Ilandar

The first season was definitely better than the second, but overall I think it's very good. One of House of the Dragon's particular strengths compared to Game of Thrones is that it is focused predominately on two families and a small number of key people within those families. Game of Thrones derailed over time as it added more and more characters and had less and less time available to resolve its many overarching storylines. I think it's much more likely that House of the Dragon will have a satisfying conclusion (not least because it is an adaptation of an already completed story). If I were to make one criticism, the big plot twists are much easier to spot in advance and that can sometimes make them feel a little forced. I know that this is a show set in the universe of Game of Thrones and I know that it will be trying to deliver the same big moments a) because the original author is the same but also b) because the producers are trying to recreate a success of that scale. Knowing how insane Game of Thrones got, I just feel super alert to all the tricks and foreshadowing and can feel stuff winding up in House of the Dragon way earlier than I could in its predecessor. Still a great show though, one of the very best currently airing.

I really liked 'The Last Kingdom'. Some seasons were better than others, but Uhtred was a very fun main character and his story had an excellent conclusion in the film.

Did you watch the 2024 adaptation of 'Shōgun' as well? How does it compare to the 1980 adaptation?

I think Sony is one of the few major (in terms of brand name recognition) manufacturers that is yet to jump on the AI hype train. It has the standard Android stuff like Gemini, but hasn't done much else. Other than that, all I can really think of are smaller manufacturers like Fairphone that don't have the resources to develop anything themselves. All the major Chinese brands are full of this stuff, as are companies like Nothing and Motorola which took a while to get there.

Yes, the addictive qualities of these platforms is the major problem that legislation should be focused on. It universally affects every user, and is particularly harmful for children and young people whose brains are still developing. These drugs are free and can be accessed at any time, anywhere. I feel like I say this in every thread but it is just insane to me that the biggest harm is the one that barely seems to get a mention. The Conversation published one of their Yes/No style articles today in which they ask a panel of "experts" to argue Yes or No to a specific question, in this case whether YouTube should be included in the ban, and only one of the five commented on the intentionally addictive and manipulative design of social media.

Lemmy saw "AI" in the title and kneejerked, as it tends to do.

I watched 'In the Heat of the Night' (1967). Good film, but I was a little surprised to see that it was nominated for 7 Oscars and won 5, including Best Picture. It relies very heavily on the dynamics between the main characters and its major themes; the mystery plot is secondary/background to everything else and feels quite underdeveloped. I guess it is a product of its time in many ways and the major messages, whilst still relevant, don't have the same impact nearly 60 years later.

Aren't Pixels already filled with AI? Why is this the thing that tips you over the edge?

I love how clearly this shows Roglic's "why not, eh?" suicidal solo attack and collapse.

I have a pair of Galaxy Buds (1st Gen) and they are the only headphones that still display a battery icon. Not sure if I'm missing something obvious but it feels very much like the type of anti-consumer walled garden change Samsung would make these days in its "copy Apple" era.

One strange thing is that riders still seem to only give consideration to the first place of those classifications, despite UCI now granting points to the 3 ‘podium’ places in those, and not just for the 1st place. Well, I don’t know: for the green jersey, Turgis and Abrahamsen kept on scoring points until the end, despite being ranked 5th or 6th or 7th… Was it like a parade to them? Did they hope several guys from the podium would abandon? Did they believe there was a separate Intermediate Sprint classification as on the Tour of Italy? 😀

I recall reading somewhere that there used to be small amounts of prize money allocated for minor positions in the sprints, which is part of the reason riders would contest them even when there was no tactical reason to do so. I'm not sure if that's still the case, but I do wonder if there are other factors like that at play. The riders you mentioned are both from smaller teams, so maybe the outside chance of their team earning a small amount of points or money is worth it for them. This also explains why Coquard is always contesting those sprints despite never being close to winning them or the Green Jersey.

The episodes are super short so altogether it's essentially a film and very bingeable. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!