If you find that you like something that most people don't it's generally best to just leave it alone and be happy you enjoyed it. If you try to delve into why so many people don't like the thing you like then either they will manage to convince you the thing you like is actually bad, which doesn't benefit you, or you'll start to question whether or not your taste in media is bad, which doesn't benefit you.
> they will manage to convince you the thing you like is actually bad, which doesn't benefit you
I'd argue that there is benefit to re-evaluating one's tastes based on new information. It's always good to think critically of the content you consume.
EDIT: Wow. Can't even post comments on a new account. Not gonna beg dang for approval in his e-mail so I guess that's it for me and anyone else who's privacy-aware.
Most people who watched it enjoyed it. Jordan fans were big on it (at least from what I saw at JordanCon and WoTCon). Will people not like certain things, sure. The issue is that YouTubers will complain about anything these days and rage videos get more traction, so it's easier to pile on, and people who wouldn't watch it complain about how bad it is.
I wouldn't put to much weight on someone not liking something. After all, either they haven't watched it all, or they are watching something they don't like. And that's not someone's taste I trust.
One can enjoy the show as a kind of trashy fanfiction while still finding it terribly unfaithful to the original story and characters. We're only two seasons in and massive changes have been made that invalidate character arcs in the original, so I expect we'll continue to see greater and greater divergence in plot points.
Having said that, what do you think of people like GRRM (wrt House of the Dragon) and Brandon Sanderson critiquing these adaptations? Your last paragraph seems to imply there's no value to someone dislike something.
> I wouldn't put to much weight on someone not liking something. After all, either they haven't watched it all, or they are watching something they don't like. And that's not someone's taste I trust.
That's some very "heads I win, tails you lose" logic right there.
Just chipping in as someone who is a tremendous fan of the books (I've read all of them 4 or 5 times and listened to the audio books twice). I _hated_ the series, I was very excited for it, watched Season 1, was blown away by how awful the changes were and won't be watching more.
It honestly baffles me that anyone who liked the books is able to enjoy the TV show, it feels like bad fan fiction.
WoT was very much not well received by fans, mainly because it is so disrespectful to the source material that you would think the showrunner actively hates it. You asked for specifics, so:
* Rand and Egwene's relationship going from "they like each other but are kind of hesitant" to "sneaking away to have sex in the woods". Not only is this completely unnecessary, it's completely at odds with the moral values of Two Rivers culture for them to be doing that.
* Perrin being married (WTF), and then killing his wife by accident (WTF squared). In the books Perrin is very careful to not accidentally hurt people as he is conscious of his strength.
* In general, trying to change the Two Rivers to have the diversity of modern day NYC. A region so far off the beaten path that even their de jure queen doesn't remember they exist is simply not going to have a broad selection of races. This isn't as big of a sin as the character changes, but it's also completely free to have this bit of worldbuilding via character casting. There is no good reason whatsoever to give it up.
* Generally changing relationships in ways that just aren't supported by the books. Like, Siuan and Moiraine aren't in a sexual relationship at that point in the story so it's idiotic to depict them as such.
* Trying to act as though the Dragon could be any of the Emond's Field kids is against the very metaphysical foundations of the WoT universe. The Dragon could only be a boy, and Moiraine would know this damn well. And while we're at it, Moiraine had no idea that there were ta'veren in the Two Rivers at all, certainly not more than one, unlike what the show claims.
* Aging up Min severely and making her a Darkfriend. Just WTF.
* At one point Nynaeve heals death, which is again completely impossible in this universe.
* The damane costumes... so bad it's laughable. What on earth were they thinking? How could they get it so wrong? How you go from collars (in the books) to ball gags in the show is utterly beyond my ability to even imagine.
Those are the main things I can think of, and that's just season 1. I didn't even bother trying to hate read about season 2 after how bad season 1 was, but from what I heard it wasn't better (like apparently Rand bangs Lanfear, which he absolutely would never do). I understand that adaptations need to change things. But the changes they made to WoT aren't necessary, and often make the story worse than what Jordan wrote.
