This is something people keep saying out of inertia. It hasn't really been true for a few years. There's been a ton of original movies lately. I guess they just don't get a lot of press or people don't go to the movies anymore. Here's a few from the last couple years:
Mike & Nick & Nick & Alice
Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die
Honey Bunch
Cold Storage
Send Help
Marty Supreme
Dust Bunny
Fackham Hall
Eternity
Rental Family
Bugonia
Roofman
Ok, going to cut this short because I'm only back to October 2025 and it's already long. Seriously, there's lots of movies out there that aren't part of a franchise or other IP (other than maybe books).
I think the key complaint about remakes isn't "the idea isn't totally original", the complaint is that studios are only willing to make IP that customers are already deeply familiar with. I don't think Green Planet really counts.
It's not a qualification, it's a competition. It's not like there is a minimum bar to meet and everyone who meets it gets to go in. It's like "We have 10 seats, so we take the 10 best people who apply". Your qualification is that you have to be one of the 10 best people, however good they are.
> Warning: the following video contains rapid strobing of light. I’ve written this out so people who are reading this with a screen reader know not to watch the video!
Uh...if you need a screen reader are the strobing lights really going to be a problem?
Some people have very blurry vision, so they might be using a screen reader but still watching videos. Some people might translate the page to another language, which wouldn't apply to the warning embedded in the video. Probably there are other edge cases.
Being old enough now to have lived through several golden ages of this or that, you have to understand there's always another golden age around the corner. Don't spend so much time wishing for the past that you miss what's happening now.
If you just place the pie to cool on your window sill, the smell will cause some nearby hobos to float over, or so cartoons have lead me to believe. Then you'll have some friends.
No, they also access information through Facebook owned by Trump ally Zuckerberg, X owned by Trump doner and DOGE former official Musk, or via media organisations like CBS who have recently had their editorial standards changed to be more friendly to the regime. It's fine though people can here about the regime through neutral pundits like Jimmy Kimmel, who definitely hasn't come under any pressure to comply with the regime talking points. It's alright we've got NPR, which is definitely not under attack.
If you haven't noticed a sweeping attack on free speech in US media, then I just don't think you're paying attention, and playing it off as if it's "just" Tiktok is at best disingenuous.
Back in the late-90s, I was watching a panel on CNN discussing the new "information age". Everyone talked optimistically about how the internet was gonna benefit humanity because people would be better informed - only the best information would make its way to the top, all the crap would be filtered out. But there was one naysayer, and I'll never forget what he said: More information is not better information. Others on the panel couldn't believe his cynicism; said he didn't understand people. I think about that a lot these days.
Well isn't it interesting that at the same time that these social media platforms were getting off the ground, the VC class decided founder control was super important and now essentially all of the biggest companies in the world are in the sole control of men who do questionable activies on islands in the Caribbean.
Now you wonder what these companies are doing to shape events, and the answer is that Tim Cook is attending a private showing of a PR project for the wife of the president premiering on a competing streaming network whilst people hold vigils for the people that the regime has murdered.
A CDN, a static HTML5 player and a very good lawyer for when the DOJ comes knocking, like they did with Hannah Natanson, Jacob Frey and Tim Walz.
You'd do that I guess, right, if you saw something happening you thought was bad - you'd run straight into a legal fight that could bankrupt you? Nah, you're a tough guy on the internet! Nothing scares you!
If they were going to bankrupt you with a legal fight, how would posting the video on Tiktok help? Do you think Tiktok is going to assume the liability for what you post? Because they aren't.
Alternate explanation: they are paying intense attention... to the palms that are pressed desperately against their eye sockets as they attempt to See No Evil.
This is obviously correct. Somehow people just can't accept the pigeonhole principle that if X people are trying to buy Y houses and X>>Y, a lot of them are going to be disappointed regardless of what laws you pass.
It's obviously incorrect. If X people are trying to buy Y houses, and 1 of them can always buy Y/2 houses, then you'll need to build a hell of a lot more than Y houses if Y is only equal to X. Right now in most places, Y < X, and a certain percentage of people can still buy many more than 1, so it seems like that's a real problem shouldn't continue during times of scarcity.
When N_for_sale > N_individuals_and_couples_buying, it is still possible for N_dissatisfied to be > 0 for the reason you give. But N_dissatisfied must be > 0 whenever N_for_sale < N_individuals_and_couples_buying, even if everyone is limited to having at most one.
Agreed, but I wasn't disagreeing with their whole sentiment, just their assertion that the GP was obviously correct, namely that it doesn't matter how many homes people can buy.
Less supply couldn't possibly be helpful for those disappointed, but also there's less supply than there would be if access to it as a commodity was limited, supposing that all other artificial restrictions and funding models could rely on less concentrated investments, which I think they could
> It doesn't matter how many houses anyone owns if you just build. more. housing.
That's what people with disproportionate access to capital would want people to believe. It absolutely matters if there's a ceiling and a floor on the production rate of every aspect of the supply chain of housing. If it doesn't matter how many houses someone owns, then it wouldn't matter if builders don't outpace the ability for particularly wealthy people to borrow and own as much as they possibly can. It's a particular type of commodity that should be appropriately controlled in a way that reduces the whole "tragedy of the commons" type effect.
There's always a finite supply, and there's always some contingent of people who will try and get as much as they possibly can, leveraging as much generational wealth as they need to, if they need to.
There should absolutely be a limit on the number of homes, within a particular region, someone should be able to buy, as long as a sufficient threshold is met for what can reasonably be called a scarcity problem. If an individual average home of any type would require the mean family income to quadruple in order to service the mortage, or the downpayment would require 5x their annual salary pre-tax, that seems like a very liberal threshold.
reply