The concept of rewatching a movie is almost foreign to me now given that I have access to a library of tens of thousands of movies. It would have to be very good and something that whoever I’m with hasn’t seen.
Of course I used to watch the same movie about every month or so back when I was growing up in the 90s.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind - it’s just so nicely structured, you always notice something new
Glengarry Glen Ross - I finished watching it for the first time and I thought go myself “fuck, I could watch it again” and I did, watch the whole movie again straight away. I can still just go back and watch it. The acting is so amazing it never gets boring
Veep - best show ever, I’ve seen every episode probably over 10 times and I still watch it all the time, like when I’m cooking or something. It’s just soooo fucking perfect
I actually listen to Futurama to help me sleep. I’ve added some other shows I know just as well. They are in that genre of extraordinary media that I can watch/listen to/etc. over and over again.
It might, but it definitely hasn’t. I work in some fresh blood on the weekends, when I feel up to taking a chance. Actually, I’ve got a date to go see Dream Scenario (Nic Cage 🥰) just this week.
I have a daughter I enjoy showing movies I’ve already watched to. So I’ve been doing mostly rewatching, but with someone who has never seen, for example, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off before.
The best was her reaction to Repo Man. We got to the end and she said, “all of that for a flying car?”
This is so sweet. Getting to show cool stuff you like to your kids must be one of the best things about being a parent. If I ever end up becoming one I’ll show my kids all the great Pixar movies and also the Emperor’s New Groove cause that one is a classic.
It really is, although you have to tailor it to their tastes, which means not showing them some movies you want to. She has absolutely no interest in seeing Star Wars or Indiana Jones movies, for example. But she loves cult movies, so I’m enjoying showing her those.
I have trash taste, so I actually just continue to rewatch the same dumb shit I liked in the 90s so I don’t have to make a decision. I actually paid real money to buy Not Another Teen Movie a few years back because I rewatch it about once a year. I think we have too many options and they’re all on different services so it’s like fuck it, Men In Black for the 85th time.
I used to watch the same movie about every month or so back when I was growing up
I don’t think this is a technical limitation, I think young children really like repetition because their brains are still learning how to predict things
Just read an interview with the young actors from ‘Stranger Things.’ They said that one of the craziest 1980s thing they did was get on bikes and just ride around town, unsupervised. One said he looks around now, and never sees kids just riding bikes.
True, I rode all over the place when I was a kid. We let my daughter ride everywhere she wanted within our (very large) subdivision, but it’s semi-rural and the entrances are both country roads that cars hurtle down, so we didn’t feel safe letting her down those. When I was a kid, I lived in town, so it was different. Maybe kids in town aren’t like that anymore though.
When I was a kid in the 90s, we biked all over. Loved going 5 miles down the highway to the surplus store. It wasn’t a busy highway though and had a big shoulder.
The problem is that there isnt really anywhere for kids to hangout any more. Playgrounds are for small kids, but even just biking to the library is completely out of the question for most middle schoolers/early teens who dont have a car. There’s no malls, few small public parks, no arcades, small local dinners/ice cream joints, or any other "third places"that aren’t just school or home. We, as a society, have spent the past 40 years destroying the concept of a public space and are now shocked that we dont see kids hanging out in non-existent spaces.
They can hang out anywhere they want actually. We didn’t have any kid hangout places back in the 90s and we biked and skateboarded all over town. We hung out with friends in parking lots and stores, wherever we wanted to basically.
The problem is the frame of mind that they need a structured environment to do their activities when they don’t.
For real. Cemetery. Storm water culvert. That’s about it, outside of someone’s back yard, the cemetery and the storm water culvert. And I grew up in a fairly urban place. Not a city, but certainly not back country. Hop on bike, find somewhere without adults.
Yeah, it sucks for my daughter. There’s almost nowhere to go. And worse, there’s almost nowhere to go that doesn’t cost money and we’re down to a single income. There was so much to do when I was a teenager growing up. There was a small park downtown where all the punk, goth and alternative teens hung out. I must have spent half my teenage years in that park.
My daughter is in online school now. I don’t even know where she should go to make friends.
Dude, this is the thing that depresses the hell out of me. When I was kid there were skating rinks, arcades, malls, etc. Granted, those things cost money as well, but most of us could make a $5 last all day.