It all shows a grave disrespect for the source material, contrary to the staff's claims that they love the books so much (bullshit). As far as I can tell, Rafe didn't want to do an adaptation of Jordan's story, he wanted to tell his own story. Which is fine, but then tell your own fucking story, don't take a massive dump all over someone else's work which many people love.
The Witcher books are great. A refreshing take on fantasy from an entirely different set of folklore, and the English translation was done so well that you can't even tell.
I also played the games (which take place after the books) and loved them - although despite having a great story, the first game was really rough. Witcher 3 is in my top 10 games of all time, and it rewards you for playing all three by letting you carry over your saves and seeing your impact on the world. I hear they're remaking the first game as well as a fourth, so there's a lot to look forward to there.
I'm surprised to hear that. I've genuinely never held so much disdain for a TV show (season 1) in my life. But when season 2 hit I was too apathetic to even bother watching.
They made so many changes (mostly shit) that it was hard to even see it as an adaptation. The official statement (mental gymnastics) was that it's "another turning of the wheel".
In the fandom, it's fairly well received. JordanCon/WoTCon had everyone loving it. Sure, some people might not like it, but the majority of people who watched it loved it.
Martin's criticism of HoD is silly considering he still hasn't stuck the landing on his original series, and I imagine is holding back because people didn't like his resolution and is now stuck. Regardless, lots of people love these things. That you don't is fine. Not everything needs to be for you.
I didn't like Witcher 3. Overrated lame open world with boring stories and poor combat. Never finished it. So I had zero interest with any of the Witcher shows. But I also realize that a lot of people love it. I'm happy those people have something they enjoy.
No it isn't. On Reddit, people are extremely critical of the show. And outside of Reddit, I literally do not know one fan of WoT who actually enjoyed that monstrosity.
What makes you think ".. had everyone loving it" and "the majority of people who watched it loved it"? Was there a study done? I don't know either way, and am genuinely curious what that distribution looks like. I suspect nobody knows the answer but you seem confident in your assertion.
As an aside, I imagine the commenter you're replying to will find "That you don't [love these things] is fine. Not everything needs to be for you." to be patronizing.
> What makes you think ".. had everyone loving it" and "the majority of people who watched it loved it"?
"the majority of people who watched it loved it"
Because why someone who doesn't like something watch it all the way through. The majority of people who watched Wheel of Time loved it. Sure, some people who disliked it or weren't interested would have watched it all the way through, but most people don't. Did the majority of people who watched only an episode or two love it? I don't know. But that was never my claim.
Maybe you can share why you think people, outside of being reviewers, will watch things they don't like? Am I the odd one out? Seriously, if I don't like a book I stop reading it. If I don't like a show I stop watching.
"JordanCon/WoTCon had everyone loving it." (completely different from saying "everyone loving it")
Because I attended them, and everyone there was loving it. Judging by the cheers and the interest at the associated panels, and well everyone I spoke with.
> I imagine the commenter you're replying to will find "That you don't [love these things] is fine. Not everything needs to be for you." to be patronizing
I would hazard most shows that people watch, they don't love. Indeed, when it comes to movies, books, and shows there are only a few that I love. Nevertheless I continue to watch and read various content because it's fun, doesn't mean I love it, and sometimes in the end I'll decide I didn't like it.
I was contemplating the same thing. I get Intel isn't doing so well but I really can't imagine it just collapsing and dying. That said another possibility is just years of stagnation and low returns on your investment
How come Musk has never raised awareness on censorship issue in China - which is orders of magnitudes worse than the US? He very clearly has no problem speaking out against other countries governments
Perfect example of Whatabout-ism. I'm not talking about China, I'm not a citizen of China and I will never even visit that country. Why are you mentioning China when this is about the US?
