mitchdoogle

Deliberately ignoring experience and expertise because corruption is merely possible, is not the right way to go about making decisions.

Isn't this basically how rotten tomatoes works?

It seems to me like fans of LotR decided before it even came out that they didn't like it and have brigaded platforms with negative reviews. Maybe its not even a conscious effort. Lots of people dislike Amazon. And lots of the fans disliked the whole notion of turning this content into a show. I think that has colored the reaction to the show among the public while critics can usually take a more objective view

I tend to view the opposite. An individual is way easier to manipulate than an entire platform. Anybody who gets free products is immediately tainted. Project Farm says he pays for everything but all we have to trust that is his word. If you trust him, why don't you trust RT when they ban the company that paid for the reviews and say, "we take the integrity of our platform seriously"?

The more reviews that go into a rating, the more effort has to be made by bad actors to influence the score. And the higher the possibility that someone with integrity will reveal the scheme.

People like Rotten Tomatoes. It's a trusted source of information. If you know of widespread review manipulation then that IS news because it affects how people perceive the site and it's trustworthiness. In this particular case, RT's response is commensurate with what you'd expect of an organization that takes their reputation seriously. There's nothing here that indicates this is the normal state of affairs

I always look at critic score like quality of the film (acting, editing, etc), and audience score as entertainment value. I look for films that have 80+ in one and 70+ in both.

We have more prestige TV coming out now than ever before. And of course the streaming platforms include the prestige TV of yesteryear as well. The value at current prices is simply astounding.

I don't know what it is about these platforms but most people seem to have an odd take on their value - so much that most of the comments in threads like these are people complaining about "there isn't anything good anymore". But each platform has thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours of programming. So when someone complains about their choices, I have a sneaking suspicion that they just aren't looking and are basing their views on the heavily marketed major productions, which only account for a handful of shows or movies each year.

While others complain about cost, or having too many choices, I am quite pleased with the current offerings. I don't have every platform, but the ones I do are more than plenty. I'm worried that it's all gonna go back to a cable-like model in the future with platforms combining and charging $100+ for a super platform.

People just don't know how to enjoy it when something is good.

P.s. you can usually buy episodes of a show on Google or Amazon or elsewhere.. watch an episode at a time and only buy the next one if you like what you see. You'll quickly find that model is much more costly to the consumer.

What are you talking about? This whole thread is discussing how private enterprise is failing consumers. Meanwhile, countless examples exist of government-run entities and non-profits that are well-liked and less expensive for consumers.

I don't think a large-scale repair entity created by the government is the answer to this problem, but it's clear you have a bias towards business, and in the repair industry, business is the problem and we need a government solution. I don't understand why anyone ever has your attitude. Any organization can be run poorly and its leaders susceptible to corruption, whether that be a government one or a private entity. You have to understand the problem to offer solutions and in many cases, a profit motive simply does not provide the best outcome for consumers.

It's a chronic disease and there are many chronic diseases that are treated with permanent medication - diabetes, blood pressure, mental illness, HIV, to name a few. You can't will yourself to stop being obese any easier than you can will yourself to stop being depressed. We simply aren't consciously in control of our appetite or metabolism.

And it's worth remembering that obesity contributes to many other diseases and premature deaths. Treating it long term will prevent a lot of human misery and billions in healthcare costs down the road, even with the high price tag that it currently has.

I think the fact that millions of people want (and try) to lose weight, but fail, over and over again, is 100% proof that will power does not matter in the slightest. These drugs like Wegovy, Ozempic, etc are showing everyone that we don't consciously control our appetite. Our bodies and our brains will betray us and take control despite whatever our desires may be. Hopefully people start to view obesity with more compassion and less blame on the people who have the disease.

So if you want free labor, you just create harsh penalties for minor crimes.

