Jump to content

Nogravitasatall

Members
  • Posts

    5239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Nogravitasatall

  1. I’m going to say v11.24.18. I’m not sure about the last iteration number but hey. The in-house release name might be something like “Groom”. Edit: maybe it makes sense to think of him as a code release. Hehe.
  2. That’s an interesting proposition. That Leonard had more female relationships was a characteristic of that time, but I don’t pine for that. It’s more a question of the narrative focus. They now have such a large and talented cast, and so little time and they give over a lot of that time to Sheldon, who just annoys me.
  3. I don’t watch a show because it’s popular. Never seen a whole episode of Survivor, don’t watch Masterchef, many shows that I like die at 3 years, or get one season, like Serenity. I mentioned this once at work, they said that’s <another reason> why I’m not in Development.
  4. Land Rover fan, huh. I like to look at ‘m. Maybe I’d want a Defender 90, but I’d have to divorce to have one. Heheh. Edit: you know you can unbolt them completely - in your garage. They’re like MECHANO. As to how Sheldon changed, they made him hetero, but also 12 years old. It’s a little weird. And Amy is on board. Maybe weirder. All her friends say so too. Hehe. No, but we know Mr Galecki is an artiste, from the theatre (imagine that said with Penny’s “I’m an actor” flourish) And I remember Mr Parsons saying, maybe scoffingly, “Imagine playing Sheldon at 50“. Edit: and yes sitcoms are business, but the way this show has maneuvered to chase the sweet spot makes it a bit of an outlier. Then again, what’s dominant now is the Sheldon legacy. It’ll be remembered for that, not for what I liked. That was the earlier years, before the show found its legs. *sigh*
  5. Maybe not. Maybe they could have ridden their artistic vision to its natural conclusion. But they chased the audience. And now we have what we have. 😀 There are shows in the UK, and maybe in the US that wrap when they are done. Here, they re-tooled and tweaked and re-engined the chassis. It’s not the original, it’s like Series 3 Landrover with a Cummins engine transfer. It’s nice, but not original. but again, preference and opinion. TPTB do have great show business skills. No doubting the skills of the artists either. But they changed their vision. In some sense it’s like Darrin becoming a warlock, and Agatha being a doting mother-in-law. They kept the skin but re-routed the plumbing. There is a bit of the original left, and it’s a nice ride, but it’s not what is was. But I’m not dissing anyone who likes it now. I’m just being the curmudgeon that I am. And I still want Leonard and Penny to get their... um, stuff together. I’d like to see that emerge again.
  6. That episode was an exception I thought. Though it serves my point. Cooper once got upset about academic credit, in the episode you reference he turned his back on his academic adventure. He used to be ridiculously obsessed with his work, now he gets mawkish about Amy. It’s not the exceptional thing it was. It’s straight rom-com, more or less. If it’s silly, it’s more adolescently silly perhaps. Anyway, preference, huh. I preferred it then.
  7. I can’t see that they have any incentive to change, from the money making side of things. Why shut off the pump? And if any cast want to be creative, and take artistic risks, well they can quit or not re-sign. But ‘twere me, if I was an actor of a certain age and mostly happy, I’d stay at the pump handle. I do miss the silliness of the early seasons. I saw the Cooper-Norwitzki one last night. “You want to share credit?... GET OUT!”. Now we get little house on the prairie fare. I think the writers are signalling, heheh.
  8. Something like over 60 seats are less tightly R than this one had been. I’d be interested if someone could articulate for me the concerns of the American right regarding the ACA? Not the death panel nonsense or problems with its execution, but more the principles for resistance? I had the thought that it might be “rugged individualism”. But if one wants to access c21 medical technology then unless one is born into good circumstance or get lucky or are exceptional, without universal coverage you miss out. Or as Tensor notes, get expensive traumatic treatment at emergency rooms rather cheaper preventative care. There are many ethical and moral and even financial arguments for helping your neighbours. Why is the resistance to the ACA, a right wing Heritage Foundation idea and market based, so deep? Is it simply partisanship or is it a cultural thing? Or is it because it wasn’t included in your country’s owners manual that was written several centuries ago? We had the debate back in the 70’s and it took two national election cycles to resolve x the left brought it in, the right took it out, the left brought it back, and it stuck - so now we have basic universal coverage. If you want a buttock implant, then that’s elective and you self insure or buy private coverage, but my child had free neonatal care for 3 months. i don’t understand the principles of the resistance to the ACA, which in someways tried to harness the industry to serve the citizens, rather than having the citizens serve the industry.
  9. Miriam Margoyles (Professor Sprout/naturalised Australian/Jewish lesbian) did a doco wherein she visited Chicago amongst other places. You can get shot standing on the wrong street, she discovered, and she reported three deaths occurring, maybe because people congregated when they heard she was in a park. Bananas, to me. It’s hard to unpack. Make bullets really super expensive maybe? The guns problem is hard. Glad we don’t have it.
  10. I wrote a long screed but lost it. I have this thought that healthcare should be considered like defense. A public good. Everyone pays for it, if they can; no one fails to benefit from it, if they need it. Am I mad?
  11. ... and your kids, your spouse, your parents, your employer, your church, your friends, your school... i could be wrong of course.
  12. People are complex, selling is easy, managing societies is hard. Unrestrained capitalism gave you burning rivers. Some inefficiencies will always exist, it’s one of the costs not of being small, agrarian or pre-technological. Every big enough society evolves bureaucrats to keep things running. Or you will grow tribes, or hyper-corporations. Maybe not democracy. Just to be as hyperbolic. edit: and want a non political, non bureaucratic example of unintended consequences? Everything resulting from Facebook. Complex systems, who knew.
  13. Just a little hyperbolic. I don’t know how you otherwise imagine societies to be organised. Massive hyper-corporations perhaps, or tribes. Golly.
