The humor is all about decoding the language from the images alone, so the inflections and other verbal cues actually spoil every joke. There’s no ah-ha moment, because the meaning of the words is telegraphed to us simultaneously with the cryptic language.
I don’t understand how anyone can make an entire show about this without understanding the fundamental principle here.
I don’t understand this sentiment. I read and enjoyed the books and also watched the Chinese series on YouTube, and while I think the Chinese production was decent I’m definitely interested to see what Netflix can do with [what I assume to be] a bigger budget as there is definitely room for improvement.
The very easy to link summary included at the very top of the article, before the quote OP gave.
Several works receiving large numbers of votes were ruled ineligible for unstated reasons, which from leaked emails appears to be the US-based administrators unilaterally deciding that they might cause political offence.
A number of Chinese-language nominations appear to have been entirely disallowed.
The second, in what seems to be a mass disenfranchisement of Chinese voters, means that the composition of the shortlists, as they were presented to be voted on, was entirely unreliable, with an unknown number of Chinese nominees denied their chance at contending.
Based on this information, I cannot consider myself a Hugo winner and will not be citing the 2023 award result in my biographical details, or on this site.
Babylon 5 - It has a bit of a slow start with the first season (just the 1990’s Trek shows), but it picks up about midway through season 1 and gets progressively better (higher stakes) until season 4. Season 5 is okay, and then there are series of movies, and recently even an animated show in the universe.
Really enjoyed the first book. Started questioning things in the second. By the third, I was hate reading it to get to the end.
Without spoiling it, the ending completely failed to land for me. Just a hodgepodge of incomplete ideas and loose ends… If it was just the first book they could’ve told other stories and built a Lovecraftian mythos around it, but instead they had to go for the 3 book deal and by the end it was just too much toast and not enough butter for me.
It is a fact of being human that something must die for us to live. Be it plant, animal or Fungi. Each person must decide what life they are willing to take to continue living and be respectful of and thankful to those lifeforms that allows you to continue living.
I mean plants to our knowledge are not sentient, so no harm done to “someone” when killing them, in the same way as there are no harm done to the rock when you throw it on the ground. Animals we eat on the other hand are sentient so there is clearly someone that is harmed. I really think non-human animals should be included in our sphere of moral consideration.
Even if plants were somehow found to all be sentient, by eating them directly instead of feeding them to animals then eat the animals you would minimize the harm done.
I don’t know why all the downvotes. This is at least partly true! Plant senses and communication research had been a taboo among scientists for many decades, but there was a breakthrough recently and we finally have some interesting results. It was proven that plants can sense soundwaves (like insect buzzing, they don’t care about music), light of different colors, carnivorous plants can taste (and decide whether they really caught their prey and should start digesting), they sense when they are harmed (a sense that serves the same purpose as our pain), they smell other plants and they have a sense of time and rythm. They can react to signals from other plants. Whether they think and feel pain depends on your definition of thinking and feeling pain (and to what degree your definition is anthropomorphic).
Plant sensing is well established scientific fact, but that’s not all. Experiments show they can learn from experience and remember things. Their intelligence is mostly hormonal so their reaction times is about 1 or 2 orders of magnitude lower than animals. Information processing happens in their system of root apexes, so that’s their “brain”
As I’ve stated above, even if we found plants to be sentient, you’d be killing less sentient beings by eating them directly rather than feeding them to other animals and eating these animals. Just because lives must end for us to live does not mean you have to maximize the suffering caused.
I’m clearly making a judgement on which life is more important, because something non sentient literally cannot have a judgement on life and thus cannot miss its life or be wronged when its life is taken.
However, I do know that not all plants we eat die as a result of being eaten, for example, eating apples from an apple tree does not kill anything - I suppose I can see that this is like eating eggs from a chicken.
Another example could be eating the leaves of rocket lettuce (but choosing not to uproot it), or the stalks of celery or rhubarb is another example, in both cases the plant can return to complete health over time.
Then there are some plants, such as grasses that require the ends of their blades to be eaten in order to be healthy.
Are you sure about the grasses and do you have some particular species in mind? As far as I know, they tolerate grazing, but it’s preferable for them to not be parcially eaten. Apple, on the other hand, are so delicious because they’re meant to be eaten (to spread the seads with the poop). Rocket lettuce definitely prefers not being eaten. The flavour we find nice was meant to deter us from eating the leaves.
