Two bananas to a potato (I assume we’re talking something like a russet, not a little red potato?) sounds generous to the potato, if we’re talking volume equivalence.
Restricting who can own what, however… that’s long been fair game.
In my dream world we’d get something like the rules we had, until fairly recently, restricting max broadcast media audience control in a given market for a single owner, but for Web platforms. Don’t like being limited to five million users or whatever? Then use a standard that puts control over curation and presentation in the hands of the user. Want to control all that, like all these awful platforms do? Then live with the limit.
The broader question of why companies are able to keep pushing us ever closer to the maximum we’d conceivably be willing to pay for a given good, is probably best answered with “we stopped trust-busting a few decades ago, so competition sucks and keeps getting worse”.
I'm about 95% sure that if I ask my two school-age daughters if it's weird to address girls and women as "bro" or "bruh" in informal circumstances, they'll say no. Since I hear them do it with some regularity.
>> You can address women as "bro" and they might even respond to you but they'll think you're absolutely weird.
>I'm about 95% sure that if I ask my two school-age daughters if it's weird to address girls and women as "bro" or "bruh"
I'm 100% sure I said women, and not "school-age" girls, who if they weren't your daughters would probably describe you as "creep" because that's what teenage girls do. But sure, go ahead and move the goalposts anywhere you want. If citing teenage girls helps you think you're making some kind of point, then the mic is all yours.
I've been using Git for almost 15 years, and have twice built programs/products that use Git internally to achieve certain results (that is, the program/product itself uses Git for things, not just using Git to manage the source code for the program/product) and... sometimes before doing something a little gnarly in Git I'll still just do "cp -R .git ../git-backup" or something like that, so I can replace my entire .git dir with an older copy if I screw it up too bad. It's a ton faster than figuring out the right way to un-fuck any particular operation or set of operations.
git break-my-shit
git reflog
... output saying where you were before things broke
... grab the good commit sha
git reset --hard good_commit_sha_from_reflog
The copy-the-.git-dir trick works for worse issues than can be solved with a single reset --hard. Damn near anything, really, as long as you haven't touched any remotes. It also works if you don't remember/understand how you broke it, where it's broken, or which state you need to try to reset to.
Is boarding at Moynihan what another poster is alluding to with the possibility of avoiding the choke-point boarding by simply not using the main waiting area? Or is that considered a separate stop, possibly requiring a different ticket (and, worse still, maybe being bypassed by certain trains)?
I have minimal familiarity with NY and none with Penn, but will be Amtraking in and out in a couple weeks.
I'm not sure about Amtrak boarding processes, but regarding Moynihan vs Penn:
- Penn Station is directly under Madison Square Garden. There used to be a large building similar in scale to Grand Central Terminal, but it was rather controversially torn down in the 60s [1], and MSG built on its site and the train station portion becoming a bunch of tunnels beneath it.
- Across the street from Penn was a big post office building, with a grand Neo-classical design. As an attempt to somewhat remedy the destruction of Penn decades earlier, NY state decided to turn that into a train hall, which opened in 2020 [2]. It's the same station stop as Penn, so you can really think of it more as just an expansion of it. Take the stairs on the western (toward the Hudson river) end of the platform and you'll emerge into a big open space with an atrium that looks like an actual train station, instead of the basement of MSG. (They've also been doing good work raising the ceiling and widening corridors in Penn, so there's more light and air, but you're still basically in the MSG basement even if it's less cramped now).
Some of the people who returned for it died not long after it wrapped. The "Log Lady" might have died before it wrapped, even, can't recall. Miguel Ferrer wasn't around much longer. Even with Lynch living a good while past it, it'd have been far more limited production if it'd started even a couple years after it did. They already had to do without Bowie and a few others that it seems Lynch might have liked to use (given what he did with the season), like Frank Silva (BOB) of course, and notably Don Davis (Major Garland Briggs).
Wow, what a great point. The Return actually being created is a miracle in so many ways.
And the fact that it actually was released 25 years after Laura said "I'll see you in 25 years"? I'm not a spiritual person, but it does feel like the universe wanted that show to be made!
> The "Log Lady" might have died before it wrapped
Yes, she was terminally ill and in hospice care. Lynch moved up the filming of her scenes as well as writing the part so she wouldn't need to travel. The fans really embraced her in the years after the original show aired, inviting her to conventions, etc. She wanted to finish her character's role for the fans before she died.
I appreciated the change to make Chani fill a role like Sherif Ali in the film Lawrence Of Arabia (the book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, if not the film, is plainly a huge influence on Herbert's Dune, and it's probably impossible for a director to film so much as a scene set in the desert without thinking of Lean's film).
So much of Dune takes place inside people's heads that it's basically unfilmable if you don't make some changes. Plus, even with five hours of film, you're going to be cutting whole scenes from the book whether you want to or not. Lynch's solution was to make it a more straightforward hero's journey—and given the length of his film, and no expectation of sequels, I can't really blame him. Villeneuve had more space and so could tell a darker and more foreboding story, closer to the original, but still needed to externalize some of that internal struggle and foreshadowing, for which he used, especially, Chani.
[EDIT] Oh and as for this:
> I know its nerdy but I absolutely hate when movies of classic books think the story needs to be changed
Every now and then such a deviation ends up being excellent as its own way, while still benefitting from the connection to the original and being better as an "adaptation" than an independent property. Verhoeven's Starship Troopers would be one of the more extreme examples of this kind of outcome. A gentler one might be Kubrick's The Shining.
A potato’s a meal. A banana’s a lightish snack.