Chernobyl and Why Some TV Shows Should Be Unbingeable (ft.com) 206
An anonymous reader shares a column [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled]: Few television shows in recent years have been as compelling, yet as difficult to watch, as Chernobyl. The story of the hours and days following the 1986 nuclear reactor meltdown, and the many awful ways that radiation can kill, was expertly told. But it was the antithesis of one of the prevailing objectives of today's TV producers: to make a programme viewers love so much that they binge it all in one go. Chernobyl's horrors were so richly realised that it was unbingeable. Even though I was watching the show on Sky's streaming service, Now TV, I found that watching in nightly instalments rather than rushing through it served only to heighten my appreciation of it. The internet has been built on instant gratification, but Chernobyl got me wondering whether we occasionally need something to hold us back.
[...] A new approach to scheduling could crank up anticipation for the next instalment or build the loyalty that comes with habit. Chernobyl had a brilliant podcast commentary that delineated the boundary between fact and fiction; I wished I had listened to it between episodes rather than at the end of the series. There are billions of smartphones in the world today. While Silicon Valley is obsessing over what comes next -- whether that is augmented reality headsets or smart speakers -- the versatility and ubiquity of the smartphone still provide plenty of room to experiment. From instant streaming to next-day deliveries, technology has broken the idea that good things come to those who wait. But with a little imagination, making something unbingeable could be a feature, not a bug.
[...] A new approach to scheduling could crank up anticipation for the next instalment or build the loyalty that comes with habit. Chernobyl had a brilliant podcast commentary that delineated the boundary between fact and fiction; I wished I had listened to it between episodes rather than at the end of the series. There are billions of smartphones in the world today. While Silicon Valley is obsessing over what comes next -- whether that is augmented reality headsets or smart speakers -- the versatility and ubiquity of the smartphone still provide plenty of room to experiment. From instant streaming to next-day deliveries, technology has broken the idea that good things come to those who wait. But with a little imagination, making something unbingeable could be a feature, not a bug.
what in tarnation (Score:5, Insightful)
if you don't want to binge it, then don't you ninny
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This. I mean we already have such a mechanism. It's called self control. If one is not familiar with the concept they really should check it out.
Re: (Score:1)
Self control?
That implies you have free time in extended quantities. There's a saying about a leisure class at either end of the spectrum. I've verified that it exists on one end, and I'm investigating the other, but I haven't gathered sufficient money tokens yet.
I watched Chernobyl over 4 nights, because I had to do things like eat, sleep, and work.
Not on /. (Score:2)
Self control? On Slashdot? What a pussy!
We proud Slashdotters will keep on wanking until there's only pain and misery!
Re: (Score:3)
This is the only reason I clicked on the article. Unbingeable?...only if you're a snowflake. If you find it necessary to wait longer to appreciate the series, that's on you. But don't fuck with the rest of us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: what in tarnation (Score:1)
Fuck podcasts.
Either watch a show or go do something else.
Binge or not.
Make a damn decision and accept that YOU decided.
Re: what in tarnation (Score:1)
We can't. We want to have our decisions regulated for us, which is why we're voting for socialists.
On the other hand, gimme my money, and DON'T tell me what to do!
User preference seems best to me (Score:1)
Maybe it's nice that the customer can watch it on whatever schedule they choose. Why can't that just be a feature? I don't binge anything, but I really like having basically complete freedom to determine the schedule on which I watch things. Nightly, 2 a night, alternating with another show, a few at a time, an extra one on the weekend, etc. Not one-size-fits all, exploit-every-promotion-opportunity.
Re:User preference seems best to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's nice that the customer can watch it on whatever schedule they choose.
Exactly. I don't need some dumbass "opinion writer" on FT to tell me what I can and can't do.
My kingdom for mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Binge" is definitely not binary. I rarely have 10-20 hours to just sit in front of a TV. Binging usually means 2-3 episodes a day at the very most, and often just one a day (as opposed to one a week).
I "binged" Chernobyl by this definition just fine. I found the first episode hard to watch, but afterwards the hook had me and I enjoyed the rest as quickly as I could. As I would a book or video games or anything else I enjoy doing, but isn't mission critical.
Chernobyl was rough in places, I personally dislik
Re: (Score:2)
This! I don't do much binging since I have a grand total of 3-4 hours a weeknight for TV/internet/fixing meals/etc, but I want the option.
I already like un-bingeable (Score:1)
I don't want streaming services to put out all episodes out at once.