Thanks! Good to know it wasn't cut to misrepresent the quote. I still don't think she meant she's unfamiliar with the Bureau of Labor, rather that specific issue.
No, I don't think the video is a deep fake.
What I think is this guy is clearly a troll whose concerns about job number revisions are clearly disingenuous.
I think when you include hyper-partisan framing around your message, it undermines the message then if you had just presented it directly.
It's also not Republicans that I don't like, it's the professional concern trolls that I don't care for.
I do generally agree with such approach - information, not messenger. However there's a concept of reputation which doesn't go away in many cases - and this could be one of them.
300%. It's not a fallacy to understand the biases of the information you are consuming. If someone looks bad because of their past that's important reader context.
It's a fallacy to use personage as a sole reason to disagree. But it's damned good to have context. This whole social media thing is such a quagmire imo in large part because every tweet comes across naked, that no matter how low your character or how much you've distorted and manipulated in the past, each tweet is a totally fresh chance to do to again with no one the wiser. We seriously need systems for establishing context, and it's a public service to earn each other about patterns of distortion & ultra-bias.
So, someone's reputation matters when they post a video of someone else? Can you not just judge the video for yourself and seek more context if you need it?
Reputation matters when the listener decides what to do with the message. Are those the facts, are enough facts fairly represented. Judging a video could be complicated if you don't know - or can reliably estimate - those things, and if you need more context all the time, it's becoming pretty hard to watch videos. Hence reputation.
Fair enough, it is actually work to do research. But that doesn't make the video wrong. People have time to comment on here and talk crap about a source, but not a few minutes to watch a video and find out possibly insightful information. I think people have wrong priorities here, and the real objectives of comments about reputation are to prevent other people from watching the very thing that you don't feel like watching, and farm internet points in the process.
I'm not saying the video is wrong. I'm saying that often when you have to consider the message, to understand the message, to put it into perspective you need to understand the messenger. If you have one part of information readily available and another part not, you may register the information as a sort of "conditional" one - you don't "feel" a good understanding of it. For example, if you convey this information to somebody else, can you answer basic questions about that? If not, then maybe you don't have a good understanding. The mentioning in this branch is that who's the messenger could be important to understand the message, and the previous history is what you may rely on.
I feel like I'm being trolled left and right here.
>Post history has importance when considering whether someone’s ignorantly sharing partisan propaganda or not.
Yes but it doesn't tell you whether the thing is good information or not! Not everything that is "propaganda" is bad information. Especially in cases of "partisan" issues, you have to look at both sides of it because it often happens that one side denies or misrepresents the other side. I can't believe I have to explain all of this...
Seems like this would be disruptive to lot of people who would have to uproot their families and move to a new state to keep their job? Kids would have to change schools, spouses get new jobs. Leave neighbors/friends/families. All because of one persons culture war grievances
As someone who has been programming professionally for 10 years - what would I gain from reading this book? Not to sound snarky but genuinely wondering what makes it a 'must read' for people who are comfortably coasting in their careers
Not being rude but 10 years of experience is dependent on what that experience actually entailed. IIRC Steve McConnell in his book "Code Complete" says "You can have 20 years of experience or 1 year's experience repeated 20 times". The inference should be clear.
I have been programming since the early 90's and can assure you there is more knowledge in these sort of books from certain authors than most of the books being published today.
The book brings together a lot of aspects to Programming some of which may seem obvious but still have nuances to think about. It also teaches you advanced ways to think about your design (eg. the "Notations" chapter i mention in another comment) where you make your code simpler and elegant by inventing simple DSLs/VMs for parts of your problem. It is this "holistic" view of programming that i think is so essential to understand.
If you're at Goog or Meta, you probably have seen best practices around you. If you're working at elsewhere, some things in the book would might be new to you.
idk about Lucid but I see a ton of Rivians driving around in the city I live. If that's not enough to keep them afloat then what sort of unrealistic expectations had been set and financed against?
Never read The Witcher or played the games but also really enjoyed the netflix series