I bought a grenade launcher and it still counted as completed? I think the goal is supposed to be "buy a weapon" but has outdated text, or something.

They don't make the BBC any money. The BBC is funded through the TV License Fee. Basically a mandatory tax. Who, like a couple other shows that are tailored for international sales, are partially funded by BBC Worldwide, a for-profit wing of the corporation.

Cuz it seemed like you were missing the point of the comic, based on your definition of 'work' and lack of engagement with the actual topic (IE pop sci, science 'fandom, etc)?

Mostly from the obnoxious boosterism championed by the non-scientists that the comic is criticizing? It's a real cultural problem that emerges from our science fiction, PopSci, and other social constructions of science. The reduction of it to a notional catch phrase, for instance.

But science doesn't always "work" if we're defining "work" as bringing about positive outcomes in an efficient way. Sometimes science is tedious and awful and you don't get useful results. You still get the information, but it might not enable you to solve the problem.

See, there's an argument to be made that they're better because you can't necessarily tell what's going on. I found the fight scenes in Pacific Rim, for instance, incredibly dull and slow. They felt like they were from an old and badly animated anime. In Bay's films, you do get a sense of non-narrativized motion and…

I don't really think so? I think that when multiple characters are having visions or hearing voices or what have you, it's pretty clear that there's *something* going on. That something happened to be God.

It's especially weird to me since before Battlestar, Moore was best known for another series where a weird space religion was objectively true.

Probably, since it was never really as good as the fans seemed to think, but the show was pretty clearly religious and pretty clearly not the slightest bit allegorical. The bodily resurrection of Starbuck's not that far out there as religious narratives go.

I think it's less a plot hole and more that the audience thought that they were watching a different sort of show.

There are a lot of reasons to care about this. For a lot of people, this kind of thing is interesting as inside baseball. There's a story here, and there's drama in that story, and pleasure in seeing that drama narrativized by someone who writes well.

Well, it's just that what you were saying was pretty stupid in context, so I assumed that you didn't know the context, because I generally assume that people aren't stupid.

It's a clip from an HBO topical comedy show, which you'd know if you read the post, or watched the video.

This was a gag video done for an HBO program called Last Week Tonight. Basically John Oliver's attempt to to a Daily Show/Weekly Wipe style program.

Another, equally valid theory. That's how they want to present it, anyway. It's like how the right likes to present global warming.

It's sort of a branding thing? Like emphasizing that evolution is "only" a theory. The rhetoric has to reinforce the false dichotomy.

I think Pratt's the weakest link in the trailer, honestly. None of his lines really land IMO.

Not really. The only substantial criticism I've seen is from Gina Perry, and she contradicts herself on a couple counts.

I have to ask a question about porn. I hope you don't mind.

I think that playboy's actually, arguably, more comparable to premium cable in a lot of ways. You've got your good, high-level work, and you've got your straight-man friendly violence-and-tittays-funtimes-hour, and you need to sell both.