Not a full on extinction event, but the late bronze age collapse has always fascinated me. So much do that it led me to pursue archaeology in college.
So many theories, everyone has their favourite, but yeah, what ultimately caused every near eastern civilisation as well as the Mycenaean Greeks to just all collapse and disappear over a relatively short 200 years or so (archaeologically speaking a blink-of-an-eye)
I think these are just the ones who get caught and that there are hundreds more
“I think” is the operative statement there. What you think is pointless. Facts are what matter. And without evidence that it IS the majority doing it, automatically lumping them all into that group makes us no better than them in terms of their rhetoric and divisiveness.
Every damn side needs to stop painting the other with broad strokes and then complaining when they do it back. It’s not helpful. Questions that are worded like this are not helpful.
Great. Then you shouldn’t have any problem coming up with three examples for us all.
The Xenomorph has been the only constant in her life throughout the entire franchise. Everyone else is temporary. So basically…yes…in so much as a nemesis can be a situationship.
they should have given those characters better deaths
That I absolutely agree with. They did 'em dirty with how they took them out.
Hicks and Newt had to die in the beginning of Alien 3 in order for the film to thematically even be an Alien film.
At their heart, the films are about Ripley being alone, more in common with the titular alien than with her termporary allies. She’s an outsider in her crew. She’s a civilian among marines. She’s a woman among convicts. She’s lost her child, she’s lost 57 years of her life. The Alien is her only real touchstone now, and in a way that is very expressly shown in the films, that becomes a kind of “relationship” in itself. She’s closer to the alien than she is to the people who surround her.
If Hicks and Newt survived and were part of Alien 3, it takes that away and makes it an ensemble cast, which thematically doesn’t fit, and (I think) it’s one of the reasons that a lot of the new Alien films just don’t feel like Alien films; they’re missing that key thematic ingredient. Ripley is a tragic character, doomed to battle alone against the only thing she has left in her life.
The main problem is that some, sometimes most, of immigrants don’t want to assimilate. They are creating ghettos, don’t respect local laws.
Generalisations like this are the very reason it’s a polarising issue. Opinions like yours generally derive from “observation” and “gut feeling”. Which by definition is completely anecdotal and harmful when it begins to be applied to millions of people all at once.
Betsy from insert town here sees an immigrant couple down the street in her home-town keeping to themselves and not really wanting to take part in the community. She’s talking on the phone to nosy-nessie the town busybody who says “oh…you know…my aunt said the same thing about her insert culture neighbours.” And then all of a sudden, that’s just “how those people are”…all of them…everywhere.
Maybe this couple is just a little embarrassed about their english skills and want to strengthen them more before going into public everywhere, which comes across as shy. Maybe they’re just private…who knows. But suddenly…“it’s just how (those people) are”, becomes the anecdotal “truth”.
It’s wrong, it’s dangerous, and the fact that you don’t even grasp the irony of your own comment is telling in a lot of ways.
If I have a choice between buying a table and chairs from IKEA, or buying a table and chairs from my neighbour who loves making them bespoke in his woodshop, I’ll take the second option every time. As a society we need more of this…supporting our own labour efforts over mass corporate manufacturing.
Why would you assume the Engineers are “made”.
Seems to me they’d just be another humanoid species that evolved from a puddle of amino acids on some homeworld somewhere, just like we did.
Remake Don’t Breathe but with an adult Kevin, essentially.
You can’t make “The Princess Bride” nowadays because optimism and feel good emotions aren’t things that we’re allowed to have anymore.
Yep. Welcome to the hell that is corporate capitalism.
In a word. Lobbyists.
The full saying is “Free as in Speech, not Free as in Beer”
Basically the “Free” in free means that it’s free to do with as you please, modify, etc… But not free as in “here’s a free product…like getting a free beer”
I’m not really talking about development as simply programming. There are a lot of aspects that go into development, yes…programming is a big aspect.
But there’s also bug reporting (every user should know how to report bugs because it’s contributes to making the program better).