I posted because I have seen it go from expecting a bike rider to be a kid to expecting them to be an older adult. But I guess it’s different depending on where you live.
It definitely is. Kids bike down my street every day, though much more on weekends, I think because most schools near me don’t allow walking or biking to/fro anymore. Some kids getting run down on rural roads because they’ve been paved and turned into highways made it too unsafe for many kids to walk or bike to school, and it was too big a headache to have selective rules.
I’m in a suburban area between rural and city where kids don’t have to worry about high speed traffic or much violent crime, so kids are still free-range here. They videogame, too, of course.
I see kids doing that in my neighborhood all the time. There’s some that go with poles down to fish in a nearby creek. It all depends on where you live.
Hell I was born in the mid to late 00s and i grew up in the 2010s, but I still did this, we did have dialup internet (i lived and still live in the middle of nowhere, but now we get satellite internet) and I distinctly remember the time we went with my sis and some friends and a fucking massive storm appeared, I thought we were gonna die lol, I think I was like 10 or 11 at that time
Yes I am an European, specifically one of the eastern kind
I’ve noticed with my kids I have to know where they are basically at all times. Leave school, go to friends house, I get notified. On weekends if they go from one house to the other, I need to know.
When I was a kid, I would get up and on my bike around 7-8am, would not be back until dark at least, and just go… anywhere? Ride 10 miles across the whole town, through construction, to the creek or up the big ass hill a little outside of town? Sure. And the wild thing about this is that it was completely normal.
When I was a kid, I would get up and on my bike around 7-8am, would not be back until dark at least, and just go… anywhere? Ride 10 miles across the whole town, through construction, to the creek or up the big ass hill a little outside of town? Sure. And the wild thing about this is that it was completely normal.
That sounds awesome, bicycles give you superpowers in landscapes that aren’t violently hostile to anything that isn’t cars. I grew up on the side of a highway, I could only bike up and down my driveway basically.
Now I take so much pleasure in just shooting over to the grocery store on my bike. Every single time I do it I am thankful because of how much that capacity was utterly denied by where I grew up.
Must have been a wonderful chaos to tool around on a bicycle as a kid like an idiot going wherever you wanted. Every single god damn thing I ever did had to be mediated through a car and thus an adult directly facilitating a specific activity I wanted to go do. There was zero capacity to spontaneously just go and roam.
oh, absolutely. I’ve never really lived in a proper city (bigger towns, maybe) so it’s still possible now, but the culture has def moved on. I mean, I see the occasional kids on bikes, but when I was a kid (80’s - 90’s) pretty much every kid had a bike and this was just the default.
Actually the area I lived was pretty rural, that was precisely the problem. Roads were high speed, car exclusive roads with no sidewalk and if there was one people would look at you like you were a criminal for not being in a car so it felt wrong to use them anyways.
It didn’t matter if there was awesome woods to roam around in 5 minutes down the road, walking/bicycling there not only felt like doing something wrong based on the behavior of 100% of the adults around me, it also was extraordinarily dangerous and just not worth the discomfort of feeling like I was going to die any second from a 4000 pound metal box slamming into me at 45mph (and running me over because the hood is 5 feet off the ground for no reason other than it looks cool or something).
The lack of traffic on rural roads just made this problem worse because instead of a line of cars all seeing the cars in front of them move out of the way of something on the side of the road, or the general presence of traffic keeping people driving from absolutely as fast as they could possibly go, you would just have a car whip around the corner every once in awhile going near highway speeds on a windy back road in a way that left them zero chance to swerve out of the way and not hit you if they weren’t paying attention. I also remember literally being yelled at and taunted by (usually pickup truck) drivers the few times I did ride a bicycle on a road because that seemed to make them angry.
There was plenty of space around you, iffff you had a car. If you didn’t, you might as well have been stranded on a space station.
I’m squarely gen-z and I did that all the time in the 2000s and 2010s. I was also lucky enough to grow up in a less car dependent city with good cycling infrastructure which helped a lot. Seeing how the incidence of pedestrian and cyclist deaths due to car collisions has steadily risen over these past decades (accounting for more deaths than from both drugs and thugs combined mind you), I’d also argue that kids don’t do that anymore because it’s now a lot less safe to exist outside if you’re not in a car. Not every problem can be blamed on that damn phone.
