https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pn6x3g/record_nu...
In the genre of "seemingly a crime show, but really a deep sci-fi", I'd strongly recommend Person of Interest, if you haven't seen it already. It contains what I consider to be, to date, the best discussion of the topic of general artificial intelligence, and all its ethical and safety implications.
> It seems a bit low-budget and oldschool TV
It's definitely not big-budget, but there's decent FX in there, just judiciously used. Future tech is impressive, but not crazy flashy.
> (pre-breaking bad quality of TV).
Could you elaborate on that one? I've only seen the first three episodes, after which I gave up, but from those three I thought Breaking Bad is a low-quality and extremely low-budget show.
To my understanding Breaking Bad was a show where the writers counted on people bingeing it, so they could tell a longer story instead of having to have every thirty minutes be self-contained.
BB is the point when TV series started to be seen as superior format for sophisticated story telling. When series became very long movies basically.
I tried PoI, but it didn't catch me (first ep only). Maybe I try again. I would love a good, techy private detective series. Would love to find something like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, as a series.
For me, in Germany, Breaking Bad was the series which changed the game. After breaking bad, TV became the superior story vessel. There were some good series before, but after BB "everyone" around saw the appeal. It's a different narrative style than traditional TV series. Even gems like Battlestar Galactica, feel more episodically contained and are not bincheable like modern shows. BB wasn't pioneering but rather the turning stone(?), I think.
And yes, I do recommend giving BB another try. It starts so slowly, but it will get insanely intense! However, it's becoming uncomfortably stressful story-wise. If you don't like that sort of drama, you may not enjoy it. Then Better Call Saul is even better, but also even more slow progression. Tho, if you got into the BB style, the wrinting, acting and cinematography are unmatched IMO.
Going by your explanation, I understand you like serialized TV shows - vs. episodic ones. I'm not sure if BB was the turning point there - there's been a steady change in preferences from episodic to serialized over the decades now, probably starting with invention of VCR, and reaching full speed when Netflix introduced their streaming service.
PoI is somewhere in the middle. In S1, most episodes stand on their own, but they do spin out story arcs, that start to dominate later on. By S4, it's almost entirely serialized - but in a good way. It's definitely binge-friendly (I've done it multiple times, and didn't get bored yet).
I am not into voyeurism and sexually liberated enough to feel unashamed watching porn directly for erotic stimulation. So, I am rather looking for insights of a different substance.
And while I’m sure some companies profited from prohibiting CFCs, stopping ozone depletion is one of the few things humanity has done with measurable effects. If a few companies made money from it that’s fine. It would be great if we could tie a profit motive to fixing climate change.
Halocarbons are heavier than air, they cannot travel up to stratosphere which is 10 to 50 km up in the air. Which is predicating information about why CFCs were bad.
If a few companies made money from it that’s fine. It would be great if we could tie a profit motive to fixing climate change.
Exactly. Both ozone depletion theory and current climate change theory are making rich countries richer and poor countries poorer. Which brings the question: maybe it's actually the point of these theories?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosphere
That includes the ozone layer.
Gases don't stratify in the lower atmosphere. Pure argon is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, but it does not sink down from the atmosphere to form a concentrated surface layer. Neither do CFCs.