|
Nijinsky Hind posted:You should never coddle your kids, whether that means preventing them from doing things other kids are doing/being exposed to certain adult material at a reasonable age (like past 14) or preventing them from experiencing a consequence for their actions. That doesn't do the kid any favors. not that I don't agree with you, but do you have kids? It's a lot harder to parent well than you think, even when you have good intentions.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
Reviews for Disney movies don't matter. Some of the media made a big deal recently how Disney banned the Los Angeles Times from their movie screenings, but it's not like the LA Times could literally do anything to change if people go see the latest Avengers or not. Who cares if they have to wait to see it until opening day like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
starkebn posted:not that I don't agree with you, but do you have kids? I don't. And yeah, I thought of that after I made this post, while I was reading an article about what kids are being exposed to on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Nijinsky Hind posted:I don't. And yeah, I thought of that after I made this post, while I was reading an article about what kids are being exposed to on the internet. Imo the internet is probably super toxic for kids (and adults!) in a lot of ways though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Imo the internet is probably super toxic for kids (and adults!) in a lot of ways though. The article was about how youtube's algorithms play a part in determining how content for kids is produced on thousands of channels, which presumably use automation for huge parts of it & try to cram in as many keywords or youtube kids' video tropes as possible (as well as copyrighted content like characters), and that the result of the combination of YT's algorithms and the use of automation to generate popular content for ad revenue means that a lot of these videos are unintentionally disturbing or traumatizing for kids. And of course there are a lot of trolls interacting with the algorithms as well posting parody content that ends up in sidebars & whatnot. Pretty weird stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
The Disaster Artist is a film about someone with no self-awareness or talent who thinks they're an interesting and deep artist directing a film. It's also directed by someone with no self-awareness or talent who thinks they're an interesting and deep artist directing a film
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:The Disaster Artist is a film about someone with no self-awareness or talent who thinks they're an interesting and deep artist directing a film. It's also directed by someone with no self-awareness or talent who thinks they're an interesting and deep artist directing a film Zach Snyder was actually working on the Justice League movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
There's a part in the book where he asks Tommy Wiseau why they keep throwing a football around and he just says "that's what friends do right?" And it made me understand him more than anything else he's done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:The Disaster Artist is a film about someone with no self-awareness or talent who thinks they're an interesting and deep artist directing a film. It's also directed by someone with no self-awareness or talent who thinks they're an interesting and deep artist directing a film I feel like it's more a PHUO on the forums than for the general public but imo James Franco is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
I think he's extremely handsome and funny and he makes good facial expressions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
James Franco and Seth Rogen are both good and funny
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
James Franco is a modern day Renaissance Man. The man has basically no flaws and excels at everything. We should all strive to be more like James Franco.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
That romantic comedy movie with bryan cranston he did was pretty awful though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
pineapple express is a solid fuckin movie I SEENT IT
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:pineapple express is a solid fuckin movie Most Apatow-verse movies are good. I laughed harder at This Is the End than anything else to come out in like a decade. Funny People is also good, but does drag too long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Heeeey, to get back on topic (never even heard of whatever indy movies you're waffling on about), I support nuclear power. Less deaths per kilowatt hour by two entire orders of magnitude above solar. And solar is way ahead of coal. Even the worst meltdown in history has nothing on coal power's toll for a mere year. Even solar and wind come up short (lol, accidents). And nuclear is so unpopular! For fucks sake! Even smart people where I live are all anti-nuclear! ESPECIALLY the smart people! Melbourne is kinda loving stupid for this sort of thing. My city prefers to live a high life of culture and art and free-trade coffee, while the electricity to power it all is from brown coal from a few hundred kilometres east. Where the mines are and where the power stations are and where the smog and pollution is most concentrated, and where people are lucky to live to their 60s, and childhood asthma is rife. So, pro-nuclear power. My unpopular opinion. IronClaymore has a new favorite as of 18:17 on Nov 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Melbourne being what it is, the easiest way to get majority support for nuclear power is to claim that the plant uses gluten-free, bisexual and ironic uranium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:pineapple express is a solid fuckin movie The fight scene in Pineapple Express made me laugh far harder than any half-assed stoner comedy should be able to. Danny McBride is a treasure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
maybe there's been less nuclear accidents because so many people are opposed to having nuclear plants built?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
starkebn posted:maybe there's been less nuclear accidents because so many people are opposed to having nuclear plants built? The stats were for deaths per kilowatt hour. But the reason the numbers are so low is because nuclear power doesn't kill people. It makes them commit suicide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:Heeeey, to get back on topic (never even heard of whatever indy movies you're waffling on about), I support nuclear power. Less deaths per kilowatt hour by two entire orders of magnitude above solar. And solar is way ahead of coal. High five atomic buddy. Agree with every thing you said, and you even left out the most important thing: global warming. The only practical way to dramatically reduce C02 emissions fast is by replacing coal with nuclear. What does an idiot country like Germany do? Replace nuclear with coal because "the environment". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