Heck, you can even download the documentation and give it a proof-read if you’re good with grammar and spot some errors if you don’t want to commit to helping to write it.
I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time in the various subs for the software, taking care to answer questions from other users who need help doing this or that. That again, is contributing.
Then there’s simply what we’re doing right now. Bringing attention to the projects online getting them more visibility.
Development of a successful FOSS app isn’t just about programming. And even small contributions count. If you can donate some coin, great! If you can’t, or don’t want to, there are a thousand other things that you can do to contribute to that apps community.
I emphasized the word community because that is exactly what it is. The ethos of Open Source; what makes it different than Propietary software, is that the users are an inherent part of the development process in ways both big and small. In propietary software, there is a distinct line between the developers and the users. Developers have multiple stakeholders of which the user base is certainly one, but also include advertisers, software makers, hardware makers, etc…
FOSS software, in contrast, is much more a communitee effort with the involvement of the community in the way of bug reports, literature, education and even simply championing the project because they don’t have millions of dollars in advertising budgets.
Sorry, I get a little passionate, so this is longer than I intended it to be.
But tl;dr, contributing isn’t just about money or just about programming. There’s a thousand ways big and small, and my issue isn’t with people not “paying” necessarily. But people who use it for free and don’t bother filing bug reports, don’t join the community online to help answer user questions, etc…
A good FOSS citizen should be an active part of the community. Or donate money to the project if they’d rather not.
The issue as I see it is that knowledge in any subject is protean. It changes. So if you wait to long to go back, what you learned before would be completely useless and you’d effectively have to start from the beginning.
Heck, the things I was taught in my Archaeology Degree from 2001 are at best, incomplete, and in some cases, now completely refuted. If I had left and decided to go back even ten years later, the technology that was suddenly in use alone would force me to start all over again.
This software is extensively free (as in beer)
No…it’s not. It’s free to download and to use, but the expectation that people contribute in exchange for using it is how FOSS has always worked.
That doesn’t necessarily mean monetary. But contributing can be helping with user guides, or making youtube tutorials, or even just extending the reach of the program to friends and family by talking about it.
There are many ways to contribute, and money is one. But the notion that Open Source software is “free as in beer” has never been correct. Users have an expectation to contribute…period.
Unfortunately, there has always been the issue that a not-insignificant percentage of users of FOSS software believe the FREE part means “free as in beer” and take umbrage when asked to contribute.
I’ve long been a proponent (and I know I’m in a minority) that has advocated for a shift in the marketing of FOSS applications from “donation based” to “value based”. Meaning that the expectation is that if you enjoy the software, you pay an amount that you believe is commensurate to your use. This is voluntarily of course…if you can’t pay, than please use it and enjoy it. But those who can pay, should pay…at least a little bit, to offset the costs for those who can’t.
It’s more or less that the wording of FOSS apps needs to change so that you are expected to contribute if you can.
Just my opinion. Like I said, I know I’m in the minority. Just not a fan of the percentage of users that has always existed that (falsely) think that asking for money for your project is somehow anathema to the Open Source ideal and whine whenever they’re asked to contribute.
An A.I taking a job doesn’t automatically create a new one in some kind of 1:1 ratio. That’s the entire point of A.I.
You’re (incredibly naive) example of the crane is frankly stupid because a Crane still needs to be operated. Cranes didn’t replace jobs any more than hammers did. Cranes were just a new tool to use in an existing job, Hence Crane Operators.
Now let’s turn your stupid example into a good example. Let’s say autonomous A.I. controlled cranes become a thing, and 100 crane operators lose their jobs. Now (in your brain) a new job has been created “monitoring” the A.I output (whatever you seem to think that means) but because of the efficiency of A.I. it only takes a team of three to monitor all 100 cranes.
What are the other 97 going to do…in your “simple example”?
Maybe put more than two seconds of thought into an analogy before opening your mouth.
Easily Converter Now. So darn handy.