I would argue that it is quite disingenuous to equate eating a plant with eating an animal. This makes the waters intentionally muddy, allows excuses to be made for how many animals one consumes, and does not take into account anything past the killing of the animal such as industry impact on climate, etc. This also shows some genuine misunderstanding of plants. With fungi for example, only the “fruiting bodies” are typically eaten as mycelium is often throughout healthy soil, and consuming a single mushroom does not kill the entire organism. Slaughtering a genetically engineered chicken that can’t stand up anymore is not the same impact or “killing” as eating a mushroom.
Lastly, animals also eat vegetables, plants and grains. Are these deaths somehow not on your hands when you eat meat? Arguably this would involve even more death and killing even if we do abide by the above flawed definition.
There’s the part about making a decision that takes care of most of your concerns. There’s no lesser life. Life is valuable in itself, even if it’s just one cell. But you have to decide on which one you’ll take to survive. You can base your decision on environmental factors or total number of dead creatures or anything that makes sense to you.
Sentience is a spectrum. Grubs and worms are barely more sentient than some plants, if at all. I think the yoga instructor’s take handles this well, since each individual decides on their threshold and it’s a personal choice. I like that, because it encourages people to consider it, without forcing an agenda. I doubt many people who then think about where their own threshold really lies would go the wrong way, i.e. from vegan to steaks for lunch. Merely reflecting on the suffering you may cause is likely to have a positive effect. Anyone who tries to be ethical in their choices has had this talk with themselves or with someone else. It’s getting people to actually think that’s the struggle. As usual.
I hope you actually read @crapwittyname reply to you. As it encapsulates what a good approach to changing someone's mind on an issue actually is.
If you are trying to change someone's attitude to eating animals, your snarky response will simply provoke a defensive ego reaction on their part and allow the person you are talking to to dismiss you out of hand as a bit of an arsehole.
The world is not a TV show where a snarky gotcha reply means you win and the audience applauds.
Lemmy would be 1000x better if people understood this. Honestly I genuinely feel like reddit was less toxic on the whole because people on Lemmy tend to be elitist assholes. Including myself on occasion.
If you think about it, it makes sense - we were all the ones who left due to a sense of duty, an awareness of the problems at hand. We need more normies.
I agree. So many threads here feel like ideological purity threads. Say anything that is not 1000% in favour of Open source, veganism etc etc etc and you are crucified in the comments.
The responses I received to my original comment are a perfect example. All of them were upset that I had dared to equate eating plants, fungi and animals in any way. I did not 100% back veganism so therefore they must show how wrong the comment I made was.
Also, it might make some concepts from science more familiar because you read this in a book. It might be part of a technobabble, but I can imagine the reality of it being more approachable if you had some contact with it.
Up until Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, it was hands down the best modern Star Trek (like) show. It’s definitely a little clumsy early on, but after a few episodes it’s very clear that Seth is finally fulfilling his childhood dream of doing Star Trek even if it’s his own version of it. I thoroughly enjoyed it and hope season 4 happens.
I can’t believe how bad season 1 is. The only reason I didn’t stop watching was the emperor story line. Lee Pace killed it. Most of the actors are TERRIBLE. It was like watching wooden planks act. Instead of developing the story in any meaningful way, the directors chose to focus on disparate and dream-like sequences which appear to have little connection to each other.
This is science fiction of the worst kind. The source material is absolutely butchered. The dialogue is atrocious. The CGI is laughable. The accents are ridiculous. I don't know how I made it through the first season. What an absolute joke.
Huh. I actually rather liked it, and the ways in which it "butchered" the source material were IMO the best parts.
Foundation was a great novel in its day, but it has not aged well and a modern adaptation in another medium is inherently going to require a bunch of changes.
Touched on this sense of discomfort and alienation with work I have, from the kafkaesque nature and disconnect between the work they do and the result, to feeling like a different person entirely and putting on a mask to conform.
In a way, it made me want to change this about myself and let me be more me, despite all signs in my life until then pointing to that being a bad idea.
Props to the writers for making this not only an interesting and dramatic story, but also a bit subversive to corporate work environments.
This show being an Apple TV show is kind of spicy. Dissociating people mind from job and personal life is laterally something I wouldn’t be surprised Apple would do (if it was possible ofc).
It seems like it will only cover half of the first book Wool. I'm hoping for some kind of satisfying revelation, but there has to still be something left if there is a season 2.
Silo seemed kind of uneven and slow to me, but according to posters who read the books, the first book is a lot of exposition and character building, so I guess it follows the books. I just hope it pays off!
I think because of the coincidence between both Event Horizon and ships in 40k running into ‘chaos’ in the warp.
But as much as people keep making the parallel, it is just as likely that both drew their ideas from H.P. Lovecraft’s ideas of what lies beyond what we know as spacetime in our comfortable sphere.
sciencefiction
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.