(If anyone’s interested, it’s beautifully made, pretty engaging, but also on occasion a bit bland. It’s also semi-regularly implausible in a kind of “oh come on” kind of way, and is neither as clever as it thinks it is or quite as stupid as some critics would have you believe.)
(If you want to watch a few hours of well-produced TV with very good charismatic actors in it without really using your brain too much you could do a lot worse. If they made a second season a bit more nuanced and challenging it could be really good.)
(I’m the meantime, Mr Krasinski is also the director and star of #AQuietPlace and that movie was *awesome*)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, let’s take a break from all this horror and talk about #DoctorWho for a moment. First things first, I thought it looked beautiful, great production design, amazing cinematography, the casting was great, the lighting was wonderful, much of the CGI looked a generation better.
As to the plot, well, I think you have to look at first appearances of new Doctors as doing two things - telling the story of the week story and establishing the show’s new status quo and the new Doctor. Honestly that doesn’t normally lend itself to a great main plot...
... and this was no real exception. The baddie was beautiful but also a bit lame, his motivation a bit crappy, his plan confusing and the resolution was a bit formulaic. Like a 6/10 story of the week. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing special.
I’m sort of interested in this but I think it’s a bit underwhelming really. No one really wants that kind of engagement with TV. But I do think there are some fun things they should be able to do, which I’m surprised they don’t...
Imagine if you made a murder mystery from five different viewpoints, but you distributed it at random to different homes, so that people couldn’t get the whole story from one place and they *had* to talk about it to their friends or go to their friends houses.
Or maybe you choose which character you will follow in the following week’s episode? Or you very quietly change one plot line across multiple homes, and don’t mention it, and then everyone freaks out a couple of episodes in because they all saw something subtly different.
Does anyone know of a graph of voting percentage organized in cohorts by age? I’d like to know whether the generation born in the fifties has *always* had high turn-out or whether it has really escalated as they’ve got older.
From this graph alone you can’t tell much except that Gen X has definitely had more turn out as they’ve aged. But at a *glance* it looks like older generations start from a higher base. Hard to tell with only twenty years of data.
Anonymous accounts are actually important for a range of reasons, to allow people to have social media lives outside their work, and to talk about personal stuff and have an identity even when they’re under threat.
However, the ability to easily create dozens of social media accounts is a bad thing. It gives massive power to trolls and harassers, and there’s only a limited amount that can be done to fight them while unlimited accounts are available.
Ideally, you’d find a way to limit the number of accounts someone can easily maintain, you’d have the ability to ban a *device* for a period of time, you’d build in techniques to slow switching between accounts, you’d tie them together in some way.
@andybudd I’m sorry, I just don’t agree with that. I’m not sure how you can argue it.
@andybudd Honestly this stuff is *profoundly* irritating to me. I would consider myself a product designer after being in the industry for twenty odd years. I think through the business case, I think through the users, I think through their core needs, I think about business needs...
@andybudd I would do user interviews, I would structure and think through the shape of the product. I do not consider myself a UX designer at depth because a UX designer in my experience would go deeper on specific design techniques to optimize elements of the design...
Have to say, this full timeline of Russia’s mentions, actions and interventions in the 2016 election (and the contact with Trump) is pretty extraordinary when all laid out in order: nyti.ms/2Dqn1JF?smid=n…
I was a little sceptical at first - not about the information presented, but the way it was presented - because I thought placing potentially unrelated actions together might force a story on what might be coincidence or unrelated actions, and to some extent I think it does...
... but the sheer volume of connections, the sheer number of stated positions and actions and bits of evidence and tweet campaigns and meetings collated sort of speaks for itself.