Landrin201

OK this article is infuriating, as is the product it's hyping up.

If 2.5% of our emissions is going toward feeding 4 billion people then I'm totally fine with letting those emissions continue. This isn't a thing we need to "solve," this reeks of a capitalist looking at graphs of our emissions and going "we could cut emissions by 1% here and not have to actually change our habits at all!" This isn't the problem causing climate change.

The energy sector accounts for over 70% of our emissions. Instead of trying to stop emitting less than 1% by pouring money into genetically manipulating plants to need less fertilizer, why don't we instead cut 30% or more by replacing coal plants with solar, wind, and nuclear power?

Is the "commie" in the room with you now? This is an unhinged level of angrv to get over a really quite tame comment.

In what universe have corruption and lying not been rampant in "the west" over the last hundred years? Did you just pull this comment out of a book titled "Red Scare Propaganda?"

And don't forget the colonies of puerto Rico and Guam

My fiancee and I both got artificial sapphires in our engagement rings.

Real ones were nearly double the price.

You wouldn't know they're lab grown. They look great.

Oh no I think that's VERY deliberate. If you haven't read the books and don't know about Selene, it's 100% their intent that you buy into her. It makes her big reveal MUCH more impactul.

In the book it's more obvious, but it's still not clear who she is. She is clearly not just some random noble woman, since she shows up in an alternate reality. But she is trying to make Rand think she really is just some helpless noble woman, and while the audience thinks something is up, Rand doesn't.

Making it less obvious something is up for the audience is a good move IMO

Appendices to LOTR*

They legally cannot use the silmarillion

Hard disagree here. I'm a rabid wheel of time fan who has read the books at least 6 times.

Ir would be downright impossible to "stick to the source" for book one (or really, any if them) and have it be good on film. It just wouldn't work on film, there is too much going on. The story would feel like it drags and is being forcefully stretched out, because the book is rather repetitive. That repetition works in a book because you are getting to read the characters inner thoughts, and in paper it adds tension that, for example, Rand and Mat are unsure whether the next place they stay will be full of dark friends.

But after the third time they get chased out by dark friends a TV audience would be like "OK they did this already get on with it." Repetition on TV gets boring FAST.

And the magic system is all kinds of messy in the books. They're diving into it a bit more now, but it's still got Tobe simplified for screen. You can't convey characters thoughts on screen, which basically neuters the whole system. The book is VERY exposition heavy, and that gets boring real quick on screen. Look at the LOTR theatrical VS extended editions. There is a reason that Bilbo talking about Hobbits at the beginning got cut. I like that scene, but it also is too much exposition to drop on the viewer right after the intro, which is also exposition. EOTW is like half exposition, and most of the books are at least a third exposition. That all has to get cut or reworked to be actually fun to watch without being super preachy. It's

Listen to Brandon Sanderson talking about the adaptation of Mistborm he has been working in for ages now. He has said that he had to make big, fundamental changes to the characters and story to make it work on film. He said his first draft was closest to the book, and that it was quite bad.

The biggest fuckup season 1 of the show did was not including the prologue. Idk why they cut it, it's such a good intro. Besides that, I thought they did alright. Season two has been much better so far, and has shown that they really do understand the core of this story and all of the characters in it.

Show me in the screenshot where the doctor referring to a woman as a female in a medical context is.

OH wait, you can't, it's not there. We literally are not talking about that.

Is this the incel brigades talking point? That it's racist to think that using "female" is creepy and dehumanizing?

I have never once heard a non-native speaker make this mistake. Having learned two other languages myself, I find it extremely hard to believe it's a mistake someone would have learned to make, even if they learned to speak English online. Teaching the words "man" and "woman" is literally one of the first lessons in ANY language class. That's true for English classes as well.

I never learned the equivalent of male and female in either of the language classes I have taken. So unless there's a language that has words ONLY for "male" and "female" and no equivalents for "man" and "woman" this talking point is stupid.

Why are you"asking questions" to make the use of "female" seem more acceptable?

It's a terrible idea and it tells me that all the propaganda were getting about Ukraine clearly winning and barely losing anyone is bullshit. They must be real desperate if they're conscription people with mental disorders.

Based