Not an expert, but it sounds like a vicious cycle. More car vs. bike accidents means fewer bikes on the road means drivers don’t look out for bikes which causes more accidents.
And no, I’m not telling you to go out and ride until you get hit to raise awareness.
I’m an engineer. I’m on my phone looking at memes until someone asks me a question, then I do a thing in 5 minutes that they expected to take 5 days because people don’t understand computers, then I go back to the memes.
I have been downvoted to hell for what I’m about to say, but I’m going to say it again anyway.
IT support people are now called engineers. No, I don’t like it. No it’s not proper “engineering”. Yes, language evolves and there’s nothing we can do about it. If that’s a problem for people, I recommend screaming into the void. It doesn’t help, but you feel better after a while.
That’s kind of my point. No one at subway is calling themselves artists, it’s insulting and they don’t like it. You answered your own question, the answer is: they don’t.
In instances where they use their given title it’s probably for convenience. I’m an EMT, when I was doing interfacility runs for a private ambulance company (aka not doing the expected work of an EMT) I didn’t call myself an ambulance driver or professional insurance fraud fall guy, I called myself an EMT because it was easier to use in day to day conversation. If someone wanted to talk about it I would explain the nuances but I’m not gonna do that every time someone asks me what I do for work in polite conversation
And my point is that support and service desk IT people DO call themselves engineers. The guy above us did so. So if it were insulting, they sure they wouldn’t identify that way.
IMO no engineering degree, no engineer. There’s some exceptions for incredible self taught folks but they’re drowned out by so many others that just use the title without the skill
I think most engineers have an understanding amongst each other, regardless of their specialty, we can all teach ourselves to problem solve. So many math and physics classes as an EE just to get to my core classes. It definitely a certain type of person to get through the thick of it.
Major engineering organizations, like the IEEE or the ASME, often require degrees, but do have exceptions built into the rules for on the job experience. So this does happen, and regularly enough that there’s consideration for it.
You can arbitrarily gatekeep the title all you want, but the reality is that engineering is a group of concepts and ideologies that can be applied to many disciplines in many ways.
Just because the person doing the engineering doesn’t meet your personal standards doesn’t mean engineering isn’t being accomplished.
All that being said. A professional engineer is an actual controlled title. (You can’t sign documents as a PE without getting the license, just like an attorney (JD) or doctor (MD)) but far and away most engineers, do not have this title, because most engineering jobs and tasks don’t require it.
Finally, (in most states) you can work with no degree under a PE for four years, pass the FE and PE, get your title and build a bridge. So as far as the most stringent title goes, it still doesn’t actually require a degree.
I know plently of helpdesk guys that do engineering, if engineering is “identify an issue, find and implement a fix.” Its varying degrees of rudimentary, but the same could be said about anyone in conputer science.
The truth is no one in computer science, programmers, SREs or otherwise, are licensed engineers. Why does a programmer have more of a claim to an unearned title than anyone else in the field?
It’s exactly this. No one complains when IT infrastructure engineers design and build systems and call themselves engineers, even though they don’t have a PE certification. So if they can do it, why not support staff?
Programming grew up in an environment where failure is cheap (relatively speaking). You might make a mistake that costs five, six, or even seven figures (I’m sure I’ve made at least one seven figure mistake), but nobody will die from it. When people could die, such as flight control software, different development techniques for formal methods are used. Those tend to cost at least ten times more than other methods, so they aren’t used much otherwise.
If anything, we should lean into this as an advantage. Iterate even faster, catch failures faster, and fix it faster.
I mean, that is fine and all about the historical reasons we dont have engineer titles, but the OP comment was gatekeeping one part of IT from another like there was an actual legal distinction between a dev, someone in infrastructure or someone in support.
You want a slug-related traumatizing story ? I had a cat with very long hairs, there was a cat door to the garden outside but usually he slept inside. One morning i wake up and feel the cat close to me in the bed, something very common. I start to pet him on the dark being half awake only. After some time i feel something wet in his belly fur, but as I’m half sleepy I don’t react and keep petting him. Only after what was probably a long time, I realized that something is wrong, turn on the light and see a slug curled/trapped inside his fur, I was touching it with my hand for several minutes!
