IFR

Martin is a master of short stories, and I agree that is where most of his best work is. As much as I like A Song of Ice and Fire, it is very unfortunate that it dominated the latter half of Martin's writing career and potentially denied us many great short stories. Tuf Voyaging is one of my absolute favorites.

I cannot uncouple myself from the idea that the likely victim and the unlikely victim hold equal regard to me. I suppose for me the unlikely victim is "likely enough" that I cannot simply disregard them. It is perhaps influenced by personal experience, where I know both types of victims. I responded appropriately to the likely victim, and very inappropriately to the unlikely victim, and I do feel guilty about it.

I haven't played the games, but I liked Westworld enough that I will give this a chance. Hopefully it's good!

Perspectives. You've given your perspective, and it's welcome, but there are other perspectives, and I welcome them too. As I said before, my personal issue is one of cognitive dissonance: two contradictory thoughts held simultaneously. I find that perspectives outside my own sometimes help navigate these issues.

I think we've taken this particular discussion as far as it will go. I respect your opinion, and you can take my suggestion or not as you wish. I encourage others to please engage in moderate language even if not everyone else does. Otherwise I suppose BigFatCoward will have predicted the outcome of this thread correctly, and I apologize to the mods for the inconvenience of dealing with things getting out of hand. I do hold out hope though that this is something that can reasonably be discussed.

I'm a woman.

It's only a suggestion, and I certainly am not trying to argue the content of your point, but may I observe that the tone here is slightly hostile? This is how heated arguments break out on topics like this. The emotion we feel when we present our opinions are valid, but in the hopes of a productive discussion a more neutrally worded take is usually helpful. Otherwise someone who perhaps overall agrees with your opinion but disagrees with minor points suddenly feels attacked and will perhaps themselves respond in a way that you feel is inflammatory, and there the discussion dies out and ends with both parties enraged. This is only a suggestion, and I certainly am glad for your contributions to this thread.

I don't know more about the case than is published. That article is the most in depth on this case I could find. In the article Gatt alleges that the district attorney had a personal bias against him, and furthermore, a personal relationship to a key witness and carried out "unconstitutional" policies. Quoted from the article: If someone else is more familiar with the details, then perhaps they can provide an answer.

Everyone, thank for your perpectives on this sensitive issue. I was uncertain whether I should make this thread at all, but it truly is an issue of cognitive dissonance for me, and it's not an issue easily discussed. I appreciate all the contributions so far. And I hope it can continue in this manner.

I will give my perspective to perhaps aid discussion. My reaction when I read these stories is to reflexively condemn the alleged perpetrators. This is for a couple of reasons. First, perhaps it's social conditioning, or perhaps something else is going on, but I find I'm often cynical of the motivation of people in their interactions, and so when I hear about predatory behavior it seems believable. A second reason is that it feels wrong to me to disbelieve someone else's experience. The idea of being put into the position of someone who is a victim of such a violation and then having people doubt me makes me ill. This is a strong perspective on my part. On the other hand, I'm forced to reckon that the other side of this being a cynical world is that people can unjustly utilize victimhood for the purpose of predation on others. These are two opposed points and they both produce a visceral reaction in me. It's very hard to reconcile them. And so for me the answer to my own question is I don't know. Perhaps a discussion can provide illumination to resolve this dilemma to some extent. Perhaps not. Anyway, that's where I'm at.

Maybe. I hope that's not the case. I've thus far had pretty good experiences here in discussions of sensitive issues where people were able to engage respectfully and give their perspectives without inflammatory dialogue. This seems like a legitimate issue to address, in my mind. We'll see.

