In some cases, the runtime being padded with filler was less about cashing in and more about trying to not catch up to the manga too quickly.
FMA (2003) is a fun example of this not happening, where they basically wound up creating a custom ending to the series because they got ahead of the manga.
>In some cases, the runtime being padded with filler was less about cashing in and more about trying to not catch up to the manga too quickly.
Right, so rather than stopping production on the anime until the manga had time to get ahead, most anime created filler to cash in on the popularity of the ongoing manga, rather than to try to make the most faithful adaptation. Nowadays it's more common for anime to halt production and release a follow-up season years later when the manga has gotten farther ahead.
The "or something" pretty much covers the gotcha you're trying to use. OP is acknowledging that fantasy media is a thing before going on to their actual point.
There _was_ backlash. It just didn't operationalize very effectively. For instance, news organizations mostly saw FB and Google as a way to undermine and ultimately replace vetted news with unvetted, unprofessional hot takes. Anyone above a certain age likely saw these viewpoints and agreed with them but not enough to start a movement.
When facebook became generally available I was maybe 14-15, and even back then I remember thinking "this feels very much like it's going to ruin some young womens' lives". But what the hell was I going to do? I mean - the platform _was_ used as a sort of early Tinder, where sexual attraction could play out in a semi-anonymized way.
The problem regarding news orgs is that they have previously sounded the alarm about bloggers, insisting that the sky was going to fall down now that any random person was allowed to just say anything they wanted and have other people read it!
But many of those blogs (which now take the form of subscription newsletters) had incredibly valuable insight and perspectives that were otherwise not being reported on. The news media's alarmism about bloggers was (IMHO rightfully) ignored.
So when a couple of years later they started freaking out about Facebook/Twitter/etc, well, same old story, new platform.
The difference this time was that FB and Twitter algorithmically fed articles to people, instead of articles naturally spreading virally from person to person.
Not that the platforms were that bad at first! Remember that in the early 2010s Facebook was largely a platform for Farmville! It was drowning in spam for free to play social games, but the feed was still largely a timeline. Twitter only released their Apple client in 2010, and there were still a large number of third party clients in 2012.
A few years later Facebook would become inundated with political spam and vitriol, but 2012 was still an insane time of growth and optimism.
All I'm saying is that there were people who would have called it naive to be optimistic about such things- and that they were ultimately correct even though they didn't have the numbers or a proper movement.
That's a fair point, I would just contend that I imagine a cohort of techies shared my views on the subject although i can't prove that and I wasn't old enough to be employed by a tech company when these issues were around.
Upgrading to an iPhone 16 seems like a weird choice, given that the SE3 exists and it pretty much perfect. One argument that I can see it that the 16 is two years newer, and should get updates at least two year more. The price difference between the two phones however is much to big to justify getting the 16, unless there's some feature you really need.
Hey, author here. I decided on the 16 since its support lifetime started this year. If I'd gotten the SE (which I seriously considered since it has a more appealing form factor and touchID) I would only have a 4 year support lifetime as opposed to the full 6.
On the other hand the SE3 is 54% of the price of the 16 (assuming base models of both), so long term it could be cheaper to go with the SE3 even though you would have replace it sooner.
A number of dash cams now use cloud storage. If anything, when I last purchased I had to go out of my way to find one with decent enough video that also stays local.
That's surprising - I would guess that cloud storage would add to the price of them as they'd need a mobile data connection and presumably monthly costs. They must be designed for fleet management where you don't necessarily trust the driver to not delete footage.
Apple showed how this can be done without compromise.
A combination of on-device-only FaceID and app-by-app opt-in to even trigger a validation, with on-device federal ID validation of some kind, putting you in control of presenting a cryptographically signed ID, would, in fact, be ideal for both convenience and privacy.
IF you're going to require ID, that would be a fine way.
The REAL issue is whether ID should be allowed to be required at all to move around, or if you have the right to anonymously assemble (and travel for assembly) within your own national boundary. That's the goalpost to debate.
> Apple showed how this can be done without compromise.
Sure, but also no.
I am outright stating that facial recognition did not need to become so normalized, and everyone getting used to it for the device in their pocket did no good in this regard.
> IF you're going to require ID, that would be a fine way.
Or we could just, y'know, do it the way we've been doing it for decades now.
No, it can’t replace the original - but taken on its own it’s frankly amazing.
reply