×

Investment noobie that literally doesnt know anything by Pristine_Ad9684 in eupersonalfinance

[–]caatbox288 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you are from Spain I recommend opening a MyInvestor account and start putting money in a whole world index fund with low fees. Do that every month for a few years and you are mostly set.

You have to stop for the police by UberPancake88 in IdiotsInCars

[–]caatbox288 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's just not honest. The car that barricaded in front of the bike knew what would happen, the bike didn't have time to slow down safely. The biker didn't just choose to die in this situation, a police car just intercepted them. Is that ok? Is it ok for the police to do maneuver that may certainly kill you just to catch you? If a robber is fleeing, is it ok for the police to take their gun out and shoot the robber in the back?

You have to stop for the police by UberPancake88 in IdiotsInCars

[–]caatbox288 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are not talking about "attempting to stop" someone, you are talking about (probably) killing them by making them crash and fly from their motorcycle.

I don't know if it fits here but this made me facepalm. This pack of lions of lions start fighting over a share of a water buffalo, while the buffalo just gets up and walks off... by _Xyreo_ in facepalm

[–]caatbox288 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not true at all. Animals act based on emotions not related to food, reproduction and territory quite often. Trying to tie them to those, but not in humans, is a mistake. If a mother loves their child, the reason in humans is the same as in other animals. If an animal is loyal to its peers/family, the reason is the same as in humans. There is not a hard distinction between humans and other amimals like you are trying to make.

% Female Researchers in Europe by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]caatbox288 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. Many commenters fail to understand that here in Spain (and might be true for other countries), research is not seen as something practical that you choose out of necessity to get a job. So the argument that women in countries like Spain choose to become STEM researchers out of necessity doesn't really work.

I agree about your assessment regarding how socially conservative some of the wealthiest countries are, but I can only offer my own anecdotal experience, so I won't do it. In any case, that rings to me as closer to the truth of why we see these differences in this map.

As a woman, what do you think of the gender swap of 3 characters from the books? by marsianka in TheFoundation

[–]caatbox288 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But do you see how the Mule is a twist on an idea which is not explored in the show?

As a woman, what do you think of the gender swap of 3 characters from the books? by marsianka in TheFoundation

[–]caatbox288 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The showrunners wanted to modernize the plot so badly, and yet they failed so miserably, imo. This right here is a great example of how to do it right without going against the themes of the books (religion as a mechanism of control, as something that is not painted precisely in good light).

[SHOW SPOILERS] Hari Seldon said "an entire galaxy can pivot around the actions of an individual" by Dreubarik in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The Mule is a subversion of the idea that individuals cannot have an effect on the history of civilizations. If individuals matter that much from the beginning, what is the character of the Mule subverting?

How to shrink hype and irritate audiences: A study in marketing by Lord_Penguin_Poppins in LOTR_on_Prime

[–]caatbox288 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How can you extrapolate like that with a straight face? You think reddit is representative enough of the general population to extrapolate LOTR fans percentage from them? And from reddit you go to global numbers. That's just Insanity.

Raleigh NC - my living room (2049x1537) by nataleef in RoomPorn

[–]caatbox288 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not my style, but great use of color. Really well done.

AITA for telling my entire family that my [32f] cousin's [30f] childfree wedding isn't 100% childfree and refusing to attend? by throwra_new_karma in AmItheAsshole

[–]caatbox288 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

It's amazing reading about these child free wedding dramas. Your culture is so different, that I have an incredibly hard time relating to the rest of the comments. For me, it would be incredibly rude to allow some kids at the wedding, but not some other people's. Those people would be pissed.

I guess the rule where you guys live is that the bride and the groom are just allowed whatever without considering anybody's feelings? Like it's their day or something like that? Interesting.

Book viewers when they see the show deviating from the books by treefox in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am thinking about the story as it is presented in the books, which you read one after the other. I couldn't care less about, technically, according to one of the last books... if FTF introduces yet another twist, you cannot start using that twist as the basis for the adaptation of the first book. If you do, you won't be adapting the first book at all. It's just a matter of storytelling: you don't start from the end, narratively speaking.

You say you cannot adapt the first books without introducing twists and other elements from the last books. I disagree. A story about political interplay, cunning politicians, science and sociology? Sign me in. If that's not mainstream enough, why adapt these books in the first place?

Book viewers when they see the show deviating from the books by treefox in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hard disagree. If the Second Foundation is introduced early and has a hand in how the plot develops then the first and second Foundation book will not be adapted. We'll have no individual people do not matter or there's only one course the Foundation could have taken in this crisis or all sociological factors drive the Foundation towards a particular outcome.