Hopefully the future will bring autonomous vehicles and drunk driving will simply not be an issue anymore

Punishments are not an effective deterrent. That is, you could increase the punishment ten fold and people would still do it. What matters is if people think they will get caught. You put up driving check points every weekend around the nightlife areas and you will see a decline, because people will feel more certain they will be caught, even if the punishment is not as bad.

It's a good point.. furthermore, there have been studies that show texting or other distractions while driving are considerably worse, but you don't see many people arguing for someone to lose their license when they text while driving

Texting while driving (or other similar distractions) results in slower reaction times for drivers than even drunk drivers. Yet it doesn't carry the same stigma. I would even guess a big portion of the people who have absolute disdain for drunk driving are guilty of distracted driving from time to time.

I don't know what the answer to that is, since it's more difficult to catch and prove But at the least we should all call out our friends or family if we see them doing it, the same way we would if they were about to drive while drunk.

Distracted driving is just as bad (or worse) than drunk driving in terms of reaction time. Texting, social media, doing makeup, fiddling with stereo/maps. People routinely do these things and while they are doing them, they are putting themselves and other drivers at serious risk. And yet they don't carry anywhere near the same stigma as drunk driving. My point is, if you're going to be that draconian about drunk driving punishment, you'd better be consistent and adopt the same attitude towards people who text and do tiktoks while behind the wheel.

Personally I don't think either should result in losing a license, at least not for the first offense

It would be nice if anyone could just do that, but the leagues have exclusive agreements. That's why you don't see anything cool or interesting anymore in major sports video games, as the article mentions

You are confusing terms. "Collectible" doesn't imply that something will gain or hold value.

Why does anyone say this type of thing? Someone with different interests from you isn't simulating anything. They are just being a person with interests. Honestly I disdain those who speak about such interests condescendingly much more than I would anyone who chooses to spend their money on a hobby.

Rubin is good at schmoozing with big name athletes and power players in the sports world. If you can do that long enough to get some exclusivity agreements, then you're golden because no one else can make the "official" merchandise of NBA or whatever

What does a 20 year old alcoholic do? What does a 20 year old gambling addict do? It's wild that people even think of prison as an acceptable answer when there are so many analogs of things that people can abuse or get addicted to, things which we don't criminalize

It has proven untenable to treat this with law enforcement. It's too susceptible to bias, and creates a large class of people labeled as "criminals" the rest of their lives. It demonstrates an incredible lack of imagination that a large percentage of Americans can't see any way to handle this other than making things illegal, especially when we have a clear analog with alcohol.

If most people can handle having alcohol readily available, then those same people should be able to have other drugs readily available.

Interesting. I feel the exact opposite about shame. It's far too prevalent and people make too many choices based on what they think others will perceive

If you are specifically looking for a result of 3 coin flips, then it's 1 in 8 chance of getting 3 of the same. The gambler's fallacy is seeing 2 coin flips come up heads and thinking there's only a 1 in 8 chance that the last one will come up heads.

The problem with merit is that it's impossible to determine because the circumstances of people around the world are so vastly different. If you have, say, 1500 spots for a new class, it's going to be impossible to select the best 1500 students. Some elite universities you may even have more than 1500 valedictorians. So what to do? I say you just set a qualifying point to be considered and publicize it (as standardized as you can get, i.e SAT score or similar) and then put every qualifier in a hat and select at random until you fill your spots. Nothing else should matter.

Of course this assumes that merit is actually the only thing universities care about, and I'd say that it's not.

This is why contracts exist

This is why you need context when discussing things. Imagine discussing the politics of the penal system and someone butts in, "imprisoning people is bad by definition"... Ok man

Yes , they are so paralyzed by choice they choose not to read any at all.

I don't understand the likeness thing. We can reliably generate faces of all kinds. Why pay anyone for it when it can just be generated? Are they worried the generated one will look like a real person and open them to liability?

Calling something a conspiracy theory is not an insult against anybody. It's a theory because it's unproven and it's a conspiracy because people think OpenAI purposely degraded their own service, hence conspiracy theory.