Nope. Honestly, I stopped tinkering with that stuff altogether ages ago. It's a candybar that gives me text messages and takes photos, I don't need to make it my own.
See, for me it's often the other way around. Wtih the usual suspects we're often just in each other's ears for a while and moving around to get a coffee or even just pacing up and down to stretch our legs. It's the outside-facing stuff that requires the face time.
That depends on your business, I suppose. Either way the audio only stuff is definitely the better choice IMO.
I have to use cameras just out of politeness and I also do a bunch of audio only calls and frankly the video calls are much more stressful and often less productive.
It definitely sounds that our system was a bit more standardized than that, which checks out and is both a strenght and a weakness depending on how you look at it.
One year, typically. Some could be two or have a big chunk of on-the-job training/internship.
We used to have a more prominent 3 year degree, but it went semi-extinct in favor of other intermediate education, leaving our Bachelor's equivalent being 4-5 years, depending on which degree you're going for. And yeah, I think now they made them all 4 year and have more of a master's offering.
The thing is that internationally those 4-5 year degrees are still the thing immediately under a masters' degree, so there is a bit of a mismatch there. That goes some ways towards clarifying that, thanks.
Well, not really over here. You do have to do a bunch of hands-on stuff for credits. Can't even replace those with more standard subjects.
You can absolutely wing it past all five years, depending on your degree, but between mandatory projects and internships you have to try really hard to not get some level of expertise in the field.
Plus, university curriculums have specializations here, so you get mandatory courses on pretty narrow subjects whether you like it or not. So... I guess there are some differences, maybe? I was pissed when they announced they'd do that masters' thing here because the price of tuition for that year goes from being a couple hundred to a few thousand for basically the same curriculum, but this is definitely not the first time I notice that the anglosphere assumes there's a huge difference between the two things.
And you know what? It makes sense. A big part of making a moment of a media launch is to get like-minded people talking about it. It's harder now that media is largely on-demand, so it's great to have a place to go for the discussion afterwards.
Which is why staggered, inconsistent launches make no damn sense in the 21st century. When pirates can deliver a way to join that hype moment and you can't, for the content you're creating on the service your followers are already paying for you have entirely missed the point.
But yeah, people will pay for convenience. Nobody wants to dig around for pirated links if a simpler option is available.
But yeah, I hear you on international licensing. I try to keep up with Star Trek content and man, I don't know how you can bungle up a licensig deal that much.
The latest bit of genius includes Amazon Prime listing three seasons of Lower Decks, but the third season consisting on a page that tells you they don't have that season available, despite having had it before.
There is a fourth season. It's not available anywhere.
I gave up and pirated it, knowing it will eventually show up in a service I do own. It was all getting spoiled for me in social media anyway.
I like that you like DS9. Good for you. It's there for you and that's fine.
But it's a weird show that is a fundamental contestation to what makes Star Trek appealing and pretends it isn't.
It's fine. All of Trek is fine. But if you ask me if I'd rather watch Discovery, I'd watch Discovery any day. Which, again, is fine, because both of those exist and are at the very least decent.
I'm not sure how much "teen humor" there is in modern Trek, though. I mean, there's Lower Decks, but that's the point of Lower Decks and I kinda warmed up to it over time. Ditto for Prodigy.
If anything Picard was overly self-serious, and one could argue the same of Discovery, at least during the first season. I kinda see it in SNW, and I do think Season 2 tries to do too much too soon, but whatever, that show has a specific niche and that's where it lives.
Man, can I just stop to say that I just rattled off five different Star Trek shows, all of them different and all of them at least decent? What a time to be into this particular series.
Here's a controversial thought: The worst Trek is at the absolute worst kinda decent, and it only goes up from there.
My Trek power rankings don't line up with most (Discovery is pretty great, DS9 is kind of annoying, all the Kelvin Treks are fun and the first one is pretty great), but even the parts I don't like I can watch and be chill about it.
Picard is bordering that line, honestly, but I can't be actively mad at Patrick Stewart and I actually would have watched a cheaper, longer show about the La Sirena crew without the TNG baggage.
Being old enough to have Voyager and especially DS9 be my "nuTrek" and also never having let it go I can feel your nerdrage as a warm, fuzzy winter fire.
Can I interest you in how DS9's focus on greed, war and moral compromise is a betrayal of the concepts behind Star Trek and if they wanted to make Babylon 5 they should have just made Babylon 5?