The most ridiculous and offensive thing about this was I got this pop-up while actually using Premiere, and it wouldn’t let me continue using the app until I agreed. Since I was in a rush and only using the free trial anyway, I just agreed, but promptly cancelled my trial after the project was done. I’m going to cancel all of my other Adobe subscriptions as well, and either start using alternatives, or maybe just pirate them out of spite.
If you're only using Premiere for video editing and not for any After Effects integration, then even the free version of DaVinci Resolve is a great alternative. For a while Resolve's performance and relatively better stability made it a superior choice when Apple first switched to using their own silicon.
I was actually only using Premiere because I needed to work on a project that had been edited in Premiere, otherwise I’d use Avid (which is its own brand of hot garbage but that’s a different story).
Resolve is not bad, but unfortunately it can be a bit overwhelming for a novice editor, and it has some other interesting quirks that can make it a less suitable choice depending on what you’re doing. Still, I would definitely recommend trying it over Premiere at this point.
The detailed employment info might be worth something to identity thieves, but yeah, it’s kind of hard to see what benefit a criminal would derive from knowing what brand of turn signal bulbs you buy.
Yeah, ok, give me a call when that wealth has actually been put to good use, not when Sam “Not Even Sorry For Sexually Abusing My Sister” Altman claims it might possibly be in the future.
Not quite understanding why they turn the carp back rather than culling them. The video mentions something about heavy metals and PCBs, but I’m not seeing why that presents a problem as far as, I dunno, euthanizing and tossing them into a landfill? Or even just throwing the dead ones back into the lake? I can’t imagine a dead fish full of toxic substances is any worse than a live one that will, naturally, be dead sooner or later…
Yeah agreed. Just grind them. Somehow people have no problem depleting massive natural stocks of fish for food but when its a “pet” you can’t kill it? People are getting too soft…
Getting 80% of the first line of the song isn't the strongest possible evidence that you know the words.
But regardless, how much do you think you'd enjoy listening to the words absent the music?
Tom Lehrer has plenty of clever wordplay going on, of various types in different songs. When You Are Old And Gray has a fun example of wording for the sake of wording.
But I don't think wording is a strength of The Elements.
I got 100% of the first line. Obviously you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Arranging the names of the elements, which Lehrer had no control over, to the tune of Gilbert and Sullivan’s music, which Lehrer had no control over, is nothing less than a work of singular genius.
Let’s see you do better, chummmmmm…p.
As for Old and Grey…
Huh huh, yeah, let’s hear some rhymes, rhymes are hard and so they have to be funny, I’m so smart for realizing that, please let me pet the rabbits now, George…
Arranging words to fit G&S has been a staple of musical review and comedy since the works first appeared, it takes a certain talent, but hardly singular genius.
Calling fellow HN commenters chump over band camp challenges seems worthy of a visit from the Lord High Executioner: https://youtu.be/6HPEBLPW5oY?t=56
Arranging a fixed set of lyrics to a fixed tune and doing it brilliantly is pretty genius. Or do you want to argue that Lehrer isn’t a genius? I mean, okay, but do you really want to play intelligence match ‘em with Tom Lehrer? I’m no genius, but I know who I’m betting on.
Also, he accused me of only getting 80% of the first line when I got 100%. How is that not some poser nonsense?
Additionally, not getting the classic Simpsons reference, or at least not acknowledging it, is pretty lame, so…
In the same way that "I" isn't part of the first line of "I am the very model of a modern Major-General"? That "I've" isn't part of the second line? That the first "and" isn't part of the line "And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium", even though the other three are? That only the second half of "in short" belongs to the line "in short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral"? All of these are in metrically identical positions.
You really think a poem in which every line begins with an identical anacrusis, where the "anacrusis" is required without exception, is properly analyzed as using anacruses?
reply