  14. I’m going to say the the show has shaped the expectations of the audience. They started outside the box and by S11 they had put everyone inside the box. Except Raj, who is still bouncing up and down taking peeks over the wall of the box. Good point. Why would she? She’s married, happily. (I totally stopped comprehending properly at “hook up”. My bad)
  15. That’s terrible. As I understand it, the ACA tried to fix that. It tried - it wasn’t perfect - but it tried. It could have been made better. But it seems to me the ideologues on the right, who have coverage themselves, and so think of this as an ideological abstraction rather than life or death, want to kill it, the venal want to continue holding the health insurance money-extorting-vacuum to the wallets of the afflicted, and Trump just wants to kill whatever Obama did. Trump said, "Obamacare. We're going to repeal it, we're going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!" Just on that I’d be sceptical. It’s peculiar how far he has got - all the way to the top - on culture wars alone. About the only time I believe he is honest is when he is saying something inflammatory. Golly, it’s depressing. And I don’t live there, I just read about it. I wonder if there is anything to be done and will it be done? About improving healthcare. Is that even on the agenda now? Trump’s noise seems to be keeping that question out of the news.
  16. Well, Buffy hooked up with Spike, so sure. It’s doable, theoretically. Not unprecedented. But I think Buffy had died and then come back from Heaven and had had trouble adjusting to her resurrected status, and was using Spike as a coping tool. What Penny would have to go through that’s comparable, I don’t know. Could they do a “Darrin from Bewitched” or “Becky from Roseanne”? I’d think not. Tragi-comic widow seems like a good reboot to me. Though maybe it’s more spin-off.
  17. Leonard doesn’t survive gamma ray experiment (after work drinks & too many Hulk comics), after Penny reveals pregnancy. Penny and Zach then rekindle and move to Venice Cal. to raise smart and beautiful babies (never-seen twins). Sheldon has stroke in hallway - no particular reason - Amy hooks up with Bert, then Howard and Bernadette become hero couple. You’re welcome
  18. I think it’s pretty obvious their situation is pretty poor. But now the Republicans are sucking up to Putin, formerly a communist, maybe they can step back a degree and socialise their healthcare - it’s only logical. Heheh.
  19. I hope that it either becomes extremely funny and and engaging again (with Leonard and Penny as leads again 😀) - or dies. It’s the zombie stagger of overlong decline that degrades my enjoyment. But it’s nice that everyone works. And it’s not like it’s malevolent. They could stagger on to S15 without harming anyone seriously.
  20. I’m only a casual reader on health policy. As Trump said ... healthcare is complicated. He had a quick go and then threw his hands in the air and instead delivered an unfunded (ie debt funded) tax cut that skewed to the already well capitalised. Bright shiny things. But... I believe Bernie Sanders has a universal health care proposal at hand that was costed out as directly increasing government outlays to 32 trillion on health. Which is a lot. The rub is that the USA collectively already is on track to spend that much anyway - for worse results, because of the inefficiencies built into the medical services deliveries system in the USA. They spend more money for less results than any other first world country. I think a lot of it is duplication and and maybe a fair bit of it is that health is not a normal market. In the States I believe there is a medical category of bankruptcy - where to save your life you become yourself totally totally impoverished. It’s a brutal way to ration health resources, to my mind. It was the foundation idea of “Breaking Bad”. The guy was going to die because he couldn’t afford the treatment. Unbelievable, right? Anyway, in total, it’s likely that switching to the Sanders plan would save the whole US economy $2trillion. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare I don’t know anything about NHS stories, and I’m sure there are many, but the concerns you express about NHS misallocations might figure at the scale of rounding errors in the NHS budget, in comparison to significant health services costs. One of my kids was prem at 890g (say approx 2lb) birthweight and required one-on-one nursing 24/7 at an estimated cost of $20k per day - back in the early 90s. She was in neonatal intensive care for months. A lot more expensive than an office repaint and any professional training days, I’d suggest. Not to say those admin overheads can’t be well or better managed and sometimes aren’t, but the medical services are things that cost the big bucks. The NHS has the the government’s buying power behind the consumer. I think in the States the consumer is not so well backed. Edit: back to say I don’t really know what the Trump plan is, but I read that it was reversionary. The administration apparently is working to inhibit the ACA and approve what used to be called junk or catastrophic plans, where you have plans at all. And there is still rugged individualism as a fallback. I’d be happy to be more fully informed. Anyway, not a healthcare expert. Moving on.
  21. Agreed. It’s a representational democracy. I think the argument is that the majority, having elected their representatives, is authorising them to enact policies the majority voted on. If the representatives fail to do what they said, then the solution is to vote them out, surely. And “but tax cuts” isn’t relevant. But that’s what was delivered instead.
  22. It does sound pretty awful when you put it that way. But tax cuts.
  23. I think we are talking about elected republican members of Congress. Their votes are public, and I believe there are registers that can be referenced to confirm how the Congress folk vote on issues. It’s an accountability measure. Somone might fact check me. I’m still learning.
  24. A. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/saudi-guests-boosted-revenue-at-trumps-new-york-hotel-reversing-drop.html B. That’s not helpful. 🤭😪. They have to be replaced through a democratic process. Throwing pollies in gaol for the way they vote is entirely the wrong way to go. 😀
  25. “If Trump really wants to establish a kleptocracy, there are easier countries to do it in.”, says the Washington Post (a year ago). But Trump says they are fake news, ergo he must want to establish a kleptocracy. We know the emoluments clause hasn’t stopped him yet - and he is planning more tax cuts funded by debt. It’s all fun and games until...
×
×
  • Create New...