Things you should know by now, but only just discovered

merphle wrote:
Rykin wrote:
Stele wrote:

That show was great. I'm glad Ritter got the Jessica Jones gig but I still wish Apt23 had more seasons.

When my wife and I were doing a watch of Break Bad (first time for her, second for me) and when she showed up as Jesse's GF I was like "oh hey that's Jessica Jones." It is really sad what happened with the Marvel Netflix shows. They had some great writing, not you Iron Fist, and great casting and I felt like they were all set to get really interesting in the next season.

Daredevil >>> Jessica Jones = Luke Cage = The Punisher >>> Iron Fish

Yes, I'm leaving that typo in.

Daredevil = Jessica Jones >>> Luke Cage = The Punisher >>> Defenders >>> Iron Fish >>> Iron Fist

Also would have been cool to get a Ghost Rider spin-off out of Agents of Shield.

Punisher had such a good first season and such a bleh second season.

Most of the Netflix Marvel shows had some really strong parts, and to varying degrees were dragged down by weak parts. I actually think the first season of Daredevil was better than many of the movies, with a stellar combination of writing, acting, cinematography, and fantastic fight choreography, and the third season made up for the dip in quality of the second. Jessica Jones's first season was probably the most interesting of all the series in terms of issues brought up - PTSD, gaslighting, systematic acceptance of the abuse of women - that have only become even more a part of social discourse since it premiered.

Luke Cage's first season had a really strong first half that I thought was unfortunately undone by killing off the interesting villain (magnetically played by Mahershala Ali) and substituting a boring, generic comic book villain. The second season had a great villain, but I found it pretty meandering plot-wise in a way that sapped interest. I kind of loathe the character of the Punisher - that kind of rationalized revenge fantasy seems to me one of the more toxic tropes in media - but I can recognize that there was some interesting writing and great acting work from Jon Bernthal, Ben Barnes, and Amber Rose Revah.

Iron Fist...well, Jessica Henwick was great (I'm not slighting Finn Jones, I don't think anyone could have made a compelling character out of the mess that was in the script), and I was excited that they passed the Fist on to her, and then immediately afterwards was let down when Marvel puled the plug on the whole series.

Daredevil S1 = Jessica Jones S1 = worth watching

everything else Netflix MCU = not worth watching

Some of that latter category is there by reputation as opposed to personal observation, so I guess I'll be forced to believe anyone who disagrees, because hell if I can be arsed to see for myself.

As bad as Iron Fist is, I wouldn't say don't watch it because that would do a great disservice to Jessica Henwick. She wasn't given much to work with, but she killed it for the most part.

Yeah, I've been hoping - mostly in vain so far - for her to get a role somewhere that continues to display what made her the best part of Iron Fist.

Evan E wrote:

Luke Cage's first season had a really strong first half that I thought was unfortunately undone by killing off the interesting villain (magnetically played by Mahershala Ali) and substituting a boring, generic comic book villain.

Diamondback really was such a comic book villain. Always chewing the scenery but without the presence to do it well.

New article on the term “red pill” being abused: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...
National Review
The Myth of the Red Pill
By JACK BUTLER

Don’t judge me by the political leanings of a single link. I read everything.

National Review no less...

Despite having had an iphone for years --years-- I just now realized the Clock app icon is not static but actually tells the time! Who knew?

(raises hand)

Annoyingly, the Calendar app's icon on MacOS is still perpetually stuck on July 17th. Or at least it is on MacOS 10.13; I haven't upgraded for a few years, because I'm very much of the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it school of thought.

Sounds like it is broke…

Evan E wrote:

(raises hand)

Annoyingly, the Calendar app's icon on MacOS is still perpetually stuck on July 17th. Or at least it is on MacOS 10.13; I haven't upgraded for a few years, because I'm very much of the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it school of thought.

I can confirm that this was fixed sometime between then and Mac OS 11.5.2.

Mario_Alba wrote:

Despite having had an iphone for years --years-- I just now realized the Clock app icon is not static but actually tells the time! Who knew?

Ditto on android (depending on your launcher anyway).

The difference, of course, being that on android anyone can do it; on iphone I think it's an apple-only thing.

fenomas wrote:
Mario_Alba wrote:

Despite having had an iphone for years --years-- I just now realized the Clock app icon is not static but actually tells the time! Who knew?

