By consistently contributing to the sub only 'to save people a click' rather than contributing interesting Links of your own, I find you in violation of rules one and three.
No one disagrees that internet news articles can do better in terms of quality and content. However by only contributing what you dislike as opposed to contributing what you do like, you're coming across as entitled and disrespectful to the spirit of the community.
I give you two hours to find and post a scifi article or item for us to talk about or face a one week ban.
However by only contributing what you dislike as opposed to contributing what you do like, you’re coming across as entitled and disrespectful to the spirit of the community.
This is an odd perspective. They’re literally contributing by fixing what they dislike and preventing others from having to waste time. They don’t come across as entitled. They come across as helpful and respecting the time and attention spans of the community.
Ok, are we not seeing the at that title is both hyperbolic and click-bait? If it was an in depth, thoughtful article, it’d be a different thing. Is anyone surprised a for profit company is not spent g capital on a streaming program over movies, which are inarguably more profitable.
This seems a rather impressively outsized a reaction for a common push back against click-bait articles thing.
The article does lack any conversion to Olympic swimming pools, bananas, or infinity stones so some of us may never truly grasp the scale of this power.
Actually, Jiggawatt is gigawatt mispronounced. So they are the same thing. :) There is an article in the NY Times regarding this that when they were doing research, someone mispronounced it to them.
Where are you getting those numbers from? First of all, GW is a unit of power, not energy. You can’t “produce 1.21GW in a day” because it’s a measurement of instantaneous power. Some nuclear reactors produce around 1GW(e), which means 1 gigawatt hour per hour.
Yeah, and the article is wrong, though only slightly. They seem to be confusing watts (power, energy over time) with Joules (energy, power times a duration of time). They give a passable definition in the beginning ("energy transfer"), but they seem to misunderstand what the "transfer" part means exactly.
If you find-replace all instances of "watt" with "watt-hour" after that starting definition, it would be more accurate. That's why I say it's only slightly wrong.
I gave it a read and there's some interested takes but overall disagree and I think this particular read may miss some of the best parts of what make Blade Runner work. To just respond to the surmise, since all 10 points to me are more like 7 and even those 7 kind of just come down to these 3, lol.
First and foremost, its pacing is fine. Bad pacing in a movie is far worse, like Anna, and even pacing in a good one like Dune, doesn't mean anything necessarily - Blade Runner does a fine job if you are able to pay attention, I guess. Personally it seems a little odd to blame being molded by contemporary media to be the reason why an older film no longer holds up. Let me put it this way though - We have Drive (2011) and Baby Driver (2017). In a lot of ways, these movies are exactly the same at times being almost shot for shot early on (likely homage). But Baby Driver is an extremely fast paced movie, and Drive is an extremely slow burn. Both of these movies, like Blade Runner, do something different, so of the critiques there can be I'm not fully on board with this one, unless the argument is that old movies should be able to take any viewer out of their subjectivity mold, I can't really agree with the takeaway from this. I had a harder time watching the new Dune than I did Blade Runner, does that make Dune's pacing worse than Blade Runner or is Blade Runner's pacing better than Dune? See what I mean? I might feel different had there been any examples, but it seemed that it just found a "Blade Crawler" comment and made a point about it, and now that's bad because... movies are faster paced? Nyeh, not sold, lol.
Decker is no more than an analogue for the viewers to be in the world, he may be the protagonist but Decker, IMO, is far from the main character. I also disagree about him lacking complexity, however I would say that it is indeed because he is 100% a foil to the antagonists. Decker isn't meant to be this incredible Blade Runner that no other can live up to - he's good sure, he's alive and has his faculties and limbs, but he quite literally takes the role of the futuristic Desk Jockey, he is just the pencil pusher that grinds up the replicants. More on this later.
Whenever I watch Blade Runner I'm always surprised by how it's such a quiet film with so much exposition in just a few sentences. I don't think anything overshadows anything else. I think there is a strong emphasis on atmosphere which helps with the world building we get from the characters and interactions. It critiques hyper-capitalism by showing a world far in the future that by all accounts is exactly the same, save a few office jobs that have evolved. The underground is still working girls and chefs and the government is still uncoordinated and corrupt. Without the focus on visuals to evoke just how different this world is supposed to be, we don't get snapped back into mundanity when we see Decker ordering food and getting stopped by other officers. Moreover, the depth of the story comes specifically from Roy Batty, who as I mention should be viewed as the real protagonist. I think the movie itself argues this point to the bone, but everyone only ever seems to want to talk about Decker so maybe not.
I find it hard to see a lack of depth when Roy and Pris, literal cybernetic robots, are the most emotive characters in Blade Runner. The only other character we genuinely see some emotion from is the Tinkerer J.F. Sebastian, who has a love for his toys and makes friends with the replicants. They get inhumanly emotive at times, but they more than anyone we see express just how much they want to live. Roy's entire journey is a process of becoming human, until death when he gives birth to Decker by saving him. Roy lived as a human would have. In life, Roy was enslaved, escaped, and lived on the lamb. He sought vengeance towards God (Tyrell), found love, exacts vengeance once more before, in my opinion, realizing and accepting that God was right. There is no extending life. Not his own.
As he sees Deckard about to die, with the understanding that Roy himself will soon as well, Roy saves Deckard not as an act of mercy but as a birth. To extend life. For me, the story isn’t much about Deckard. It’s about what Deckard’s piece represents for humanity. He isn't complex, he doesn't need to be. Not everyone is. Particularly when Deckard himself isn't even the point that the film was trying to make, each and every quintessential moment of philosophy comes from the antagonists musings, not the protagonists inquisitions.
Your final act in death is to give life which you were no longer allowed.
A 100-watt bulb is so named because it uses 100 watts of energy for every hour of operation.
This does not make sense. watt is not a unit of energy.
Neither does this:
We’re still nowhere close to a gigawatt, we’ll need 1,000 megawatts to get there. That’s enough electricity to keep the average American home powered up for 100 years.
For anyone curious energy is the ability to do work and power is how fast that work can be done. Power represented in watts is the relationship of units of energy per unit of time or 1 watt = 1 joule (energy unit or work that can be done) per second.
When I read those things I always assume they're talking about megawatt hours.
Considering that the average american home consumes a little under 1000 kilowatt hours a month then the math starts to line up.
1000 KW hours is 1 megawatt hour. 1,000 megawatt hours is 1 gigawatt hour, so 1,000 months, while being a bit shy of 100 years, is still 83 years and change.
John Jacob Astor IV (July 13, 1864 – April 15, 1912) was an American business magnate, real estate developer, investor, writer, lieutenant colonel in the Spanish–American War, and a prominent member of the Astor family.
Probably explains why the description of the book sounds like American power fantasy. Interesting to hear of sci-fi from so long ago though.
scifi
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.