I have MS, and one of my minor symptoms is I sometimes get a feeling on the bottom of my foot being wet (temp change basically), giving me a wet sock feel. Fuck that symptom.
I’m right there with you. I spent 10 years working in the boreal and in peatlands. I have an indescribable hatred for wet feet. Nothing like getting a booter, and having to deal with that all day.
Sometimes you forget your spare socks, or a plastic bag which is more important
Yeah this convo is either saying they’re going to a bar which can be fun. Or they’re 18-22 and drinking is as much about buying the alcohol as it is imbibing it.
I have two small friend groups of four and in both is someone who often works weekend, so that’s always fun trying to plan something, let alone if I want to have both groups somewhere. It was honestly a miracle I could get all 6 of them in one place at the same time somewhat close to my birthday.
Plan the activity with a smaller group than you would want initially. Then invite others to an already organized event and rely on fomo to get people to go. Works great.
The way myself and my party does it is we play every other week on Saturday from 6pm to 10pm. This way everyone knows the schedule and can plan around it. If people can’t clear their schedule to play then we replace them. It’s harsh but it’s the only way I found to play D&D consistently.
And I myself have excused myself from a game because my life schedule changed and couldn’t keep the commitment I had previously and it would be too much work for the rest of the party to change their schedules.
Harsh but fair. It ensures that everyone can work their schedule out in advance, while also presenting clear expectations for participating in a voluntary hobby. Is there a consecutive number of missing sessions before being replaced? If not, how does the DM work it out in the campaign?
I only run west marches style games now. The pcs need to be back in town by end of session or miss out on carousing or possibly worse depending on where they are. Each game is self contained so people can drop or join as they want.
You have to be harsh, otherwise nobody gets to play. When we started our new group we made sure to inform everyone that playing DnD is not to be treated as a secondary hobby that can just be canceled for other stuff all the time. Make it your priority, plan other things around the sessions if you want to play with that group. Of course, any emergencies excluded but otherwise treat it as if it is your sport club training. If you miss too many sessions, you’re out.
I know this sounds super arrogant and mean, but it’s the only thing that works consistently. Also filters out friends who are not ready or able to commit that much time for playing.
it’s just big corporations fighting amongst themselves for available manpower and manlives. But still much better as the alternative, which is politicians fighting amongst themselves for manpower etc
Wait he was handed live gun, which was supposed to fire blanks and yet it’s him getting charged and not the propmaster. what the fuck? what am I missing?
From my own standpoint I can understand how a certain amount of responsibility lies on him too. If I were handed something that looks like a gun or a knife, I would probably check to make sure it isn’t a real gun myself.
Especially in the US, where tragic accidental gun-related deaths and injuries happen every day.
If you hired a professional armorer to handle guns safely and then have had assistant producer check it and confirm the gun is safe then I imagine you would have assumed it actually is.
According to a Wikipedia article on the incident it was the armorer that had previous experience with accidental discharges of firearms and I guess it’s the mere point of their presence during filming to make sure all guns are handled safely. Their job was to hand a safe gun to the actor, they didn’t do it and a person died. I don’t fucking see one reason to charge the actor, regardless of whether they happen to be a producer or not, and not charge the person actually responsible for the accident.
I think it would be fair to charge him with reckless endangerment if he was involved with her hiring and there were clear red flags, but producers have extremely varied roles and I don’t know what his personal involvement was.
I agree the set was a mess and whoever was in charge of that side should definitely be charged for endangerment. I don’t know if the most responsible person was Baldwin though, because there were a lot of producers involved and being labeled a producer doesn’t mean you actually do anything. It’s possible that he had more involvement, but I don’t want to make that assumption based on the title of producer alone.
I do think he should have used his influence to do more to make the set safe, no matter what his responsibilities were, and that he was irresponsible in that regard no matter what, but not doing enough isn’t necessarily criminal if he wasn’t the directly responsible individual.
I meant red flags before she was hired, but she should have been fired immediately after these things happened, I agree.
I love me some Legal Eagle, but this video is 2 years old and at the beginning he says they don’t have the full facts yet and everything is speculative since they don’t know what happened. I’m wondering if there’s anything more recent with more info about what actually happened.