I like it when they are once a week.
Plus I don't have to wait many, many months for a new season.
This applies to all shows - not just streamed ones - but ones on cable, yes I still get that, as well.
For some reason I might not watch a show that I many taped (DVRed) of if I don't see them often enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want streaming services to put out all episodes out at once.
I like it when they are once a week because I have no self control to limit myself to 1 episode a week.
Fixed for accuracy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if the show is at all popular, you risk bumping into spoilers. If you don't think that's a problem, then I would suggest you just save up all the episodes week by week and binge them when the season is over.
It was very bingable (Score:1, Offtopic)
I binged it, it was fine I thought it was a pretty well done show..
For the rest: SPOILER ALERT
Maybe in part because some of the stuff they had in the show was utter bullshit. You can't catch "radiation disease" from contact with someone who has radiation poisoning, so that woman's baby was in no danger from the husband.
Read more about what kinds of things the show made up here [forbes.com]
What is really a shame about the made-up parts, is that the parts that are accurate are so powerful and it cheapens the whole thing
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. The biggest danger to people like those firefighters isn't radiation exposure, it's becoming contaminated by radioactive material. Those plastic suits don't block much more radiation than your skin does, but they do keep stuff from sticking to you, or getting inhaled.
Those firefighters would have radioactive dust in their hair, skin, lungs, digestive system, circulating in their blood, and incorporated into their tissues. Their bodies were radioactive.
Assuming they were washed off and you avo
Re: (Score:1)
"In real life, the baby did get radiation poisoning in the womb and died shortly after birth"
No it didn't. Complete myth started by a book. Man, people are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the book "Voices of Chernobyl" is not fiction and based on interviews with eyewitnesses. In this case with the real Lyudmilla. The relevant excerpt can be found here https://www.theparisreview.org... [theparisreview.org]
On the other hand, while this seems indeed how Lyudmilla remembered it, it is not plausible that the baby died because of radiation received during the hospital visits. The horrors this woman went through were certainly real, but her account still can't be taken as medical facts.
What seems to be true is th
Baby did not die from radiation (Score:5, Insightful)
In real life, the baby did get radiation poisoning in the womb and died shortly after birth.
False. In real life the baby died from heart and lung failures, not from radiation - also the show claims the baby "absorbed all the radiation" so Lyudmilla was fine, which if you know anything at all about radiation and the effects on the body is just such appalling bullshit I can't even.
How exactly did the baby supposedly die from radiation with zero effects to Lyudmilla? Come on.
Re:Baby did not die from radiation (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about the specific case, but here's the sense in which "baby absorbed all the radiation" might be something more than a complete nonsense: the radioactive isotopes that go into replacing essential elements in our body could have gone into the baby's body, rather than the mother's body. You can read about the details in harms of radioactive fallout [stanford.edu].
Certain types of radiation, such as alpha radiation, have a quite localized impact, so if you can prevent the radioactive isotopes from being absorbed by the body, you can limit some effects of radiation exposure. That's how anti-radiation pills work [webmd.com]. They don't stop all harmful effects of radiation; they do stop those effects that can be stopped with a pill.
Iodine pill would affect both baby and mother (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as I said, "something more than a complete nonsense", as in at least there is some physical basis for it (whereas someone claiming that gamma radiation is "contagious" would be complete nonsense).
As far as differential absorption rates of micronutrients go, well, I'm not a doctor, so I can't comment if mother and the baby both absorb micronutrients at the same rate.
Re: (Score:2)
She is a real person, called Lyudmilla Ignatenko. Her baby died of cirrhosis of the liver and congenital heart disease, both of which are very likely to have been caused by the contaminated she received from her husband whose body was expelling a lot of the material it had collected from Chernobyl. Of course, it's almost always impossible to prove one way or another.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/lyu... [mamamia.com.au]
The show did not imply that she was completely unaffected by the effects of the radiation she received. Adults
Re: (Score:2)
The firefighters themselves were radioactive, and continued to emit radiation even after death. That's why they were buried in lead-lined coffins and entombed in concrete.
I'm quite certain that in much of the western world people are routinely buried in coffins that are entombed in concrete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Lead lined coffins are not unusual either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They may incorporate features that claim to protect the body or for public health reasons. For example, some may offer a protective casket that uses a gasket to seal the casket shut after it is closed for the final time. In England, it has long been law that a coffin for interment above ground should be sealed; this was traditionally implemented as a wooden outer coffin around a lead lining, around a third inner shell.
