I’ll go with “The Good Place”.

To me the show has everything. Comedy, Surprise, deep emotions, and it even is educational. If also is full of positivity, which in today’s times seems harder to do right.

Where lesser shows might have drawn out the ideas over multiple seasons, they constantly moved on from one setting to the next.

And they nailed the finale.

Imo it wasn’t a single mistake, but many compounding ones:

• As you said they should have let it sit a bit longer and imo also slowly build back up with some smaller scale movies.

• They added series in the mix. Imo this is one of the biggest factors. They used shows like Wanda vision to help launch their streaming service and Loki to introduce the next major plot point. Thats a big issue as not everyone will want to commit to watch a full series, but those who don’t will feel like missing something when watching the movie (no matter if this is true or not).

• Just straight up subpar movies quality wise. Unrelated to other problems they just had a bunch of weak films.

• They got unlucky with casting Jonathan Majors as the cornerstone of their next phase and him subsequently being convicted of assualt and harassment.

“an analyst says” has to be the “random twitter user x says” of financial reporting. I bet you find an analyst confirming any random claim, if you just look long enough. And he even goes as far as making the claim zero chance, rather than “unlikely”. But I guess that wouldn’t have made for a good quote.

My counter argument to any such claims: Netflix and their presumably competent and informed army of lawyers and financial advisors felt comfortable including a $5.8b breakup fee as part of the deal.

Somehow I don’t think rich people are in the business of betting such amounts on zero chance deals.

Is it? Paramount+Larry Ellison+the Saudis was not a particular great alternative either. I guess only time will tell, how this turns out.

With Paramount I think there would have been the risk of WB remaining in a similar form, but being ideologically twisted.

With Netflix or course there is a larger risk towards theatrical and physical releases as it goes against their primary business model. And the biggest threat to creativity is not ideology, but in a way the opposite. Lack thereof and instead focus on just metrics like short term viewership numbers.

The best option out of the bad ones would have probably been something like Comcast. Or in my dreams wb would have just stayed independent, splitting of linear assets. They have a ton of debt, but imo eventually they’d have been strong enough to survive. Bur I guess sadly this wasn’t the most lucrative path.

I would even go as far and say that the EA purchase (price aside) is one that kind of makes sense compared to some other projects like the line or the absurd sums they are paying to individual athletes.

With all their sports washing and involvement in that area there might be synergies with all the sport game franchises EA has that can be leveraged.

And with them being focused quite a bit on tourism and hosting events having EA also helps on the esports side. Buying the publisher is basically buying the sports federation. Usually they can just bribe those, not straight up buy them outright.

The Slow Horses seasons might be on the short side, but man do they have a fast production schedule compared to pretty much everything else nowadays. Looking at the release dates here it seems like for all 5 seasons there were less than a year gap between the last episode of one and the first episode of the next season. We got 4 seasons of Slow horses in a shorter time period than between the first and second Severance seasons.

Second season went the same way as The Boys. Same shit different day or maybe better said, same exploding dick different day.

Yeah, they definitely went overboard adding grapic explicit scenes in basically every episode just for the sake of it.

It’s fascinating to see how the service choice influences things. On more niche, tech heavy parts of the internet like Lemmy it is somewhat of a rarity, as most will watch through a variety of legal and not legal sources, but i imagine this is a lot more common overall.

I didn’t have a clear list before i sat down to make one a while ago either, but it was an interesting thing to do. Not sure how it was for you, but the first few series were rather easy to pick (maybe not the specific rank, but that they’d be included in the top 10), but filling the last few spots was harder.

I am also a bit suprised to not see Stranger Things, since that seems like one of the most popular Netflix shows in general. Personally only watched the first season a long time ago, but never had the itch to check out the rest.

Now that is a surprising list of shows to pick for a top 10 of all times.

If i see this right those seem to be mostly Netflix series, with the exception of the 100, which in itself seems like an unusual choice. I have to say i am a bit curious how one ends up with a list like this. Especially since I can’t quite see an otherwise obvious pattern.

In early August, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced a suspension of exports of arms to Israel that could be used in the Gaza Strip “until further notice,” marking a major shift in German foreign policy.

Regardless of how arms exports should be handled (i’d be on the side of banning them until there is actual change), this just seems like bad politics. Why even bother to first suspend them completely after such a long time and then immediately revert back?

Seems to me like this achieves literally nothing, but is the worst option in regard to public perception. Like they could have just kept the status quo, since there all the bad publicity was already “priced in” so to speak. Or they could do a move like in August and change their stance, but then you got to keep it up for it to actually matter and intend to do so from the start. If you revert this fast you get the backlash again for your original stance AND you look weak to the counterparty.

And yet another issue is that the height doesn’t just matter while driving, but also when cars are parked. Being able to anticipate dangerous situations is a key aspect for safety, but if tall cars on the side of the road block your visibility that becomes much harder.

I’d like to know how long the lifecycles of those charging stations are. Because you are right that Maximum speed and break times put a hard cap on distance needed, but at least some form of self driving will eventually come and i’d imagine long distance highway trucking would be the prime target for deployment.

