MovieChat Forums > chrisjdel

chrisjdel (1413)


Official timeline (for those confused about the sequence of events) [Spoilers] Mandalorians Being trapped on Europa is a pretty serious problem 1921 Tulsa Race Riot actually happened as shown! Thoughts on the conclusion [Major Spoilers] Third Episode Reveal [Spoilers] Is this a joke or for real? Possible overlap with Chernobyl disaster in season 4? Renewed for Season 2 Utrax [spoilers] View all posts >


Anthony Hopkins was in season 2 you know. It's probably the hardest of the three seasons (from what I've seen so far of s3) to follow, season 1 at least had two distinct time periods whereas season 2 skips around all over the place. I realize a lot of people didn't like that. It was an occasional source of frustration for me too, but this has always been a show that demands more effort from its viewers than most. Not everything is laid out for you, neatly packaged with a bow on top. It's going to be hard to fully appreciate and follow season 3 without watching 2 first. But if that's how you want to do it ... I wish you luck! They're - [i][b]very[/b][/i] loosely - following the original movies, in which Delos was trying to take control of governments and corporations by replacing their leaders with android duplicates. The main difference so far this season is that the storytelling has been linear. Things are happening in straight chronological order. They supposedly started this show with a plan for where it would end up, the major plot twists all mapped out, so I'd expect many of the events from previous seasons will tie in as things go forward. But this season (being mostly set in the outside world) is obviously a change in tone from the first two. It's the late 21st century. Are you surprised at the dash of cyberpunk? The world isn't quite as dark as Blade Runner. For those who don't mesh too well with the system there's a feeling that their lives lack purpose but it's a lot less dystopian. I find the portrayal of life decades in our future to be fairly convincing - down to the little details, like that service that lets you interact via simulated calls with virtual recreations of dead relatives or friends, or the underground gig economy employment app. Yeah, totally random GoT intrusion. Not something you expected to see. I was kinda hoping they'd unleash him on the Nazis to help crash the simulation. Probably would've exceeded their already high budget - but Maeve riding on the back of the dragon would've been cool as hell. [i]Dracarys![/i]  😎 Dolores downloaded a copy of herself into host Charlotte. Remember? Call her Dolores 2.0, I have a feeling their divergence over the course of season 3 will figure into the story (especially as Charlotte has a young son she may become attached to). That's like asking why a company that's not expanding doesn't hire more people. There will be a limited number of jobs that require a human to do. If every service that needs rendering and every product that needs manufacturing, all market demand, could be met with the participation of, say, 5% of the population, then there would literally be nothing for the other 95% to do. Trying to start a new business would be futile most of the time since there is no unmet demand out there. We have slightly less than 8 billion people. What if there were (I'm picking a number out of thin air here) only 10 million jobs on the planet? That's more or less what I'm saying. If only ten million people could provide everything the rest of those 8 billion need or want, what does everyone else do with themselves? What type of economy comes from that? Certainly nothing at all like the one we have. In what sense? Alright, so you are an actual troll. There is zero capitalism in any country which even has the [i]word[/i] socialist or socialism in the description of its system. Fine. Whatever. There is absolutely no socialism of any kind in any country which uses the term capitalist. Sure thing. I won't be rude or throw anything in angry all-caps your way, but I see no point in continuing this discussion. Good luck to you. I'm sure there are plenty of others on this board who will bite.  😎 My whole point here is that eventually there will only be work for a small fraction, perhaps as little as a few percent, of the population. Perhaps this will lead to a world dedicated to the pursuit of hobby. People will do what they enjoy doing, to avoid going insane with boredom, and acquire levels of skill that very few have now simply because they can follow those pursuits full time. You'll do work to engage yourself rather than to pay bills. We're still in the middle of transforming from what we were as a primitive culture to what we [i][b]will[/b][/i] be as an advanced one. I don't know what that's going to look like exactly. No one does. But the world will be a very different place than it is today, and very likely nothing like we imagined. Look, unless you want to be dismissed as a troll (and there are tons of them around) you don't get to be rude if someone isn't being rude to you. Pretend you're talking to someone face-to-face. Don't say things that would make the average person tell you to piss off and walk away. Or punch you, depending on the individual. In five minutes I managed to find a document that actually sums up the differences quite well, and has the virtue of being short: The important thing to note is that all countries contain a mixture of socialist and capitalist institutions and programs. Even the US has food stamps, medicaid, and so forth. Even the Soviet Union had some capitalism. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are Platonic ideals that exist only on paper and in thought experiments. Ditto with the communist system (which has the added problem that its economic model is infeasible even in theory). I never use groups and organizations as a reference. Plenty of them play fast and loose with their terminology, they're trying to generate buzz and support more than they are dotting i's and crossing t's. It really [i]doesn't[/i] matter whether you say democratic socialism or social democracy - precisely because no two people who use those terms seem to mean exactly the same thing. You can talk about what it means in a specific nation. But every Scandinavian country, for example, defines it differently and operates by a slightly different set of rules. Talking about labels is a waste of time, in my opinion. It takes away from issues of substance. Nobody is trying to eliminate capitalism - how could you do that, what would it even mean? Simply trying to scale back the absurd level of free reign it currently has in countries like the US. The state of our economy can't credibly be called a free market. It's a monopoly-oligopoly based system completely slanted toward corporate interests and profits above all other things. Restoring genuine competition to the marketplace and facilitating large numbers of providers instead of a few huge ones through antitrust actions are one part of the solution. Then there are the social and government programs. An expanded social safety net, universal health care, tuition free public colleges (private colleges will not be tuition free even under the most ambitious of current plans), stuff like that. And certain elements of central planning like a Green New Deal or equivalent. The government steps in and delivers a smackdown to the fossil fuel industry, essentially setting a countdown to their demise. But the government doesn't need to execute all of it. Provide incentives and get the damn oil companies out of the way, we've already seen small businesses popping up everywhere devoted to clean energy systems and home installations. If those Big Oil idiots had an ounce of vision they'd be spearheading the new energy era, being the ones to develop the technology instead of fighting it, that way they'd continue to have a business in the post fossil fuel economy. Another example of a hybrid socialist-capitalist system would be the telecom infrastructure in parts of Europe. The government builds and maintains the network itself using taxpayer money. Then service providers pay a monthly access fee to offer their service over that network. Since they don't own it, their ability to gouge customers and maintain captive customer bases - like Comcast and others do in the US - is drastically curtailed. There are many more providers competing with each other to offer you a good deal. You pay a small amount in taxes and a subscription fee to the provider of your choice. End result: people pay about one third as much for cable and internet as the average American. It's a better system than the Republicans' corporatized everything approach. We already know where that leads because it's what we've got right now. I would describe what Sanders and other progressives want as better regulated capitalism and more socialist style programs - but certainly not an attempt at a pure socialist state. What labels you slap on policies matters less than the policies themselves. Those are the things we should be talking about. A handful would own everything because starting at the bottom and moving up the chain jobs will become automated or obsolete. It's not that we'll need the leeches at the top. It's just that they'll be the last ones left standing, and they own the companies. AIs will probably be doing their jobs too while they keep all the money. Of course other things will be happening as well. For example, once we start using nanotechnology for manufacturing the main commodity will become templates - designs for products, a form of intellectual property. Goods themselves will only have value through their utility since in monetary terms even something like a fancy car will be practically worthless. I can't tell you what social changes this and other advances will bring. No one really knows. But the kind of economy we have now, where almost everybody has a job, will be as outdated as a horse drawn buggy. At a certain point in the next few decades the unemployment rate will start to rise gradually but steadily - and never go back down. View all replies >