I have no issue with a long movie, but I’m of the opinion that any movie over two and a half hours needs an intermission. I don’t need a UTI for your art, directors/editors.
There was an intermission during Hateful 8 and it was glorious being able to get a restroom break and another beer without feeling guilty of getting up in the middle of the movie. So I definitely agree we need more of those.
This was the norm in Portugal when I visited in 2010 at least. In my childhood theater in rural Norway there was always an intermission as well, because they didn’t have dual projectors. Hot-swapping projectors was the only way to avoid one in the analog film days, as we all learned from Fight Club.
In Portugal, the only movie I saw where there wasn't an intermission was a very short movie, barely 50 minutes long. Anything longer than an hour has an intermission, or at least had before the pandemic.
Intermissions are standard in Icelandic cinemas, no matter the length of the movie. Since moving to Norway I always forget and my bladder is about to explode at the end of the movie. I don’t think an intermission is necessary for a 90 minute movie, but I think if it’s 2 hours or longer then an intermission should be required.
The comic is a bit long but is very spot on. I work as a developer and if there’s a girl with us (there’s none) that would be my first instinct to do. Overly helpful and all that. I don’t know why but that’s what I would do.
Watching those newborns suffocate to death on a table over the course of the day was something I’m never going to forget. If the IDF thinks they can move past this without a lot of scrutiny, I hope they’re dead wrong.
Israel is trying to pull a “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” sleight of hand here.
Even if it were a Hamas command center, that does not justify withholding food and medicine from the hospital.
Even if it were a Hamas command center, that does not justify conducting their brutal attacks on civilians elsewhere.
Even if it were a Hamas command center, that does not justify destroying the infrastructure that civilians require in order to survive.
They are going to make sure there is a command center there, because their entire narrative has become that if Hamas uses civilians as human shields (even if there is literally not enough space for civilians to go anywhere else anyways), then Israel is justified killing civilians.
That’s is false on its own, but more importantly, they are not only attempting to kill Hamas, they are also attempting to kill and displace large numbers of civilians, and we know this because their own government ministries and employees are putting together reports and doing news interviews about how they should displace Palestinians from Gaza.
They would not be making those reports and statements if they thought the government was against it; that would be career-ending. They feel comfortable making those reports and statements precisely because they know that their government is on board with that. They are getting people comfortable with hearing it, for when they actually do it.
I saw them taking a BBC journalist in and pointing out a “Hamas Stash”, it was like one gun, some shoes, and a pile of blankets. If that’s the stuff you think you’re fighting against then you’re ok, calm down, stop sniping medical staff.
I geuss the US response would be the usual we’re the big guys here, what you gonna do about it ? and fuck you.
They did it when the whole mass surveillance thing was unveiled so I don’t think some poor archeologists can do much about this, can they ? I even think that the US archeologists that were tasked to analyze the authenticity are more than likely forced to comply and lie or risk being fired
I think you’ve misunderstood the article. What happened was a district attorney in the united states caught someone smuggling antiquities into the country. So the district attorney who caught them had everything sent back to the country of origin, exactly what they should do with smuggled antiquities. It turned out the guy was trafficking in mostly forgeries of pieces that are in other known locations and were never brought to the united states. The experts the district attorney used thought they were authentic. What on earth do you think the new york DA did wrong here? I guess they could hire better experts. But if they have what they think to be authentic artifacts that were smuggled out of countries, they did the right thing and sent them back to the country of origin. They’re saying this is just embarrassing for the DA because they billed this guy as a smuggler in their court case, but actually he’s a forger. I don’t see any reason for anyone to be outraged though, except maybe at the forger.
It was a loaded headline meant to trick people into clicking. If you just read the headline you’d think the United States government was stealing artifacts, forging them, and sending the forgeries back or something. Which has like nothing in common with the actual story in the article. Always pretty easy in the comments to tell who actually read the article and who made up an imaginary article in their head based on the headline.
I know titles are fake as shit. I read the post summary and the autotldr summary both didn’t contain anything explaining about any of what you said. Both actually renforce the idea that the antiques where sent as knowingly as fake.
Those auto tldr summaries can be super random and misleading too regardless. The auto tldr summary doesn’t imply anything like this either. It’s just a section of the article with an expert making fun of whatever expert the DA hired who missed that it was a forgery and thought it was authentic. So it’s embarrassing because they told this country, he we recovered your priceless artifact and threw the guy in jail who smuggled it. And the country is like, oh well that’s nice but the artifact was never missing in the first place. If you want to comment on something at least read the article first, or you’ll just be spreading misleading clickbait headlines even more.
I reckon I made a mistake here. I usually read the article but since what feels like almost 1 of 3 of shared articles here are locked behind paywalls I don’t bother anymore.
I sympathize. I’ve been caught out a couple of times by depending on autotldr as a substitute for reading the actual article. My own casual comparisons between autotldr and source articles suggest that autotldr is probably about 80% faithful to its source, on average.
I don’t know if it’s real or in my own mind, but it also seems to me that autotldr is faithful to the article inversely proportional to the quality of its source material. That is, the better and more complete the article, the more likely it is that autotldr trashes it.
Now that I’ve written it down, it strikes me that that may be an insurmountable problem. If we think of good articles as being “high information” and garbage articles as “low information”, summarizing will always be more likely to cause important “damage” the higher the information content. Thus, hitting 95% on a good article might trash it, while hitting 60% on a trash article is just fine. This might be especially true if you consider that the best articles might already be as compact as is reasonable.
Not only are good and compact articles few and far between. The problem is that nowadays, a lot of the article you click on will have a paywall so reading them is impossible ( unless using barley functioning services that claim to remove it) After a while, you expect the article to be paywalled and either move on or comment based on the provided info.
That, too! I’ve taken to using any autotldr as a substitute for a “proper” title and author summary. If the autotldr looks like there might be based on something I find interesting, I’ll go read the article.
It only happened with me once in lemmy and it contained the same amount of info but in a wordier version. I usually read the autotldr bot summary and if it’s not there I check the article but even then there’s a 50/50 chance it’s locked.
I gave an exemple above of why it’s actually plausible for the US to do so. Heck, if you want a real reason why " USA is always bad" just look at the map of USA backed coup.
As of late Friday morning, her campaign with the New York-based nonprofit had raised nearly $140,000 of her $150,000 goal, amid a climate in which an estimated 100 million Americans are saddled with a total of about $195bn in medical debt.
The US does not offer a universal healthcare system for its citizens.
The medical companies already sold the debt to debt servicing companies. It’s the debt collectors who are profiting, or (more likely) taking less of a loss on bad debt.
Also, they didn’t pay USD$15 million. They paid $150,000 to buy $15 million of debt at a penny on the dollar.
The organization that does this acknowledges that it’s a stopgap in the face of the human rights nightmare that is the USA’s healthcare system. It’s palliative care or harm reduction but not a long-term solution.
theguardian.com
Oldest