Live data from Hacker News

The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

nytimes.com

361–366 of 366 posts

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#361
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at what point did I accuse you of lying? I pointed out that you (probably accidentally) accused me of lying, if that’s what you’re confused by? or do you mean that I accused you of being confidently wrong? being wrong isn’t lying does the fact that you were completely misinformed about the main substance of the previous comment not make you question the grounding of your opinions on this? where did you get the idea t…

> where did you get the idea that you needed a TV license to stream, or do anything other than watch live TV? You're arguing with a straw man. I've never said you need to pay the license if you only watch Netflix. I've said that the tax structure protects the BBC and allows it to ignore popular types of programming. You've been unable to refute this point and so have segued into trying to argue that the license fee i…

here’s your argument: “the BBC doesn’t focus on my genre enough therefore the entire thing is bad, but it’s especially bad because I’m convinced that I’m required to pay it to watch any relevant TV (also I think they’re politically biased but that has nothing to do with any of this)”

if you think I’m somehow avoiding your argument, or finding technicalities, I’ll address each part

>the BBC doesn’t focus on sci-fi enough. (or sci-fi and fantasy when it suits your argument).

I’ve already linked to the BBC’s large selection of sci-fi and fantasy programming, which you ignored. I also pointed out three major, popular sci-fi shows, two of which you dismissed, despite both being wildly popular with adults, and one you ignored. one of which is possibly the biggest sci-fi show ever, and has just made a £100m deal with Disney+ to be broadcast internationally, which really does indicate executives’ lack of interest

also, do any of the other British channels have consistent sci-fi output? no, except publicly-owned and license-fee funded channel 4. how strange.

>I’m required to pay the license fee, therefore this perceived lack of sci-fi media content for me to consume is a quasi-communistic authoritarian impingement upon my freedom

if streaming - the primary form of TV watching for most people these days - is allowed without a license, then it’s not really required, is it?

so is streaming allowed?

you first argued that streaming just isn’t allowed explicitly by the rules, then when it was pointed out that this is unsupported by the article you linked with, you either tried to redefine what streaming is to fit your original claim, or illustrated your quite incorrect conception of what streaming actually is

no streaming service is “a live broadcast” or a “channel” that you tune into. they’re apps, on your TV, or on a set-top box, or yes, on a laptop, that you use over wi-fi. in short, streaming is watching video over the internet, which is mostly how people watch TV these days. and it’s not covered. how do you mostly watch TV?

approaching your position more broadly, there’s this possible implication that you would be okay with the BBC, if it just had a Star Trek or a Black Mirror, or Altered Carbon or whatever your standard for sci-fi is. this seems really odd. would the BBC be bad for not having one person’s desired selection of horror shows? they have a big audience too. or what about basketball coverage? plenty of viewers for that. is this true? if the BBC did fit your ideas for what it made, would you be okay with it? or are you politically against the entire idea of its existence in the first place, and this sci-fi thing is just a proxy argument?

besides all this,

the “strawman” accusation is often the resort of someone who has been found to be wrong about something key and is trying to cut their losses. it’s only a strawman if it’s not central to the entire thing we’re talking about. if it were really a strawman, you wouldn’t continue to try and argue the point for another two paragraphs. it’s either a strawman, or something you’re going to viscerally argue, but clearly not both.

and accusing you of choosing to misunderstand is not accusing you of lying, but accusing you of being subconsciously compromised by your political position. lying to yourself but not me. I suspect that if you gave the BBC a fair go, you would find a lot to like

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still think that, as a concept, it's dumb as shit, even thought it was profitable for me. I just got lucky. What, specifically, do you find dumb as shit? I don't want to come across as confrontational here, but it's difficult to gauge how much a person knows about blockchain, its uses, current pitfalls, and the technology's mission. And these conversations usually end up in one of two ways for me depending upon h…

It has been a long time since I last debated this stuff, so it is funny to see the same talking points from 10 years ago. 1) PoW is the only way that is actually decentralized. If you want decentralized power over the currency - PoS will never work on a long time horizon, because you'd need some way of representing stake that is just impossible. As far as the whole "waste" complaint: relative to what? I've never seen…

> 1) PoW is the only way that is actually decentralized. If you want decentralized power over the currency - PoS will never work on a long time horizon

There are proof systems that are not truly Proof of Work and are also not Proof of Stake. But sure, you're not wrong that proof of stake is not truly decentralized. Anyway, suffice to say I was not talking about Proof of Stake.