TV is fake, and is just propaganda (Score:1)
You're wasting your life watching fake people do fake things.
You're lapping someone's propaganda.
This article is just another millennial "Can't we all decide to agree on this one thing?"
One episode a night is binging (Score:5, Insightful)
Read a book, kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading is so boring though! :P
Re: (Score:2)
SELF RESTRAINT you say?omg what next self reliance (Score:2)
Binged it fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Binged it just fine. Loved it. Author is weak.
personal anecdote != proof of anything (Score:4, Insightful)
were so richly realised that it was unbingeable
False. I binged it without any problems.over a weekend. That the special snowflake of an author was unable to binge it applies only to the author & not to anyone else.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No. In that respect everyone is a snowflake because, just like snowflakes, everyone is different! :-p
Also misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
and the many awful ways that radiation can kill
Also, misleading, exaggerated, and downright wrong in many cases. This is the sort of pseudo-doc tripe that keeps us afraid to make widespread use of nuclear power.
Minsk (Score:2)
My favorite exaggeration was that, if the reactor exploded, it would produce an explosion of 2 to 4 megatons, which would be enough to kill everyone in Minsk, which is 400km away.
As if:
1. A nuclear reactor is designed like a thermonuclear bomb, or that a simple steam explosion could produce an explosion that powerful
2. A 4MT explosion could destroy a town 400km away. It would be affected by fallout, but the directly destructive effects would only stretch for a couple of kilometers.
Re: (Score:3)
My favorites:
(1) Radiation poisoning is like some sort of contagious disease, that you can catch just by touching someone who has been exposed.
(2) Said radiation poisoning, if you are pregnant and foolish enough to touch the exposed person, will be absorbed by your fetus instead of you. The fetus will die and you will have no ill
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify, the designs were awesome decades ago, not trying to detract from the original scientists and engineers, but material technology and our understanding of physics etc has advanced somewhat since then. We can do better, safer, nuclear.
Re:Minsk (Score:4, Informative)
Chernobyl released many times more radioactive material into the environment than did Fukushima. Even thirty years later, radiation wasn't just "detected" far away, but, for example, sheep in some parts of the UK still exhibited unacceptably high radiation levels and were restricted from movement or sale.
The Soviets didn't "sort their leak out." They quickly tossed some concrete over it in a temporary structure that contained the exposed remains of the reactor core (something that didn't happen at Fukushima). That temporary containment, which was fairly dangerously unstable, ended up being all there was for decades until another containment structure was finished in 2018.
The decommissioning of Fukushima is expected to take 30-40 years. It's been 30 years since Chernobyl and the decommissioning is still being planned.
Re:Minsk (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but Chernobyl is still the worst. It killed an estimated 65 people (yes, including in utero deaths after the fact). Fukushima only killed one (that death made the news in 2018 - yes, it took SEVEN YEARS for Fukushima to produce a death).
Yes, for all that they're the two worst nuclear accidents in history, they killed (maybe, estimated) fewer people than die in traffic any particular day. In the USA (on average 90+ people die in auto accidents EVERY DAY in the USA).
Note that, in the years since Chernobyl, autos in the USA have killed (actually, not like Chernobyl, where ~1/3 the deaths are guesstimates - we're not sure that many actually died due to Chernobyl/Fukushima, but it's a decent guess) more than 1,280,000 people. The "more than" part is there because it doesn't include the deaths in 1986 (only part of the year's deaths were post-Chernobyl) that Chernobyl happened, nor does it include the deaths in the first seven months+ of 2019 (NTSB doesn't publicize those numbers till the end of year).
So, two worst nuclear accidents in history: ~65 (1 from Fukushima, others from Chernobyl (which includes a guesstimate as to the number of fetuses killed as a result of radiation from Chernobyl)), vs 1.28 MILLION sure dead from traffic, just in the USA (note that worldwide auto deaths (estimated, since not everyone keeps statistics like we do) since Chernobyl are in the vicinity of 40 MILLION).
Yeah, I know which one of those things (nuclear power plants and cars) I'd consider the bigger problem. By a factor of 670000 or so....
Risk (Score:3)
People are terrible at thinking about relative risk. There was a great webpage somewhere that compared the risks of nuclear power to other activities. For instance the risk of being injured from living next to a nuclear power plant for 60 years is the same risk as driving on a freeway for a few miles. Or, if you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, smoking one extra cigarette every ten years. Or being one ounce heavier.
