infinitesunrise

Yeah I didn't like the wild animal manhandling act (Vegan, I think we should just leave them alone), but I think Irwin understood how to connect with and engage an audience that would leave them thinking about the animals for the long term, not to mention knowing more about them. He was a top-tier science communicator and cared about the animals first, ultimately his form of spectacle advocacy drove tons of engagement toward naturalist / zoological / conservancy professions.

Back in like 1st or 2nd grade the teacher introduced us to context clues for reading comprehension.

Back when the audio guy was the pianist playing ragtime next to the projection screen.

Why don't you just watch the film in 14-channel Dolby Atmos like the director intended? /s

I am big number guy. I like the number.

How much money was 3%?

It's all because of money, and money is power. But yes we little monkeys have a worrisome preoccupation with that power.

Netflix will win the suit. A single producer delivering by hand an unencrypted, unprotected DCP is not standard operating procedure in Hollywood. Netflix would have expected the distributor or studio to deliver a case containing a specialized hardened drive, encrypted files unique to that specific copy, meant in some cases to be played only once directly off the drive. A solo producer rolling up with unencrypted, untracked files is wildly negligent by industry standards. Op-Fortitude is just trying to cover their ass with this suit, and it's probably too late.

Also as someone who has worked in film I found this line from the Netflix exec humorous: "We’ve been working through this with out security teams to no luck. Our piracy teams are on high alert with the breach and will monitor." Yeah no, what's been happening is that the security and piracy teams are dealing with a lot of strung out high-demand verbose producers and then turning around and going about their day as usual, good riddance.

Well it'll be 105F here today, so...

You think that automated radar-based speed enforcement of those that go 15MPH over the limit in school zones during school hours with no detrimental effects to license status is a slippery slope to a panoptic AI surveillance state?

Because personally I think that as a society we can and should agree upon reasonable tests for overreach and abuse of technological systems, and build automations that respect those tests.

We both agree that AI surveillance is bad. You just stumped against it for a whole comment, but I already said AI surveillance is bad. That was not my point, my point is that I find this article's approach to the problem of AI surveillance problematic in that it's leveraging the reaction that drivers have toward any automation whatsoever to make an emotional case against AI surveillance that I feel amplifies pushback against otherwise reasonable automations that catch egregiously dangerous use (eg The radar cameras in place in NYC) an muddiest and important distinction. I just don't like the way this article is pitched.