With iPhones i think it’s less about durability (and especially in the software department they were always great in terms of longevity), but more about repairability in case something does happen.

As far as lightbulbs go the issue with potential planned obsolescence doesn’t go way just because of the swap to LEDs. First there are a type of bulb even today that use some form of filament and second the part that gets damaged is usually some kind of capacitor or other electronic part that gets run with too much voltage and too hot. Don’t have time to watch it again, but i remember finding this video from a few years ago interesting.

That’s my main problem as well. He is also constantly in a conflict of interest with his other companies, particularly xAI.

If Tesla were to ever reach those insane valuations, they’d have to succeed (and dominate) in fields like self driving, robotics/automation and ai. Fields that xAI is also pursuing or could possibly expand into.

Elon has a stake in Tesla, but he holds more percentage wise in xAI and even increased his stake there when he made them buy X for an imo very unrealistic valuation. It’s exactly like you say, he is and will continue to pit these companies against each other (and maybe start new ones) to increase his share.

I think he’s also exploiting that somehow a lot of the valuation still seems to hang on him, although particularly in the case of Tesla I don’t know what he has done for the company in recent years (if he’d have developed xAI inside the company we could maybe talk, but he purposely did that outside because he wanted more ownership stake).

Berkshire Hathaway would kind of be the antithesis to this I think. If I understand it correctly they barely pay their directors, but instead they simply hold quite a bit of shares, so doing well for the company also benefits them.

I was reasonmably entertained during my watch and initially suprised by the low letterboxd rating (atm 2.9 out of 5), but the more i think about it, the more i agree with the low score.

For people who haven’t seen it i’d recommend Fail Safe (1964) over this one.

I do agree with the notion that phones in todays society are hugely important and spending money on what for most people might be their most important computing device is valid.

But the thing is that you really don’t need to spend this kind of money to get all the performance 95% of people need. Unless you want a foldable phone or NEED the telefoto-lense that is often reserved for higher end models (but I assume even then there are cheap options),

As an example here in Germany you can get a pixel 9 for under 500€, if you get a cheap mobile contract even cheaper (I pay 15€/month over 2 years and got a free pixel 9 with the mobile plan). All the performance you need and makes great photos. And for anyone who wants lots of storage there are still phones with sd card readers

How should Germany have reacted? As I see it there were two possible culprits: Russia or Ukraine. If we make a big deal out of it we have to act.

• Say it turns out to be Russia, then we have a direct attack on the infrastructure of a NATO member. If we don’t react to that it sends a desastrous message. If we do we and the rest of NATO have to react with force, something everyone has tried to avoid at all cost so far.

• If links to Ukraine turn out to be true (which seems more likely atm) this will give a massive boost to anti Ukrainian sentiment, with a good chance of complete collapse of public support for Ukraine. So what are we supposed to do then? Considering how Germany got bashed by everyone already for seemingly not doing enough (unfairly imo).

Now even getting into a position like that is the result of long-term strategic failure. But in my limited view keeping this topic comparatively small is a favor to everyone involved. Because in the end world goes on without the pipeline as well.

Someone correct me if I am wrong. But my understanding is roughly the following:

This isn’t for the soldiers, but civilan stuff like cleaners, handymans and so on. The US bases are substantial and probably the largest employer by far in their respective region. So if there is an issue it has substantial knock-on effects for the whole region. Not just the people working there, but also restaurants, shops and so on.

Eventually this would get very expensive for Germany regardless, because if this would go on for too long all these people would need to be taken care of by the welfare system.

So it is likely cheaper to just pay a few salaries and through that avoid permanent changes plus their associated costs, and hope that the US gets their shit together at least somewhat. Even if they don’t pay the money back it might still come out cheaper than the alternative.

This definitely seems like a good idea. It’s a big issue that most promising European companies go to the US for their listings in search for access to capital.

Seems to me that this would already have been the obvious move after Brexit.

However I feel like this is doomed to fail for the same reason as many other issues. Clashing interests of different member states within the EU. I assume this would still need to have a primary location somewhere, so Frankfurt or Paris would be the most likely location to build this up. Merz bringing this up presumably would like it to be Frankfurt, but I very much doubt that Macron would feel similarly.

I actually never watched letterkenny beyond maybe a few episodes and clips, but have watched shorsey, which is outstanding imo: considering you have letterkenny this high up, what’s your take on Shorsey? Assuming you’ve watched it so far.

For me the question is whether or not one should include unfinished series at all. With my list I made the decision to include some like e.g. Futurama, which technically isn’t finished as it was recently rebooted, however is a bit more open-ended (similar to simpsons), but exclude others like Severance.

The likes of game of thrones and Westworld have taught me to not rank shows until they have concluded. Westworld season 1 is goated and would probably make my top 10, but it just fell off after. Right now Severance is amazing, but if they don’t manage to tie up the mystery nicely the whole show might not hold up after all, just as rewatching got just feels wrong knowing where it eventually leads to.