RPN (Score:2)
You are conflating severity and risk. A nuclear meltdown is a very damaging thing, but the risk of it happening is extremely low.
Another example: a plane crashing into your house is catastrophic. The risk of it happening is also extremely low.
A bus or semi truck blowing a tire and smashing into your car would also be catastrophic. The risk of it happening, while low, is much higher than either of the above scenarios.
Read up on risk priority numbers, which are used when making decisions on severity and risk.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of deaths from Chernobyl is disputed, but also not as relevant as you think.
Fukushima is looking like it will end up costing around $300bn to clean up. Chernobyl is impossible to calculate, given that it was the USSR and no developed nation would use "bio-robots" (i.e. people) to clean up something like that.
That says nothing about the human cost, of course. Homes, businesses, jobs and communities lost. Farms that were in the family for generations now gone.
The deaths are just the tip of the iceb
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians stepped in and sorted their leak out, the Japanese are still arguing about who has to pay the price for their engineering failure.
Um, what? Chernobyl was caused by the technicians disabling the security mechanisms in order to run a test, and Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster.
A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. By the time that the operator moved to shut down the reactor, the reactor was in an extremely unstable condition.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/... [world-nuclear.org]
Re: (Score:2)
technicians that didn't follow correct procedures
Comrade, they freaking turned off the auto shutdown mechanisms. 100% human error. That was the only reason there was a meltdown. Sure it would have failed regardless, but not with a meltdown. That can't be compared with an incident caused by a natural disaster.
Re:Minsk (Score:5, Informative)
When the mother was contaminated by her husband, that actually happened. Lyudmilla Ignatenko is a real person, and she did lose her baby to the effects of the radiation she was exposed to by her husband in hospital. She was interviewed in the book "Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster", which won a Nobel prize, and her description of her husband's slow death and her own health issues matches what was portrayed on screen. The actress who played her actually met her to discuss details and represent her experience as accurately as possible.
Even the husbands burial in lead lined coffins is accurate; it actually happened.
Medically this is well understood. The contaminated material enters the blood stream, which is shared with the baby, and the baby is much more susceptible to harm from it because it is still developing rapidly.
Re: (Score:1)
The scariest thing about the show is the further realization that so many people take entertainment as gospel. The real deal was freaky enough without the additional dramatization.
Re: (Score:3)
and the many awful ways that radiation can kill
Also, misleading, exaggerated, and downright wrong in many cases. This is the sort of pseudo-doc tripe that keeps us afraid to make widespread use of nuclear power.
Nonsense! It fully convinced me to not hire the Soviets to make my reactors ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that and the fact it isn't economically viable compared to alternative power sources
https://energyinformative.org/... [energyinformative.org]
#1 Pro: Relatively Low Costs
Nothing about costs in cons.
The fact that we don't want a lot of countries doing it also says something.
I don't think that's correct but please cite something if I'm mistaken. There's a well defined line between reactor grade and weapons grade fissionable material. That can be (and is) regulated and monitored.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Chernobyl's horrors were so richly realised that it was unbingeable.
No. If I'm going to watch something, I'd prefer to watch it all at once, with as few interruptions as possible.
The content doesn't change that - it's already content I've decided to watch.
Teasing and delayed gratification belong in the bedroom, not on my TV.
Re: (Score:2)
So, they're holding a gun to your head? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to watch it all at once. It's on-demand. If you want to watch one episode a week, watch one episode a week. Nobody's making you do otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless your gossip includes how well they shit that day and their entire sex life,
That's what Facebook and instagram are for. All the more reason to avoid them.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the same people that insist (X) makes them do (Y) because it's so much less guilt that way.
Re: (Score:3)
I worry about your obsession with SuperKendall. It's not healthy. Have you considered counseling?
All TV shows are already unbingeable (Score:1)
I have never binge-watched a TV show in my life. Why would I? It's simply not a behavior I would exhibit.
Seems like far more of a personality trait and less something that is somehow spawned by the content of the programming itself.
And so on and so forth (Score:2)
Chernobyl and Why Some TV Shows Should Be Unbingeable
Much like Where The Boys Aren't, vols. 37 through 55.
Why indeed. (Score:2)
Why Some TV Shows Should Be Unbingeable
It's on CSPAN ... /$0.02
[Substitute "CSPAN" with "CNN", "MSNBC" or "Fox 'News'" if you're feeling particularly partisan.]
The Wire (Score:1)
I watched The Wire via optical media.
