deleted by creator

I understand suspension of disbelief, so you don’t need invite me to try it like you’re talking a kid about broccoli.

Haha, ok, I wasn’t trying to be patronising - my suggestion was that you try suspending you disbelief in situations where you otherwise might not. Clearly you know what it is, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Jumping ahead a bit to another relevant part of your comment…

Suspension of disbelief only has meaning for an audience that already has knowledge of the material

Where I am suggesting you might suspend your disbelief is exactly that - a situation where you have knowledge that the world you’re seeing is inaccurate. Anyway, I don’t mean to come across as condescending, sorry about that.

Casting directors do not cast “blind” except background crowds, and even then the overall look and feel is as important as paint scheme and set decoration.

Blind casting doesn’t mean you have to have no artistic vision. It just means you aren’t concerned with, for example, the gender or race of the actor. I saw a production of the Little Prince a while ago where the titular prince was played by a woman. Now, given the storyline (which was presented more or less true to the book) I think it’s clear that there was no philosophical motivation behind the casting… She was just small. I’m sure it was a conscious decision to cast someone small, but do you really think they specifically wanted a woman? I doubt it.

I’m talking about serious stories where everything seems to be meticulously recreated except the painful elements of society are being whitewashed for the sake of pleasing modern-day sensibilities

This specific situation I can understand. The reason I was inclined to argue with your original point, and why I jumped to Bridgerton as an example, is that I have usually seen these arguments presented in relation to things just like Bridgerton, where they really have no place… So, do you have an example?

I’d also ask, given your example, what your perspective is on modern Cowboy films still presenting the old west as predominantly white?

Sure, but the joke is skele-ton

I think he’s proposing a skele-ton which is 0.01 tons, (i.e. 10kg), not a skelegram which is 10,000g. A skele-gram in this case would be 0.01g.

Even more confusing when you hear that the odds of catching a disease have increased by a %. In many ways odds can be more intuitive, but we’re so used to working with simple probability that it’s a total nightmare to wrap your head around at first.

Actually they misspelled ‘ware’, they’re talking about who the nation’s biggest hero is afraid of.

Perhaps, or perhaps the casting team had other goals that aren’t so obvious. While it’s true there are purely capitalistic production firms, there are clearly things being made with artistic vision behind them, and sometimes that includes blind casting. Again, I suspect this is more prevalent in theatre, where audiences are more willing to accept, say, a woman playing King Lear, or black actors playing nobles in a historical setting. Because, on stage, you are already suspending lots of that disbelief - you’re not looking into a throne room, you’re looking at a stage - it’s easier to take it a step further.

But while less is asked of you when watching a historical drama on TV, you are nonetheless suspending your disbelief. You know really that cameras couldn’t have filmed this in the Victorian era, that’s not really Henry VIII, and Jesus wasn’t a white guy. The question is what makes it too jarring for you?

I noticed you’re quite focused on the production company’s intent behind the casting. Maybe it’s politically/philosophically motivated, maybe purely capitalist, or maybe artistic… But you can’t really know. And should it even matter to you as the viewer? I understand trying to unpick the artistic decisions behind a piece, but those of the production company? That doesn’t seem like something to bring into your viewing experience - just perhaps conversations like this one on the internet.

I’d invite you to try suspending your disbelief as you might when watching the Passion of the Christ, and see if you’re able to enjoy these films/shows despite the historical inaccuracies.

Jeeeesus fucking Christ. John Oliver is pretty funny but it almost doesn’t feel acceptable to be laughing during some of that. Anyway, glad I didn’t fall for it 😬

I got one which appeared at first to be a wrong number, just someone asking if I was Catherine or something. I politely informed them of their mistake. They kept messaging, already a bit weird, but then started saying I was “a nice man, nothing like other men” and I slapped that block button. Idk where it was going (not even a man lol, sorry love) but I’m confident it would have ended with asking me for money… Eventually.

One of these things is not like the others

deleted by creator

Nah man, people just love butt stuff. This is not really new, it’s just more visible than ever.

Specialized ML models yes, not LLMs to my knowledge, but happy to be proved wrong.

Ya my little bro is the same. He’ll announce some thing he’s learned and it collapses under the barest scrutiny… I only hope that the rest of us are able to teach him to apply that scrutiny himself. It’s pretty scary how kids just accept shit, if you take that into adulthood… Well, I think we see the results all around us in the world.

One of the all time greats, you will not be disappointed. Plus it’s cheap!!

Fair enough, I have seen the same arguments applied to it is why I used it as an example. I don’t know what shows you are thinking of, but are they misrepresenting things, or are they just using blind casting and asking you to suspend your disbelief? This is something we do without thinking when watching theatre, but it’s a bit more subtle when watching television or films because they go to lengths to make the environment feel more real.

The procedural generation is the issue for me. Everything feels the same, even though it’s random. The animals all do the same stuff, they’re just made of different parts… And the “stuff” that they do is basically just walk around. The planets are just lumpy noise. There are no forests, just evenly distributed trees and plants.

Well I agree there. I think we should be focusing on renewables, but like I said I think we also need nuclear unless we can solve the energy storage problem.

Thing is this has been said for longer than I’ve been alive, and will probably still be said after I’m dead

I’m not making this argument in the past, I’m making it now.

in the intervening 70-80 years we could have and could be actually building the damn things

Well, they are being built? It’s not like the world has abandoned nuclear power. We need the base load, there’s certainly an argument to use some nuclear, but the safety and waste issues mean it shouldn’t really ever be our only way to generate power, at least until some of those problems are solved. Modern reactors are much safer than they once were, but as I said before - the fossil fuel situation is immediate and pressing. I’m not sure I disagree with anyone who made this argument in the past - renewables are a faster way to convert away from fossil fuels. It’s more pressing now than ever, but it isn’t a new problem and it’s been urgent for a long time. Just because we failed to solve it before doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. What’s your reasoning to focus on nuclear rather than renewables today?

The energy problem we have isn’t beyond my lifetime, it’s now. There is a finite amount of investment available for new energy projects, and if we pour it into nuclear that means 10+ years of continuing with present usage of fossil fuels. Obviously I know noone is suggesting we do only nuclear, but the point remains that renewables projects can be completed sooner and cheaper. Even if we continue to use nuclear to support the base load and decide to develop some level of capability beyond what exists today, the majority of investment should go to renewables.