No no I mean with the latest Netflix season. Each episode focused on a character with a lot of plot points being repeated from different perspectives.
Right. But jokes would be set up in one episode, from one perspective and then the pay off would be revealed in another character's in another episode.
If you were to watch it in a different order. A lot of that wouldn't work because you would have the wrong information for it to be funny.
Say something depends on the audience knowing a character isn't just quirky but is actually retarded, while the protagonist is unaware. If the audience hasn't seen his son and niece talking about it in a different episode those things aren't jokes that work.
To make a comedy that plays of this sort of structure, used jokes that spanned episodes and perspectives, and was equally enjoyable regardless of the order the events were unveiled would be a) hard and b) really impressive.
I think commerce makes people lazy. I've done some potatofarming and chickenkeeping. Too lazy for a complete menu, though. And we didn't trap wild chickens.
All the complaints from crotchety old conservative culture guardians about phones distorting personal interaction, or newspapers limiting conversation on the train, or novels as escapism, or reading and writing as undermining memory - laugh if you want, but they were all fairly accurate.
They correctly observed that technology brings change. Their error was in failing to see the advantages of new technology - advantages that always come at a cost. All these technologies involved tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs aren't necessarily even (i'm a big fan of writing and reading!), but they are real. Ancient cultures that predate writing likely had far superior memories, because memory improves dramatically with practice and use, and their culture and society would function on that basis.
It is important for the advocates of progress to remember there are tradeoffs as well, though. It is very easy to forget what is lost, and very easy to associate innovation with improvement. Technology advancing doesn't always mean good things for a nation or the world, and new solutions inevitably create new problems of similar scope (not to mention being subject to political will and control/distribution by those who already have disproportionate power)
Ancient cultures absolutely did not possess superior memories in any way shape or form.
Some people in some ancient cultures dedicated an enormous amount of time to memorizing some things, which they were as capable of doing as any given member of any modern society.
There are not simple observable tradeoffs to our interaction with complicated technological and social change. We didn't get +1 INT -2 CON when we developed the smart phone.
All the complaints from crotchety old conservative culture guardians about phones distorting personal interaction, or newspapers limiting conversation on the train, or novels as escapism, or reading and writing as undermining memory - laugh if you want, but they were all fairly accurate.
They correctly observed that technology brings change. Their error was in failing to see the advantages of new technology - advantages that always come at a cost. All these technologies involved tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs aren't necessarily even (i'm a big fan of writing and reading!), but they are real. Ancient cultures that predate writing likely had far superior memories, because memory improves dramatically with practice and use, and their culture and society would function on that basis.
It is important for the advocates of progress to remember there are tradeoffs as well, though. It is very easy to forget what is lost, and very easy to associate innovation with improvement. Technology advancing doesn't always mean good things for a nation or the world, and new solutions inevitably create new problems of similar scope (not to mention being subject to political will and control/distribution by those who already have disproportionate power)
Tradeoffs for almost all of this are overrated. If you don't get shot, you don't get a Purple Heart, but the advantage of not getting shot is more important (or pick any analogy where the tradeoff is so trivial as to not merit consideration). History was mostly shit, and the foremost example of that is not everyone on this forum, and perhaps in this thread would be alive before modern innovations. So, even if people had better memories in their shitty, illiterate communities, they didn't have antibiotics or chemo therapy, and I prefer having my friends and family alive to enjoy their company vs. maybe remembering stuff a little better. And that's without talking about having access to effectively limitless clean water, climate control, air travel, internet, etc. etc. etc. etc.
I'm going to be a bit hyperbolic here, so keep that in mind.
Even if we take for granted that our memories or navigation skills or penmanship aren't as good now as they were in the past...so what? People today aren't as good at riding horses or hunting with spears because those are mostly obsolete skills.
I don't need to memorize the atomic weights of every element on the periodic table, or every part of Shakespeare because I can do it better and more easily by writing it down or going to Wikipedia. I don't need to be able to navigate or memorize my city's layout because I tell my phone where I want to go and it tells me to turn. I don't need to write cursive because it's more important I be able to use a keyboard.
Making tedious tasks easier with technological solutions is one of (if not the) the defining characteristics of humanity.
In a general sense, if those skills had value then people would still have and learn those skills. Instead, people are learning other things. Even if people are just entertaining themselves more, isn't that advantageous to an inefficient make-work solution to problems that are more easily solved?
All the complaints from crotchety old conservative culture guardians about phones distorting personal interaction, or newspapers limiting conversation on the train, or novels as escapism, or reading and writing as undermining memory - laugh if you want, but they were all fairly accurate.
They correctly observed that technology brings change. Their error was in failing to see the advantages of new technology - advantages that always come at a cost. All these technologies involved tradeoffs.
I feel that this is a little too charitable.
I agree with your statement that they failed to see the benefits. I posted something to that effect upthread, which programjunkie was nice enough to link.
However, accuracy implies specificity. Accuracy is not merely saying 'times, they are a-changin' but to correctly identify the nature of that change.