I didn't have HBO and it wasn't streamed then on Netflix.
I could have binged the 3-4 episode DVDs.
But I couldn't.
I realized quickly that the quality of The Wire, the dialogue, acting, etc was so good, that I would be doing myself a great disservice to binge watch it.
So I would watch one episode, wait a couple of days, then watch it again.
Then I would move to the next episode, etc;
I thoroughly enjoyed this method, and it gave me a greater appreciation for that series.
Bing
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a break (Score:2)
Seriously - what exactly is the problem here? If you don't want to binge-watch a show, then don't! No one's forcing anyone to sit down and watch episode after episode of any show, all at once, regardless of how it was released.
Plus while I haven't seen Chernobyl yet, I know it was an HBO show - so the episodes almost certainly weren't released all at once anyway. Does the writer have his panties in a bunch because he missed out on watching each episode as they were released? Or is he just ignorant of how HB
Losing interest (Score:2)
A new approach to scheduling could crank up anticipation for the next instalment or build the loyalty that comes with habit.
I find I retain interest in a series when I can get more of it as I take in the story, and become less-interested when it takes longer. It moves from analyzing and understanding what's happening based on recent experience to just watching what's happening while the distant past is normalized and now everything seems less like fantasy and more like just life.
Difficult to Watch? Maybe if you live in a bubble. (Score:3)
I'm not yet 40 and I've seen much, MUCH more graphic characterizations of real life injury than Chernobyl. Pretty much any war movie, horror films, biology text books, sci-fi, MANY cable TV shows compare in the reality of physical injury. I mean REALLY.
And let's not forget the reality and truth of actual documentaries. Hell, the photo of the recently bombed My Lai villagers is probably more shocking to most than the entirety of the Chernobyl mini-series.
So what the article is saying... (Score:2)
... is that artificial limitations can sometime create better art? Who didn't know that?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Pacing. The word for this conversation is pacing, not netflix nuspeak for "marathoning" that Sixpacks and Septembers discovered. Artists don't control tempo (consider book authors) by putting viewers in time-out.
It would also preempt a bunch of eager concerns about locking out viewers and muh rights or whatever. This isn't a technical or logistics issue. If the content would have benefited from more punctuation, rumination, from vantage points for insight, from intermission, then build it with intermi
Works for The Grand Tourr (Score:2)
I don't have any problems with binging personally, but I think it is beneficial to producers of these shows to string out releases, at least for some.
When a new season of The Grand Tour [wikipedia.org] airs, they only do one episode a week. As a result, they get 12 weeks of press and attention from people. When a show releases on Netflix, such as Stranger Things, it gets a huge blitz of attention right off the bat, then is quickly forgotten as people move onto the newest shiny thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - the Grand Tour was released once a week and I always have great anticipation for the next installment ("oooo - is Friday already?!")
There are shows that i binge in small chunks - only because I like to do other things (like sleep). But when I'm bored I know that the next one is on deck. Although for some shows I really wanted to see the next one, like a good book I can't put it down.
For shows that don't have a hook to them - building anticipation is terrific. And pacing. It's like driving th
This has already been determined (Score:2)
What netflix found out is that hardly anyone will watch a show on their service when it is done one episode at a time. They tried it with the talk shows they've had... i don't remember who or what for, because I give 2 shakes shy of IDGAF about talk shows. They found that people who care waited for several episodes to be out, then binged those episodes then came back months later to binge some more... then stopped coming back because talk shows are practically dead and the non-episodic content just meant ei
uhh... (Score:2)
HBO got people talking about nuclear power (Score:3)
I did notice that since the HBO Chermobyl miniseries that there are more people talking about it from a scientific perspective. Such as videos like these...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
These all explain why the Chernobyl meltdown happened and WHY THAT CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
I get so tired of "but what about Chernobyl?"
Not all nuclear power is like Chernobyl just like not all cars are like a 1974 Ford Pinto. We have not built a nuclear power plant like Chernobyl since and any reactors like the one that violently disassembled itself have been modified to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Nuclear power is incredibly safe and Fukushima shows this because of how few people died or were injured after an exceedingly rare and powerful earthquake and tsunami.
That's another thing about nuclear power that has nothing to do about nuclear power. I keep hearing about how the seawalls around Fukushima were too short. If you look at videos of the tsunami that day from multiple locations you will find that ALL THE JAPANESE SEAWALLS WERE TOO SHORT. No one at Fukushima was prepared for this size of tsunami because no one in all of Japan was prepared for this size of tsunami. There were reports going around for years calling for the seawall at Fukushima to be raised a meter or two but even if this had been done it would have still been too short to stop the plant from being flooded.
