I don't think that in itself is a change in viewing habits. There's been plenty of filler tv trash for the last half century, and I've used it in the way you describe even before netflix existed
True. I guess I wish their original programming didn't skew so heavily that direction. It wasn't as much of a problem for me when they still licensed a lot of non-original programming.
> I guess I wish their original programming didn't skew so heavily that direction.
no it really did.
"Shipping" is a classic trope where 2 characters have a will they won't they relationship for several seasons. It is always a good B story to fill otherwise empty space with when writers run out of material.
The name literally implies what it is, you are "shipping" a script. quality is slightly irreverent
I am pretty sure the term comes from "relationship" - I remember it being used in alt.tv.x-files about Mulder and Scully, though I don't know if that was its first use (their relationship was/is very much as you describe): certainly people who wanted the two to get together were known as "shippers".
I was once told soap opera is literally named for disposable shows that people at the laundromat would have on while waiting for their clothes to finish drying. That turns out to be a folk etymology, but it's believable.
As for original programming seemed dumbed down, I'd argue that for whatever reason (general technical advancements, maybe), it's far easier to make dumb shows, with higher production values. That's how you get wannabe prestige dramas that ape the style of The Sopranos, Mad Men, even costume epics like Game of Shows, but end up being far more vapid and worse in writing or plot. It's sort of how even box office stinkers these days look much better than bad movies used to do.
I don't mind over-the-top drama. Drama does not need to be dumb. One of my favorite series is Downton Abbey. The rule of that show seems to be that given a situation, always take the most dramatic route. This isn't bad though, the characters react realistically, they have depth, the show is wonderfully well acted. If you're not actively paying attention you will miss subtle facial expressions and looks that the characters show, giving more insight into what they are really thinking.
On the one hand, it's really annoying when your client library doesn't actually support asyncio compatible code (ex libraries which perform synchronous network or disk reads/writes), and you have to wrap everything in an executor.
On the other hand, making it explicit ensures I'm actually doing things async. "Leaf" functions with an async containing no await is now a red flag to me.
It's a mental tax to remember that I may actually be returning a future instead of the result of a future (similar to how you can return a function but not the result of that function being executed, or a non materialized generator), and having to call 'await x' instead of just assigning x kind of violates 'do what I mean'. In the end, async is (relatively) difficult, so I appreciate the enforced explicitness.
I mean, china has nukes, a larger and more experienced army and navy, and a geographical advantage. The largest mountain range in the world borders them on one side, Siberia and the steppe on the other, a huge ass desert in between, tropical rainforest and mountains to the south east.
The geographic isolation isn't as strong as the us', but it's much stronger than any other country in the region. Taiwan/japan/south korea off their border is the biggest issue
You can also just have tooling to find every reference of a function and then refactoring all at once, sending it out in a single pr, but that's a bit more advanced
In fact, my downward spiral was instigated by another person who was tripping with me. He told me we were severely dehydrated (no, we were just severely high) and needed water asap. This prompted frantically running to a residential area asking people for water, and the rest is hell.
They're not dictating what employees can do on their own time, only what they can use company resources for. You can always find a restaurant with good vegan/veg options, although its admittedly harder in europe.
So you fly away from your family to spend the night closing a deal for your employer and after a long day of meetings you sit down and have to order tofu because the latest Richard Hendricks of the hour started dating a vegan. Fuck this whole idea and fuck WeWork.
The purpose of expensing meals is to compensate employees for the greatly increased cost of eating that is imposed by travel taking them away from their normal food storage and preparation facilities. It shouldn't be regarded as using company resources to purchase food. It should be treated as a form of employee compensation.
Would you be so understanding of this rule if it was the other way around? If you were only able to expense meals including meat, and vegetarian options were carefully excluded at WeWork events?
I was a vegetarian for years and it fell apart when I spent 6 months as a music tour manager. When you are on the road you need to work with what's available. I support being vegetarian and even encouraging this among employees somehow, but maybe there's a way that's more considerate and practical.
What? No. This ignores subsidies, markup, shelf space, and that you probably shouldn't be going for the cheapest calorie per dollar anyway. Following your argument, we should all just eat pure sugar and butter.
I read your site, and it's all just FUD. You mention in passing how you'd need to grow agriculture to feed animals anyway, and then completely ignore that fact through the rest of your writing. You don't cite any actual environmental numbers, pull some out of your ass, and then hand wave your way through your position.
Look, calories per $ is a crude metric that I would not put forward as useful for food items which are within 2x of each other in terms of calories per $. But when you're talking about a 12x difference, I think you have to engage in serious denial to dismiss it.
> You mention in passing how you'd need to grow agriculture to feed animals anyway, and then completely ignore that fact through the rest of your writing.
I'm not sure what you think I should have addressed about this, but I have had people try to claim that meat cannot possibly be easier on the environment than plants, since animals consume plants and there is energy loss in that process, so I'll assume that's your objection. And the answer is that animals are fed plants which provide a lot of calories per $. If you were to base your diet on those plants (grains, essentially), then, yes, it would be better for the environment than eating meat. But I was specifically pointing out that there are classes of plants (leafy greens and berries) which are worse for the environment than some meat (chicken). There are also classes of meat (red meat; 50-400 calories per $) that are worse than certain classes of plants (potatoes, grains, and nut & vegetable oils; 800-3000 calories per $).
Plants, as a class, have a cost per calorie with a 60x range (from about 50 to 3000 calories per $). Animals are fed with plants at the higher end of that range. If you replace your meat consumption with plants at the lower end of that scale, it does not result in lower resource consumption.