Ditto on android (depending on your launcher anyway).

The difference, of course, being that on android anyone can do it; on iphone I think it's an apple-only thing.

Oh! Cool!

Mario_Alba wrote:

Despite having had an iphone for years --years-- I just now realized the Clock app icon is not static but actually tells the time! Who knew?

OMG

Evan E, MacOS 10.13 has been without security updates since January 2021, and will never get another one. You should really update… It’s definitely broken and you’re putting yourself at unnecessary risk.

I have minor astigmatism in both eyes. I can see just fine, but with corrective lenses it takes much less effort...

Huh. Bruce Lee is Chinese. For some reason I thought he was Japanese.

MaxShrek wrote:

Huh. Bruce Lee is Chinese. For some reason I thought he was Japanese.

More accurately Bruce Lee was American. He was born in San Francisco.

Vargen wrote:

I have minor astigmatism in both eyes. I can see just fine, but with corrective lenses it takes much less effort...

How is that something you should know by now but don't? Just got glasses?

I've got bad astigmatism, and where transition bifocals. Sometimes it's an adventure.

mrtomaytohead wrote:
Vargen wrote:

I have minor astigmatism in both eyes. I can see just fine, but with corrective lenses it takes much less effort...

How is that something you should know by now but don't? Just got glasses?

Getting. My "now I'm middle aged and need something for closeup" pair arrived this morning. My "looking at everything else" pair are still en route. I went in because I'm 44 and hadn't ever had a proper eye exam outside routine pediatric care. Once the optometrist dialed me in I realized how much effort I'd been expending to see. Now I can't un-realize that, and I wonder why it took me so long.

Procrastination and a pandemic is why, but still.

I went with 2 pairs rather than bifocals because I do a lot of video work that involves looking at close things that are up high.

I figured out what's missing with JEOPARDY! Unfortunately... said missing thing is Alex Trebek.

Vargen wrote:

I went with 2 pairs rather than bifocals because I do a lot of video work that involves looking at close things that are up high.

My specs are the progressive type. So bottom of lens is for up close, top is for far, but they have no line and the focal strength gradually changes, so they’re not bifocals either. I guess they’re panfocals.

Then I have a pair of cheepo readers for looking at screens.

RawkGWJ wrote:
Vargen wrote:

I went with 2 pairs rather than bifocals because I do a lot of video work that involves looking at close things that are up high.

My specs are the progressive type. So bottom of lens is for up close, top is for far, but they have no line and the focal strength gradually changes, so they’re not bifocals either. I guess they’re panfocals.

Then I have a pair of cheepo readers for looking at screens.

Similar to Vargen, I finally got progressive lenses in my 40s (it took about two months to learn to "not see" the geometric distortion they induce, so for anyone who's getting them for the first time, stick with it). I don't need them for reading or screens at normal computery distances, so I mostly take off my glasses when I'm home except when I'm watching TV.

Because of that, during a year of social isolation I didn't really notice my vision took a dive in the 3–6' range. But during the brief window when things started opening back up in the US, before Delta closed things back down, I got back together with my usual chamber music groups and discovered I couldn't read music on a music stand. I could see everything (well, except for the tiny measure numbers, which have been a problem for years), but I often couldn't make out which staff line the notes were on; at home I'd been practicing music I've played before, so my brain had filled in the missing information from memory without realizing there was a problem.

So now I have three pairs of glasses - progressives in both regular and sunglass styles (I can't read the car dashboard with glasses that only correct for distance), and a pair that only focuses precisely 3 feet away, the distance I always sit from a music stand. Old age is expensive.

Evan E wrote:

Old age is expensive.

From what I've seen of monitor prices, the glasses that let me sit closer to this screen were cheaper than getting a bigger monitor.

It only helps so much though. As I adjust to the reading glasses I realize that part of what took me so long to get them is my arms are really long* so when my hands are on the keyboard I naturally sit back from the screen anyway.

*My wingspan is about 5" longer than my height. Typically those two are about the same.

Vargen wrote:

*My wingspan is about 5" longer than my height. Typically those two are about the same.

Hope you played some basketball in your youth. That's a huge advantage.

Also for climbing. They call it the “Ape Ratio” and you’d have a very large one.