I was reading an article on Joseph Gatt, who played Thenn Warg on Game of Thrones. The article is here. In 2022 the actor was arrested for alleged correspondence of a sexual nature with a minor. I remember reading this when it happened. It was all over the news. If you googled "Game of Thrones", his arrest would pop up near the top. The media lavished attention on this. Very recently, the real story came out, and it is an unbelievable miscarriage of justice. The article is worth reading, but here is a brief summary. The boyfriend of one of the sisters of the perpetrator (that is, the minor and previously alleged victim) purchased a Cameo video of Gatt for the perpetrator. The perpetrator then contacted Gatt on instagram and Gatt "responded in a manner that was wholly appropriate and consistent with typical celebrity-fan exchanges." The perpetrator then through Snapchat fabricated conversations with Gatt of a sexual nature. One of her sisters saw these conversations, took a photo of them and sent them to the police. Here's where the miscarriage of justice comes in, as per the allegations Gatt makes in his 40 million dollars lawsuit. - The police didn't take measures to verify the authenticity of the correspondence. - A condition of his bail was that he was prohibitted from making a public statements. - A private investigator Gatt hired found evidence that the conversations were manufactured, and "the forensic investigator was not allowed to present his findings in court and that the investigator and actor were threatened with jail time if they made the findings public or spoke publicly about the district attorney's office or Brunson." Gatt states that this all destroyed his career and he was labelled a serial pedophile. -- I also bring attention another high profile case: that of Chris Avellonee. Two women - Karissa Barrows and Kelly Bristol - accused Avellone of sexual assault on Twitter. Others on Twitter corroborated their story. Karissa Barrows even gave an interview with Kotaku (here) and describes her encounter. Warning, this involves disturbing predatory sexual conduct. The case was dismissed and Avellone sued these two women and later won a 7 figured lawsuit. The women also had to make a public statement retracting their accusations. Here is the Forbes article. Like Gatt, Avellone was immediately blacklisted from his industry. These are two high profile instances, but there is a larger issue at hand, and often involving people without the means to exonerate themselves as these two have (although to what extent they are able to repair their reputation remains in question). I introduce these cases for discussion because this complicates the issue of how we as the public should respond to accusations when we do not know what actually happened. In both of these cases, simply based on the initally released information, the two victims (Gatt and Avellone) appeared very guilty. And yet there was more to it. What do you think?

Irradiation of the probe wouldn't likely be a problem from the arranged nukes. Most of the "damage" from nukes is transference of energy through a medium like the atmosphere (kinetic and thermal energy). The craft would be configured for a smaller surface area so incident radiation is minimal (whereas the sail is designed with maximum surface area). Nukes could also be configured to reduce neutron flux, so it would largely be beta, alpha and gamma radiation (which can be shielded against). The plan is impractical more from the standpoint that cosmic radiation of heavy nuclei would doubtless cause heavy irradation through the duration of the probe's travel.

It could quite possibly be part of their contract, which had some unusual stipulations. They were, for instance, contractually limited to the amount of China and Chinese that could be included in their show.

Maybe. At this juncture it's impossible to say how well this will all turn out. I personally think that at the level the first season was executed, the ambition of the show runners probably exceeds their ability. My hope is that with the first season as a trial, they've developed more awareness of the technical limitations they are confronted with (even given the large budget they have) and adapt around these limitations in inventive ways. Less focus on CGI and more focus on practical effects that are visually interesting. 2001 was made almost 60 years ago, and a lot of that looks better than what was seen in the first season of this show. Character and story wise, the first book was heavily compressed and the ending was really just a set up for the structure of the rest of the show grafted awkwardly to the conclusion. The first season was clearly something the show runners wanted to get out of the way so they could get to the material they actually found interesting in the trilogy, and it kind of shows. The show runners have pretty much openly stated this is the case too. I don't know if the quality of the rest of the show can really be predicted by this first season when it's intended as a set-up for the rest of the show, where the following seasons will be the payoff.

As a book reader, part of the fun of this journey will be watching the perspective of show watchers shift. With the caveat that this all depends on to what extent of proficiency Woo, Benioff and Weis adapt the experience of reading the books, right now many of the reactions are that the show is decent enough, but is that it? By the end, however, this should become a show profoundly different from anything else out there in terms of scale and ambition. And a rewatch will give details that were previously banal a much greater weight. A lot depends on the skill of the adaptation though. It will be interesting to see how the journey evolves.

