I think conspiracy stuff is fine on Netflix if presented as entertainment, but I wish they would label it as such in some manner. I'm not sure how one best goes about doing that though outside of hiring some actual anthropologists and archaeologists to do an episode at the end of the series that points out what I assume to be a lengthy list of flaws and assumptions (probably too expensive).
I once watched one of the Ancient Aliens episodes for fun (it was entertaining) and found some pretty poor logic being used to try to fit their conclusions (no surprise there). It is a little sad that a certain portion of the population eats it up though.
I will say the title of the linked article is also jumping pretty hard when asking "how has this been allowed".
> but I wish they would label it as such in some manner.
That might have the opposite effect. If the label is perceived as "being cool", or "presenting stuff they don't want you to know", then some will be more intrigued, more likely to believe it.
Hilarious. Why is it the most dangerous show on Netflix? I clump it together with light entertainment shows like Ancient Astronauts or whatever it was called. Surely not dangerous by any means.
I'd be hard-pressed to call it the most dangerous show, but the reasons why it's problematic are as follows:
1. It's fundamentally anti-intellectual. A lot of the show is ultimately based on attacking archaeology as a field on the basis that it rejects his ideas, without ever attempting to interact with the (well-grounded) reasons his ideas are being rejected. Quite frankly, takes like "the most dangerous show on Netflix" help Hancock more than hurt him, which is one of the reasons I'd never call it that.
2. The ideology is... uncomfortable. His underlying thesis amounts to "white people built every interesting archaeological structure we find in the world before suddenly disappearing without leaving any other trace," although the "white" has been removed from overt mentions in more recent year. Yet you can still guess that it's still covertly there by observing that European constructions never seem to undergo this process.
3. Bad archaeology and pseudoarchaeology can fuel modern arguments for screwing indigenous peoples out of their land or culture, etc.
4. Poor archaeological practices can ruin the ability to do good archaeology on the site in the future. Note the excavation we're talking about here is an example of such poor achaeological--the site has been greatly disturbed by the excavation, which could well foreclose the ability to properly date the site in the future. On a related note, this can also fuel the general public to visit a site and, well, loot it.
5. A final note is that the demand for ancient aliens-style shows crowds out any attempt by archaeologists to actually put together shows about real, interesting archaeological discovers. Producers don't want a show about Çatalhöyük or Göbekli Tepe or Norte Chico that produce interesting questions that challenge what people likely learned in school about the history of civilization. No, you have to attack it with an ancient aliens or whatever conspiracy theory to be able to actually make the documentary. Mainstream archaeology is considered "boring" even when it is absolutely the opposite.
It spent, what, eight episodes attacking archaeology for not taking Hancock seriously. (And really, why not? Who doesn't believe there was a global civilization roughly like the Victorians built on telepathy and sonic vibration technology about 20,000 years ago?)
It's dangerous because it represents the popularization of anti-intellectualism in the modern world.
except for the people who watch the show and seriously believe the stuff, and then go out and live their lives and the rest of us have to live with them spouting that nonsense
This game is all about financial exploitation; spend real money on nothing. The great irony is they don’t want to follow AppStore rules and take an even bigger cut.
Apple's 30 percent fee is financial exploitation too, no shock that they'd want to avoid paying it, but at least apple is upfront with people about how they're screwing them and unlike Fortnite they aren't targeting children.
The article goes over what Epic is looking to change in response to the FTC.
- Automatically saving payment data
- Single-button press purchases
- Disabling accounts that seek refunds for fraudulent purchases
- Lack of self-service refunds
- No spending limits for players under 13
I would recommend reading Peter Zeihan’s books, or watching some of his interviews on You Tube, to get a fuller geopolitical view. It’s fascinating stuff.
Written in 2001, set in 2036. Quite a good estimate of the future although inspired by the likes of Gates. It’s got everything you’d expect aside from Quantum cryptography.
A lot of people of viewing this as a positive story. I’m not sure I do.
Empty boxes are still making their way to the end of the process where a hack is being used to fix the outcome.
The problem of the empty boxes still exists. In fact, it could be many problems down the line.
I saw an interesting comparison of mechanics vs engineers where (no intended slight to mechanics) mechanics will fix the behaviour but engineers will perform Root Cause Analysis.
While I agree that the expensive consultants don’t provide much value, and the solution fix is affordable and nicely and lateral, I don’t think this is what you’re really want.
I draw comparisons to the endeavours that Tesla is making to more efficient manufacturing lines.
Not every problem is worth fixing “the right way”.
The internal cost of wasting a packaging box (a few cents a day) is probably hugely surpassed by the value of increasing quality.
You have to consider the opportunity cost of the Root Cause Analysis and the potential fix, along with shutting down the line to implement it. Compare that to the cost of the fan fix.
Just because you could do Root Cause Analysis doesn’t mean you should go through with it. YAGNI
