• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle




  • How could joysticks replace keyboards apart from forcing you to use a virtual keyboard with a joystick? Is everything else about computing the same or is it some form of fantasy joystick centered computer? Anyway what’s more important is that joysticks already exist in computing and we know they serve a specific purpose and really suck for the rest cause we tried. We designed the computer after all so we control how we interact with them. Not like we found them in the wilds and they somehow only had a joystick.



  • Your car. Just think about the forces and mechanisms invovled for this to happen. Every single day we travel at 100km/h in our 2ton at least metal box surrounded by hundreds of other people in their equally large and heavy and fast machines in a space barely wide enough to react in case of an emergency(not even considering if most are actually ready to act in such a case. All of this with realistically little training. Not to mention most people don’t really pay attention while driving and certainly don’t consider the life of others while doing so. It’s so impersonal and dangerous. If it was a never heard of concept, individual cars driven by any normal person would be considered laughably stupid at the very best.


  • Strong world building. No matter how farfetched the technology/society/species, if there is enough backstory or precedent anything is believeable. For example, Isaac Asimov’s robots aren’t realistic at all but he starts by laying down a set of rules (three laws of robotics)and wrote entire books worth of stories detailing their development. This not only allows readers to suspend their disbelief and accept that sentient robots exist but gives context and relatability to all of your characters/events/locations. The Expanse acheived the same by simply rooting it’s fiction deeply in reality which makes it inherently relatable. The rest is normal storytelling.


  • It’s also not at all what Juliette does in the book. She’s almost entirely motivated by Holston’s cleaning and it’s myatery. Also the whole Peter Billings scared for his family and his “syndrome” doesn’t exist. The whole point of the book is critical people questionning their way of life that find and help each other out. The show is really lazily written by people who did not understand or knew the source material. And that whole “big brother” camera room is a fucking joke. Bernard is a much better antagonist in the novel. No need for Sims as the ruthless killer that loves his son(sôooooo fucking dumb) and the judge that actually was invented for the show. He easily fit those three parts and that makes for a more fleshed out and complex character, just like real life. But ok I’ll stop, I’m just tired of poor writers butcheringn an already existing amd well thought out book. There is no excuse, they’re just writing by numbers.


  • I was in the process of reading the book when I heard about the series. All I have to say is that , once again with tv adaptations, the writers are doing fan fiction. So while the premise amd character names are the same, too many characters have wildly different motivations and arcs. I don’t want to go to into spoilers so I’ll leave it at that. The books are way more interesting. The show dives too much into overused tropes like “forbidden love” and “protect the family”. Same thing happened to the Witcher series. A bunch of writers couldn’t hold back their ego on reinventing the material that already existed that was actually great and what the audience loved.

    So yeah read it if you liked the series, it’s all better