In 1787, French statesman Lamoignon-Malesherbes declared that reading newspapers "detracts from the spiritually uplifting group practice of getting news from the pulpit." The Economist article from 1848 decrying London's public sanitation plans predicted moral decay from trying to avoid 'nature's admonitions' such as cholera. In 1890, Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly claims "the age of leisure is dead and the art of conversation is dying."
We can pore through old texts for all sorts of examples of dire predictions. Some uncannily prescient, some technically correct but incomplete, some laughably incorrect.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't need to be able to navigate or memorize my city's layout because I tell my phone where I want to go and it tells me to turn.
I think having a good sense of place/geography where you spend the majority of your time in life, without having to rely on a satellite telling you where you are, is still very worthwhile. Let's not pretend that knowing where heck you are is "obsolete" or "tedious" now. By the same token GPS technology makes traveling to new locales far less confusing/intimidating.
Granted this bit might be falling under your "hyperbolic" purview.
Posts
Right. But jokes would be set up in one episode, from one perspective and then the pay off would be revealed in another character's in another episode.
If you were to watch it in a different order. A lot of that wouldn't work because you would have the wrong information for it to be funny.
Say something depends on the audience knowing a character isn't just quirky but is actually retarded, while the protagonist is unaware. If the audience hasn't seen his son and niece talking about it in a different episode those things aren't jokes that work.
To make a comedy that plays of this sort of structure, used jokes that spanned episodes and perspectives, and was equally enjoyable regardless of the order the events were unveiled would be a) hard and b) really impressive.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
They correctly observed that technology brings change. Their error was in failing to see the advantages of new technology - advantages that always come at a cost. All these technologies involved tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs aren't necessarily even (i'm a big fan of writing and reading!), but they are real. Ancient cultures that predate writing likely had far superior memories, because memory improves dramatically with practice and use, and their culture and society would function on that basis.
It is important for the advocates of progress to remember there are tradeoffs as well, though. It is very easy to forget what is lost, and very easy to associate innovation with improvement. Technology advancing doesn't always mean good things for a nation or the world, and new solutions inevitably create new problems of similar scope (not to mention being subject to political will and control/distribution by those who already have disproportionate power)
I heard someone was trashing Gen X and I came as soon as...
... ehh, to be honest I kinda slacked off getting here. You know how it is.
Some people in some ancient cultures dedicated an enormous amount of time to memorizing some things, which they were as capable of doing as any given member of any modern society.
There are not simple observable tradeoffs to our interaction with complicated technological and social change. We didn't get +1 INT -2 CON when we developed the smart phone.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/30846046/#Comment_30846046
Tradeoffs for almost all of this are overrated. If you don't get shot, you don't get a Purple Heart, but the advantage of not getting shot is more important (or pick any analogy where the tradeoff is so trivial as to not merit consideration). History was mostly shit, and the foremost example of that is not everyone on this forum, and perhaps in this thread would be alive before modern innovations. So, even if people had better memories in their shitty, illiterate communities, they didn't have antibiotics or chemo therapy, and I prefer having my friends and family alive to enjoy their company vs. maybe remembering stuff a little better. And that's without talking about having access to effectively limitless clean water, climate control, air travel, internet, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Even if we take for granted that our memories or navigation skills or penmanship aren't as good now as they were in the past...so what? People today aren't as good at riding horses or hunting with spears because those are mostly obsolete skills.
I don't need to memorize the atomic weights of every element on the periodic table, or every part of Shakespeare because I can do it better and more easily by writing it down or going to Wikipedia. I don't need to be able to navigate or memorize my city's layout because I tell my phone where I want to go and it tells me to turn. I don't need to write cursive because it's more important I be able to use a keyboard.
Making tedious tasks easier with technological solutions is one of (if not the) the defining characteristics of humanity.
In a general sense, if those skills had value then people would still have and learn those skills. Instead, people are learning other things. Even if people are just entertaining themselves more, isn't that advantageous to an inefficient make-work solution to problems that are more easily solved?
I feel that this is a little too charitable.
I agree with your statement that they failed to see the benefits. I posted something to that effect upthread, which programjunkie was nice enough to link.
However, accuracy implies specificity. Accuracy is not merely saying 'times, they are a-changin' but to correctly identify the nature of that change.
In 1787, French statesman Lamoignon-Malesherbes declared that reading newspapers "detracts from the spiritually uplifting group practice of getting news from the pulpit." The Economist article from 1848 decrying London's public sanitation plans predicted moral decay from trying to avoid 'nature's admonitions' such as cholera. In 1890, Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly claims "the age of leisure is dead and the art of conversation is dying."
We can pore through old texts for all sorts of examples of dire predictions. Some uncannily prescient, some technically correct but incomplete, some laughably incorrect.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think having a good sense of place/geography where you spend the majority of your time in life, without having to rely on a satellite telling you where you are, is still very worthwhile. Let's not pretend that knowing where heck you are is "obsolete" or "tedious" now. By the same token GPS technology makes traveling to new locales far less confusing/intimidating.
Granted this bit might be falling under your "hyperbolic" purview.