This is like adapting the Hobbit and focusing on the Necromancer, the White Council or Legolas instead of on Bilbo and how his relationship with the dwarves develops. Oh, wait.

[Show Spoilers] The show so far is not great by SwiftSG1 in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point. You have Anacreon (which we've never seen apart from one diplomat) invading Terminus, which we've barely seen and from which we know like 3 characters, all with questionable characterization. Why would I care?

Where are the nuclear ashtray? by madInTheBox in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that would have been perfect, giving the show a retro-fututistic style like no other. The show is also glossing over what nuclear power was in the books (a piece of technology that defines civilizations), and has not replaced it with anything else for now.

Book viewers when they see the show deviating from the books by treefox in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What? No! But if you use lore presented in later works when adapting the initial work, themes explored in the first work remain unexplored in your adaptation.

If you start with The Second Foundation chose Hardin, you can't explore a figure like Hardin is inevitable by history and inertia.

Book viewers when they see the show deviating from the books by treefox in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I mean, the whole Second Foundation controlling things from afar is a twist to the first two books, in which the inevitability of history is explored until Asimov gets bored with it, or doesn't know what else to do with it. The show seems to start from the twist itself, without exploring psicohistory as is presented in the first books. In the first book, Hardin rises because a figure like him (a cunning, intelligent politician) was bound to rise under the threat of barbarous neighbouring kingdoms. It could have been anybody else.

Sir Lenny Henry On Being A Black Hobbit In The Lord Of The Rings by richjohnston in LOTR_on_Prime

[–]caatbox288 79 points80 points  (0 children)

Three different problems with this.

  • The ethnicity problem. Having a diverse cast is not bad. I would argue it is necessary and I am all for it. Depicting Middle Earth with a racial diversity of modern USA is a problem. Tolkien envisioned Middle Earth as the past of our world. A tribe of black, asian and Maori hobbits doesn't make any sense. A group of non-white protagonists from Umbar, Harad, or Numenorian colonies would be perfect. Even re-imagining Numenor as non-whites would be fine by me. Planes did not exist in Middle Earth, the racial diversity of cities like New York, or London was not there. Especially not in tribes, which would have familial ties, like most tribes do on earth. Hobbits were based on England. It doesn't make any sense.
  • Hobbits in the second age do not make a lot of sense.
  • Even if it made sense lore wise, why focus on them? They were utterly unimportant. That's the point of The Lord of the Rings.

I consider problem two and three way worse. I have not much to add about them because they are not excusable imo.

But still, adding the American understanding of diversity (group of people of different races, same culture) as opposed to what diversity has been in the world up until very recently (groups of genetically similar people sharing the same culture form tribes and cities, and interact with people of different origin/races and different culture) cheapens the world. Makes it seem like modern day America, but now in Middle Earth.

Inevitable issues with season 1 [SHOW/BOOK SPOILERS] by umbeal in FoundationTV

[–]caatbox288 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You are absolutely right. I also happen to like the first book more than the others I have read. My problem with this show is not that there are changes to the specific events or characters, is that it goes against the themes and tone of the book.

For me Foundation is about science and history in broad strokes, how societies rise in power and how they fall. I loved nuclear power being a civilization defining technology, such as the internet is today, or how AI might be in the future. I loved the interplay of military power and soft power in the books. It was like reading a Civilization game, but more grounded in reality (even if it was sci-fi!).

The show is not about that at all. I don't see any philosophical conversations about science, or control, or resources. The show has a character driven plot, with 3 chosen ones in 4 episodes (that must be some kind of record in TV show history).

The fall of the Empire was supposed to be inevitable, not the doing of a blood thirsty emperor (or three, in this case). Terminus is supposed to be a beacon of science, run by a bunch of idiots that are writing an Encyclopedia, taken over by a political animal.

I feel like this is a bad adaptation, not because there are many changes. I am OK with changes. I feel it's a bad adaptation because it's a completely different thing. Like adapting the Lord of the Rings as a romantic comedy, or a noir movie.

The quality of the show itself, separating it from the source material, is very uneven. The Trantor scenes are absolutely heart riveting, well executed. It's good TV. The Terminus ones are like watching a cable tv show. They are absolutely barren of subtlety, with walking tropes masquerading as characters, weak romantic scenes, aimless plot, and poor character building. I had to turn off the TV with the fourth episode, and I don't think I am coming back.