But you do bring up some thoughts that I've had previously, with regards to the energy waste in comparison to exactly what. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been a long time since I last debated this stuff, so it is funny to see the same talking points from 10 years ago. 1) PoW is the only way that is actually decentralized. If you want decentralized power over the currency - PoS will never work on a long time horizon, because you'd need some way of representing stake that is just impossible. As far as the whole "waste" complaint: relative to what? I've never seen…

> 1) PoW is the only way that is actually decentralized. If you want decentralized power over the currency - PoS will never work on a long time horizon There are proof systems that are not truly Proof of Work and are also not Proof of Stake. But sure, you're not wrong that proof of stake is not truly decentralized. Anyway, suffice to say I was not talking about Proof of Stake. But you do bring up some thoughts that I…

> There are proof systems that are not truly Proof of Work and are also not Proof of Stake.

Got any examples in mind? Because the only stuff that I can think of besides the two are convoluted Rube Goldberg methods of concealing what is actually PoS. Take any one of the goofy token based protein folding style coins as an example. Unless you are thinking of some kind of premined fedcoin, which is closer to a giftcard than a cryptocurrency.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) PoW is the only way that is actually decentralized. If you want decentralized power over the currency - PoS will never work on a long time horizon There are proof systems that are not truly Proof of Work and are also not Proof of Stake. But sure, you're not wrong that proof of stake is not truly decentralized. Anyway, suffice to say I was not talking about Proof of Stake. But you do bring up some thoughts that I…

> There are proof systems that are not truly Proof of Work and are also not Proof of Stake. Got any examples in mind? Because the only stuff that I can think of besides the two are convoluted Rube Goldberg methods of concealing what is actually PoS. Take any one of the goofy token based protein folding style coins as an example. Unless you are thinking of some kind of premined fedcoin, which is closer to a giftcard t…

I'll refrain from talking too much about it, as I'm actually somewhat associated with the project, so take that as a disclaimer. But the first example that comes to mind is Chia's Proof of Space (and Time) which requires some amount of initial computationally expensive work to be performed to create what is essentially your hashes on disk, and then your farm (their verbiage for "mine") can be ran off of external hard drives connected to a Raspberry Pi.

Anyway, I'll forgive you for maybe not knowing about it, as it's a much smaller and newer project than the likes of Bitcoin or Ethereum. It's a nice project to point out though, as you don't need to be a whale to be a player and sign blocks. I just run about 24 terabytes of plotted out space on spare drives that I had laying around that I rotated out of my Plex server. I still get a win every now and again, but my cost to get going was extremely minimal.

There's a lot of FUD spread around about Chia chewing through SSDs for the initial work portion, which is maybe somewhat true? I used a couple of SSDs to generate my plots that I now use for video game storage that are perfectly healthy, so my advice to people spreading that FUD would be to use higher quality SSDs that are rated for high TBW (terabytes-written.)

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are proof systems that are not truly Proof of Work and are also not Proof of Stake. Got any examples in mind? Because the only stuff that I can think of besides the two are convoluted Rube Goldberg methods of concealing what is actually PoS. Take any one of the goofy token based protein folding style coins as an example. Unless you are thinking of some kind of premined fedcoin, which is closer to a giftcard t…

I'll refrain from talking too much about it, as I'm actually somewhat associated with the project, so take that as a disclaimer. But the first example that comes to mind is Chia's Proof of Space (and Time) which requires some amount of initial computationally expensive work to be performed to create what is essentially your hashes on disk, and then your farm (their verbiage for "mine") can be ran off of external hard…

Ah, yeah I'm familiar with it - a PoW scheme, where the work is memory cell wear. I feel for anyone who missed the incredibly short period of time where bitcoin gpu mining pools were anything but distributed space heaters... but I don't see a future in trying to chase that dragon. At least it isn't a mindless hardfork cash grab, or an unintentional joke like that time that communist redditors came out with a coin that would randomly delete balances at rest.

Re: The $55M saga of a Netflix series nobody will ever see

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? That’s not why Netflix gave him the money. They could have done that themselves.

And, he didn't "blow" it. He speculated, and came out ahead overall. Not saying that was a good idea or appropriate, but from the bank account point of view, the production balance ended up ahead.

But did it? Netflix probably wanted to make more money on this, and wanted to get audience growth. They have people they can absolutely use this to do this all by themselves, but they didn’t because that wasn’t what they wanted to do.
Post reply on HN