've been closely involved in an event that was covered in the national newspapers. Both times the stories were presented with major factual inaccuracies and with clear bias. I've brought this up in conversation a few times over the years and quite often a similar experience was reported by others. Yet everyone still seemed happy to trust the acc…
So I think that Gell-Mann Amnesia, while amusing, is overblown.
However, if the scene/actor actually knows how to play, then it’s an awesome surprise and I have even more respect for the scene.
The most recent example of the latter is in Ted Lasso, when Nate plays the violin - it’s legit and a great scene.
TwoSetViolin regularly review movies of both good and violin portrayal[0, 1]
My brother has this problem but for all films. He was a producer, so his field of expertise is film. As a result, I can enjoy a wide range of film and TV series that he finds unwatchable because "the casting is terrible" or "the lighting is all wrong".
I started my career in CGI, I've acted, hosted TV shows, married an actor, made props, made movie vehicles, and produced a movie in Hollywood. I can literally watch nothing without critiquing the acting, casting, framing, lighting, stunts and CGI.
I guess the music is cool, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An alternative explanation is that the machines aren't using the humans for anything ; they're just devoted to the most ethical treatment of these billions of people who believe themselves to be at war, and the only way to capture them and keep them sane is to hook them up to virtual reality and keep them complacent. Every human is a prisoner of war, in the finest possible cell.
They had to add the battery (or, any reason to actually keep them alive) because extermination would otherwise be the obvious choice.
The machines are definitively - and canonically! - not.
He was trying to be romantic but didn't actually know what the flower looked like in any real detail.
I guess good fiction requires a lot of research to maintain suspension of disbelief, perhaps more than writing about reality.
This applies to the real world as well. I've had a couple of times when I've been closely involved in an event that was covered in the national newspapers. Both times the stories were presented with major factual inaccuracies and with clear bias. I've brought this up in conversation a few times over the years and quite often a similar experience was reported by others. Yet everyone still seemed happy to trust the acc…
Actually, this is an even bigger one after working on classified intelligence projects. Being able to watch in real time what is actually happening in some place a news reporter is speculating about and get wildly wrong makes you despair to the point of wondering what they're ever right about. It's even worse to come on a place like Hacker News and see the kinds of wildly wrong things people believe or speculate on,…
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsbe...>