He says that Baldwin is unlikely charged for firing the gun but more likely for being a producer who failed to ensure that the set is safe.
The thing is that he right now is being charged for firing the gun not for falling as a producer, that’s why it seems pretty weird like they are really trying to sack him for some reason.
You absolutely can if you have every reason to believe it’s not firing a live round, like say, on a film set, where all weapons are supposed to be cleared with armorers/prop masters.
The scene involved Baldwin’s character removing a gun from its holster and pointing it toward the camera. The trio behind the monitor were two feet (0.6 m) from the muzzle of the firearm and none of them were wearing protective gear such as noise-canceling headphones or safety goggles.
The trio behind the monitor began repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, and Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm. He said, “So, I guess I’m gonna take this out, pull it, and go, ‘Bang!’” When he removed it from the holster, the revolver discharged a single time.
Halls was quoted by his attorney Lisa Torraco as saying that Baldwin did not pull the trigger, and that Baldwin’s finger was never within the trigger guard during the incident.
This would be David Halls, the assistant director.
Then they aren’t headphones, they are earmuffs with noise cancellation. The insulation in the earmuffs is doing the real work. Noise cancellation by itself isn’t going to protect your ears much at all, if anything.
On a film set I would expect anyone in ear protection like that to use the kind with either external sound amplification (mic on the outside, speaker on the inside, so they are headphones) and/or with wireless audio transmission (bluetooth/etc, speaker on the inside, so still headphones)
Ok but you have an expert saying “this gun will fire blanks when you pull the trigger, I loaded them, nobody else can touch the gun except me and you under my supervision. When the camera starts rolling in a bit you’re going to point it at that person and fire the blanks in accordance with the script. After the scene ends you hand the gun back to me because nobody else is allowed to touch it”
That’s how movies involving firearms work. If he was following industry and legal standards then he shouldn’t be held responsible as the actor. Maybe the standards need to be changed. Maybe he needs to be held accountable as the producer who hired the armorer. But there needs to be a mens rea for it to be a crime and it needs to be a criminal negligence that we would hold others accountable for if they engage in it without tragedy.
Ok but you have an expert saying “this gun will fire blanks when you pull the trigger, I loaded them, nobody else can touch the gun except me and you under my supervision. When the camera starts rolling in a bit you’re going to point it at that person and fire the blanks in accordance with the script. After the scene ends you hand the gun back to me because nobody else is allowed to touch it”
And not only that, but also producer (David Halls), whose job was to double check the armorer’s preparation of the gun, confirms it is safe. I think people claiming this was in any way Baldwin’s fault are taking a piss
I think they’re people who understand basic firearm safety but don’t understand extenuating circumstances or the fact that movies tend to use real firearms shooting specialized ammunition.
And the fact is that if you hang out in weird places you’ll meet people who think they know what they’re doing with a gun and really need to be following the first rule of firearm safety (don’t point it at shit you don’t want to destroy). People like the sort who bring unloaded guns into the bedroom or who point them at friends as a joke. You know, morons (and I say this as someone who does do dangerous shit for fun). But there’s a difference between touching an electric wire because you shut off the circuit yourself and touching one because a master electrician assured you it’s safe.
George Clooney has said that on the sets he’s been on, both the prop master and the actor check the gun. If a scene requires someone to shoot towards the camera, a transparent barrier is placed in front of the camera, even when it’s blanks being used. You don’t rehearse a scene with a gun that’s capable of firing, you use a dummy gun for that. A real firearm isn’t handed to an actor until just before the camera starts rolling, not while they’re just setting things up.
These are sensible precautions to take, they just weren’t happening on Alec Baldwin’s set. The reasons for these precautions is that the “master armorer” can screw up. People complained about lax gun safety before the incident, the complaints were ignored.
Exactly. Safety comes in layers and therefore assistant producer David Halls was supposed to double check the gun after the armorer prepared it. He failed at it, the armorer failed at their job and it’s theirs and only theirs fault.
Yeah I don’t think anyone reasonable thinks Baldwin purposefully shot that person, it was a tragic accident that was preventable at a lot of levels and while I don’t think he would be culpable were he not producing the film and merely acting in it, the fact is he is because he was
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.