I think it's a bit insulting this suggestion that it's more unlikely for scientists to be attractive. I also think it doesn't align with reality in my experience. Of all the criticisms of this adaptation, this one seems bizarre to me.

Come and See is a good one. Schindler's List is another for me. I think anyone except sociopaths or the truly jaded would find Dominion disturbing. It was the hardest movie to watch that I've ever seen. You can find it free on YouTube.

The entire discussion past Spockydog's request for book spoilers are all book spoilers. I recommend you read the books. Some people find the first book rough, though I personally enjoyed it. The other two books are very much a different experience though. It's worth avoiding spoilers and enjoying it without knowing what you are getting into. I think the story is still excellent even knowing what's ahead, but there's a good deal of pleasure in the rollercoaster ride of the wild events that occur. I was fortunate to go in knowing nothing about the books other than they were highly recommended in scifi circles, and it was glorious. @JGP The show runners have stated in interviews that they hope for four seasons. This makes sense to me. The second season should cover book two and perhaps some of book three. Book three is extremely eventful and sprawling, and can easily be divided into two seasons. Also, to further you discussion with Deadlines, here's my submission to the argument. Consider a magician. They engage in their trade via deception. They don't have to verbally communicate, yet they manage to deceive. Yet it would be highly unconventional to term their trade as lying. It is deception. Book two prologue and book one spoilers:

Can someone explain to me how Truth Social is valued so highly?

It baffles me too, but that's just the nature of some fandoms, I suppose. Ultimately it probably won't matter. The imdb rating was at 6.2 a day ago, and is now at 7.5. I suspect that it will slowly raise and settle somewhere between 7.9 and 8.4. Which at this point of the adaptation is a fair rating (I personally would give this first season a solid B, up to episode 5). Benioff and Weiss and Woo aimed to capture the spirit of the book, and really, that was also my impression of the first book. If they are able to do a good job of books 2 and 3, then I think the rating will cap at somewhere mid-8, which will make it somewhat like Andor - a brilliant show whose quality isn't quite reflected by the imdb rating. But that's a big if. There was a lot of underwhelming use of CG this season. I think if Benioff and Weiss and Woo want to be successful with this adaptation, they need to step up their game, and hopefully focus more on visually interesting non-CG approaches to the scifi elements, as much as they can.

The Netflix version is very divisive among Chinese viewers. Imdb is currently getting some review bombing shrapnel from Chinese viewers who are outraged that this isn't a direct facsimile of the Tencent version (also some vestige of the mentally juvenile who are cannot let go of their hate of Benioff and Weiss for "ruining" GoT and so give this show a 1). You can also see this on the reddit page. Lots of upside Chinese viewers there too.

The books are absolutely worth reading. I think this first season can be watched without really spoiling the breadth of the book series, and the show is pretty good. I recommend avoiding the Tencent adaptation though. It's inferior to the books in every way, and probably will take you twice as long to get through the first season as all three of the books. It's kind of shocking how badly paced it is. It would be like stretching Lord of the Rings out for 100 hours. I mean, it does seem to appeal to a niche audience. And of course Chinese seem to like it. But I half-suspect that Chinese like it because their cinema is in such a dire state that anything with a modicum of ambition is worthy of acclaim there.

I'm keeping this thread spoiler free. It's easy enough to hide spoilers, and since all episodes are released, people will be watching this at different rates. I watched the first episode and liked it quite a bit. I have a few nitpicks, but I think it was a strong opening episode.

Clarke absolutely did this in 2001, and to an even greater extent in Childhood's End. The technology and science of the advanced species were examples of this - just like with Three Body Problem. The space magic approach tends to be common even among proficient writers of science fiction when attempteing to predict highly advanced technology or science.