karaddin

I laughed and this earlier, they might all be Jaime Lannisters kids.

That is a compelling counterpoint.

The only thing that's making me think there's anything going on is the palace being weird when trying to convince people there's nothing going on. Did they fire Liz's people or something? I swear they were better at their jobs than this.

On Azula Pakku did look weird too, I think it's the make up they used to make the actors look older because it's the same weird as Bumi.

I started this and immediately binged all the current episodes and I'm loving it. Anyone still smarting from Counterpart not getting a 3rd season should give this a try, it's a completely different premise but as of the 5th episode there's a few things scratching the same itch.

The Uvalde investigation determining the cops followed policy there is about as damning of their policy as I can think of. Our policy is to be useless shits and that's what we achieved.

I think it was another "The Volume" style set up? But with bonus green screen right behind the actors for the bending shots. I've got to say on the whole the Volume isn't working for me most of the time it's used. It has some merits, but the limitations it comes with seem to wind up outweighing the advantages most of the time. The Batman is the exception but that had more money to play with and did a lot with lighting separate from it. I don't think "lazy" is a reasonable critique for it, even for using the same music - I think that's based in believing that would work better for fans since the original score is great - even though that choice didn't work for me.

I don't think intent is part of the Australian racial discrimination act, just whether a reasonable person would view the speech as harassing/vilifying/intimidating groups xyz or something along those lines. Perhaps I'm misremembering as its quite a few years ago that I remember it being discussed and definitely not a lawyer, it could have been "whether a reasonable person would believe the intent was to <list of stuff>". I don't think "I was drunk" is the defense being used with respect to intent here though, I agree its a not a good one.

Are you actually interested in understanding a potential rationale for what he said*, or is this point scoring in an argument? I don't agree with him on that so I'm not interested in defending it, but if the goal is understanding I can take a crack. *Was it ever confirmed those comments were definitely him?

Bolded is what I would have thought and why I posted, the second bit does make sense though if this isn't actually indicative of the standard turn around on something like this. The year wait for the court booking still isn't good, but that's a pretty straightforward explanation of the courts being overburdened/insufficiently resourced. That's not even a question of the law though. I don't find what she said offensive, with the disclaimer that her general tone and demeanor could dramatically change how I'd feel about it, but that's the precarious nature of making most of your income from sponsorships. If you do something the sponsors don't like you'll lose them. The only reason I gave any weight to what I'd read on Reddit about it requiring intent was that the reporting indicated that a lack of intent was the defence her lawyers were going with, that seems a poor angle if that's not even a component of the charge.

I'll spare the thread from dealing with yet another rehash of our dramatically different views and just note that population demographics are not a subjective matter, white people are the overwhelming majority - both of people in the UK (82%*), and officers in the Met (85%*) and that impacts how such statements can be taken. All of that said, I'm not saying this law is illegitimate or wrong. I'd view jail time as absurd, but if found guilty I assume there would be a fine and that's the price of being stupid when drunk. The lengthy delays are the problem (or at least the sign of one). *Numbers from a quick Google search that should be ok as a ball park.

Yeah, it was really more of a "this is a demonstration of things not being good" than anything I thought was particularly revelatory. Even police budgets have been pretty cut to the bone right? It's a one year delay for the court case, but just taking a year to decide whether to even push ahead with charges seems really slow and I would have thought not wholly dependent on the courts?

Then the people I was reading were wrong, which is hardly surprising lol. If the charge is entirely about how it's perceived by the target/or the reasonable person standard then that seems much less frivolous to go ahead with charges yeah.

No I wouldn't because, funnily enough, context actually matters and the societal and power dynamics of white and black people aren't the same in our countries. Also half the point of my criticism is that taking 2 years to handle minor shit like that is indicative of significant issues with the system - either too much minor shit being charged or inadequate police/court resourcing and *that* should be fixed. I'm going to roll my eyes at this charge but she did bring it on herself, but it should go to trial and be resolved far faster than this.

Only if there's intent if the keyboard lawyers I saw yesterday are correct about the relevant British law, although I'm blanking on the specifics of what needs to be intended - I don't think it matched up with the Aus ones I'm familiar with and seemed a high bar to meet for that particular phrase. Not to mention no one even gets an opportunity to know and claim double standard if the officer in question had just ignored it.

Sam Kerr facing a 4 day trial in 2025 for calling a cop "white bastard" seems like a questionable investment of resources if your court system is sufficiently overburdened it takes 2 years to handle something that minor.

You don't need to agree with the logic to accept it's motivated by the same concern in both cases though, that's still consistent.

Pretty sure Rip went from "appeasement via conceding territory is the fastest way to end the war and avert the risk of nuclear war" to "Putin is not acting the way he thought, appeasement via limited territorial gains is not possible but he's not at the point of ending the world over a conventional conflict in Ukraine. Therefore the fastest way to end the war, and with it the risk of uncontrolled escalation leading to nuclear war, would have been immediately bringing the initial conflict to an end via overwhelming international force". It's still motivated by avoiding nuclear war.

And the money angle only makes sense from a short term perspective imo. Sure it costs you less now and perhaps people will watch the first season, but it's less likely to be the smash hit they want so it winds up making less money. And most shows get increasing cost efficiency per episode when they get to reuse the sets, although admittedly a show like this doesn't get to reuse as many sets since it keeps relocating. But that feeds back into the argument for giving the characters more time to breath - you can have multiple episodes on the same sets before moving on.

I finished up the rest of the season as well so either it became more enjoyable or the performance style bothered me less as I got used to them. It just feels like an industry wide decision at the corporate level that's having a major negative impact on a lot of series that really need to be 2-4 episodes longer.

I've finished episode 5 now and I can definitely see some seeds that could grow nicely, but some of the others are hard to understand. Ep 4 Ep 5 On the whole Zuko's plot line feels more promising, although I worry they're not selling the start of the arc enough.

Thanks. I clicked through to read that tweet the first time having already read polish's first comment about it, immediately thought he'd misread it and read the rest of the comment with blinders on for that perspective. When polish responded to me I read it again without the blinders and think it's a pretty fair read on the comment.

You disagreeing with the interpretation I was clearing reading doesn't make my usage of the phrase wrong, it means you disagree with me. And hey look at how I replied to polishgenius, I'm capable of listening to differing viewpoints and conceding points when someone doesn't act like a jackass. On an international forum you frequently run into English as second language individuals, or merely people from another country that doesn't use a particular phrase that you take for granted. When someone replies to my usage of a phrase saying nothing but repeating the phrase with a question mark I assume this is what happened, and try to explain in good faith.

My point at least is that you can draw some conclusions about the type of person he was based on what he actually did, rather than a hypothetical worst case scenario of what he didn't do. And that the actual actions taken are at odds with that worst case scenario.

Ok yeah, reading it again I think your interpretation is fair. Acknowledging that civilians exist doesn't carry much weight when you're viewing them as a legitimate target despite that.