In other words, no one would have believed a tsunami this large could hit Japan until someone actually saw one. This did in fact create a very expensive mess, cause injury to a great number of people, but it was still better than if Japan had burned coal or even used windmills to provide that energy instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These all explain why the Chernobyl meltdown happened and WHY THAT CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
Maybe not that exact failure mode, but Fukushima is a great example of why you can't say there won't be more nuclear disasters. They knew the seawalls were inadequate, they just didn't fix it. Japan is a modern, highly developed country, 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world (depending on how you measure), well established regulatory framework and institution... And none of that prevented it.
Another interesting outcome of Fukushima is that they shut off their entire nuclear fleet, all on one day, with zer
Re: (Score:2)
If there is any nation with reason to get rid of nuclear power then it would be Japan. You have to know that there was a cost in shutting down their nuclear power plants or they'd not bother to start them up again. They were all already shutdown, it would only cost them money in fuel and labor to start them up again.
You should also already know that civilian nuclear power plants have absolutely nothing to do with a nuclear weapons program. Producing power from a reactor is an entirely different process f
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power, global warming, or the lights going out? Claiming some future solution with more windmills or something is not an answer because Japan and the rest of the world needs to decide for the here and now.
Your claim is demonstrably wrong. Japan did do okay without nuclear power for many years. The lights stayed on. There was a cost, but of course it would be much lower with a planned shut down.
As for time pressure, the majority of those those reactors are still years away from commercial operation. Offshore wind tech is ready to be deployed, where as safety upgrades and tests for reactors are still on-going and worryingly being hashed out in court.
They keep their nuclear industry going because the power comp
Re: (Score:2)
I see, you aren't taking global warming seriously. Thanks for making that clear.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, you aren't discussing this in good faith. Thanks for making that clear.
This is really your ultimate concession though. Unable to produce a convincing argument against the facts, you resort to making silly and obviously false claims about my position.
My wife and I watched it at our own pace.. (Score:2)
At a time that was convenient for us
We're both old (66, 74) and we remember how much it sucked to schedule life around a show when it was "on"
We love having control
We watched one a day
How about no (Score:1)
Fan experience (Score:2)
Bingeing may not be for everyone for every programme, but a nice thing about the traditional episodic format was that everyone was following along at the same pace. An episode would be broadcast, and either right away or very quickly everyone was up to date with the evolving story, so there was a shared experience. Not only online but in real life everyone was on the same page and could participate in the same dialogue.
Maybe not worth enough to make up for being able to watch something on whatever schedul
Zombies (Score:1)
If gruesome is a problem, why did so many zombie shows do well?
Please... (Score:1)
Once a day IS Binging (Score:2)
"Not binging" is once a week. You watched the entire thing in the time it would take a normal show to release two episodes. That is binging you ninny. Even for exciting, fluffy shows I only watch a couple hours a night. I have no interest in spending an entire day in front of the TV. It's still awesome to be able to watch it at your own pace, and not be stuck watching an episode a week.
Solution - get some kids (Score:2)
Having small kids will fix your binge watching problem. If you are lucky you may be able to squeeze in a single episode. The best TV shows have 25 minute stand-alone episodes. I completely gave up on movies, which tend to be 2.5 hours these days.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unusual for me to watch part of a show or movie. My free time is limited to begin with, and if I have to pause my TV to deal with something, I might not have time to finish the show. It will still be there the next evening for me to finish.
Re: (Score:1)
Have binge watched DuckTales, Batman the Animated Series, and 3 Below though.
How about (Score:1)
You go fuck yourself?
"The internet built on instant gratification"? (Score:1)
Busy Lives (Score:2)
Heroin? (Score:2)
The summary sounds like a heroin addict talking about the finer ways to shoot up heroin. I feel dirty for reading it. Gross.
The truth (Score:1)
BBNaija News Today 2019: Khafi in Tears As She Set (Score:1)
Re: Unbingable? How about historically inaccurate (Score:1)
It's a fucking TV mini series not a god damn documentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The anti-GMO crowd loves to make documentaries without ever consulting an economist. Is that the kind of documentary you're stumping for?
Fukushima d [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When my girlfriend Claudia moved out
Smart girl, that Claudia (if she existed)