I often feel like most people got all their opinions on nuclear power from watching The Simpsons. I also firmly believe that investing in nuclear power and research is the only way we will be able to power future technologies and that the time to begin this research is now. Modern thorium plants are the safest and most environmentally safe option we have for mass power generation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
More nuclear seems unnecessary with how quickly solar energy is improving. We have a limitless source of energy hanging out in the sky every day. It's a no-brainer, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Solar is still really lovely and inefficient. It's getting better but it's nowhere near as good as nuclear is right now. The only problem with nuclear is its reputation, its easily the best energy option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
True, but solar has been improving rapidly, and last I heard it takes 10 years to bring a nuclear facility online.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Possibly but 'rapidly' is relative and there are still huge hurdles between us and solar being actually useful. Even now it's only marginally useful in areas like california where it's always sunny. I would bet good money that it will still be not economically feasible in 10 years from now where we have nuclear facilities online if that statistic is accurate (and we started this year obviously). Of course we won't start because people who don't actually know anything about anything are scared of the word nuclear, but I can dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Honestly we should have been developing solar long before we actually started in earnest. We need to be off coal like yesterday so right now Nuclear seems like the option to go. Even if we end up with a problem down the line with nuclear waste it buys us some time that we don’t really have right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Isn't the disposal of waste the main problem for nuclear energy? Anyway, I think the French use a lot of nuclear power and they seem to have managed without too many catastrophic meltdowns (at least to the best of my knowledge).
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Isn't the disposal of waste the main problem for nuclear energy? Disposal is simple. Just build a giant concrete megalith with creepy angles so that future generations will be aware that nothing of value is buried there and it's not a place of honor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Disposal is simple. Just build a giant concrete megalith with creepy angles so that future generations will be aware that nothing of value is buried there and it's not a place of honor. This but unironically ('creepy angles' makes it sound ironic but it might not be, who knows). Nuclear waste doesn't produce barrels and barrels of it like you see in the simpsons. And while it has a halflife of a thousand years or some poo poo we can still basically just bury it half a mile underground in a concrete tomb that is marked as clearly as we can (assuming that the people who find it later may not recognize english anymore) to not open it. It's more complicated than just burning coal and letting the atmosphere bear the brunt, but it's far far less harmful to the environment, and you don't need to build a bunker every year or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:I also firmly believe that investing in nuclear power and research is the only way we will be able to power future technologies and that the time to begin this research is now. I don't know about that but currently it's the least people-and-planet-killy source of power available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
I think the main problem with solar is that where you most need electrical power is usually where there's the least sun to generate it from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
I love the idea of putting solar panels on the roof and never paying the electric bill again
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Isn't the disposal of waste the main problem for nuclear energy? there's also the water pumps sucking in marine wildlife from the water they're placed into, and (the output) heating up said water to unsafe levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Isn't the disposal of waste the main problem for nuclear energy? I think one of the issues is that America has laws against refining the waste into fuel (which would serve to reduce waste and increase efficiency), but everywhere else doesn't. Or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:This but unironically ('creepy angles' makes it sound ironic but it might not be, who knows). Burying it in the middle of the desert with no useful resources around and nothing on the surface to giveaway that something is there would be more than enough to keep whatever people 10000 years from now from finding it. No matter what we do, if people find it they are going to just poke around because we're curious as hell. We tried the same "warn people not to go in" thing with the pharaohs. That didn't stop anyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
If you look at how hosed up early stuff like Sellafield is now you can see why people are suspicious. Doesn’t matter how many improvements are made, undoing reputational damage takes far longer than doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:Possibly but 'rapidly' is relative and there are still huge hurdles between us and solar being actually useful. Even now it's only marginally useful in areas like california where it's always sunny. Hello, strange 20th century time traveler! You will be pleased to learn that here in the far-flung future of 2017 solar power is not merely economically feasible, in sunny subtropical regions it is already the dominant price leader for new utility construction--a trend which is projected to explode into ever widening geographical areas over the next decade as efficiency continues to improve! Also, Donald Trump is now president. Sorry about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
dissss posted:If you look at how hosed up early stuff like Sellafield is now you can see why people are suspicious. Thats true but the people who ar ein charge should, theoretically, be making decisions off facts and figures and not reputation. Nuclear is the reasonable effective environmental option that is consistenly ignored because science is scary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
I have a passing interest in alternate history and imagine there's probably some scenario where the Labour Party wins the general election in 1983 but becomes just as hated in the north of England as Margaret Thatcher did because they close all the coal pits on the grounds that coal has a negative long-term impact on the environment. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:24
|
|