Posts in Television (16 found)
fLaMEd fury 2 weeks ago

Robin Hood (2025)

What’s going on, Internet? Haven’t done these in a while so here we go. I just finished up watching all ten episodes of Robin Hood (2025) . It probably isn’t a great television show but it was entertaining enough to watch across four evenings. I did find Robb a bit whingey at first, but I enjoyed how quickly he went from reluctant to ruthless. Tuck the monk was a great addition to the crew, I liked his wrestling with his faith and where he drew the line, but ultimately came back around. Little John was a weird one though, where he was literally hunting Robb, bested him and the millers, and then immediately joined the cause after a vision. That felt a bit rushed. The Earl of Huntingdon was an absolute munter though. Easy to dislike, which I suppose is the point. It’s always good to see Sean Bean in a show, he had such an impact on Game of Thrones in only a single season, but his portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham wasn’t as impactful. And Priscilla, his daughter, no idea what was going on there, lol. The show has me thinking about a Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves rewatch, a favourite when I was younger - maybe because of that banger Bryan Adams song on the soundtrack. The stories are similar but different enough to get me interested. I find the time period and story of Robin Hood interesting and the show has me keen to dive into some history of the Norman conquests - if you have any recs, let me know. Hey, thanks for reading this post in your feed reader! Want to chat? Reply by email or add me on XMPP , or send a webmention . Check out the posts archive on the website.

0 views
iDiallo 2 weeks ago

Microsoft Should Watch The Expanse

My favorite piece of technology in science fiction isn't lightsabers, flying spaceships, or even robots. It's AI. But not just any AI. My favorite is the one in the TV show The Expanse . If you watch The Expanse, the most advanced technology is, of course, the Epstein drive (an unfortunate name in this day and age). In their universe, humanity can travel to distant planets, the Belt, and Mars. Mars has the most high-tech military, which is incredibly cool. But the AI is still what impresses me most. If you watched the show, you're probably wondering what the hell I'm talking about right now. Because there is no mention of AI ever. The AI is barely visible. In fact, it's not visible at all. Most of the time, there aren't even voices. Instead, their computer interfaces respond directly to voice and gesture commands without returning any sass. In Season 1, Miller (the detective) is trying to solve a crime. Out of the blue, he just says, "Plot the course the Scopuli took over the past months." The course is plotted right there in his living room. No fuss, no interruptions, no "OK Google." And when he finally figures it out, no one says "You are absolutely right!" He then interacts with the holographic display in real time, asking for additional information and manipulating the data with gestures. At no point does he anthropomorphize the AI. It's always there, always available, always listening, but it never interrupts. This type of interaction is present throughout the series. In the Rocinante, James Holden will give commands like "seal bulkhead," "plot intercept course," or "scan for life signs," and the ship's computer simply executes. There are no loading screens, no chatbot personality trying to be helpful. The computer doesn't explain what it's doing or ask for confirmation on routine tasks. It just works. When Holden needs tactical information during a firefight, he doesn't open an app or navigate menus. He shouts questions, and relevant data appears on his helmet display. When Naomi needs to calculate a complex orbital maneuver, she doesn't fight with an interface. She thinks out loud, and the system provides the calculations she needs. This is the complete opposite of Microsoft's Copilot... Yes, this is about Copilot. In Microsoft's vision, they think they're designing an AI assistant, an AI copilot that's always there to help. You have Copilot in Excel, in Edge, in the taskbar. It's everywhere, yet it's as useless as you can imagine. What is Copilot? Is it ChatGPT or a wrapper around it? Is it a code assistant? Is it a search engine? Or wait, is it all of Microsoft Office now? It's attached to every application, yet it hasn't been particularly helpful. We now use Teams at work, and I see Copilot popping up every time to offer to help me, just like Clippy. OK, fine, I asked for the meaning of a term I hear often in this company. Copilot doesn't know. Well, it doesn't say it doesn't know. Instead, it gives me the definition of what it thinks the term means in general. Imagine for a second you're a manager and you hear developers talking about issues with Apache delaying a project. You don't know what Apache is, so you ask Copilot. It tells you that the Apache are a group of Native American tribes known for their resilience in the Southwest. If you don't know any better, you might take that definition at face value, never knowing that Copilot has does not have access to any of the company data. Now in the project retro, you'll blame a native American tribe for delaying the project. Copilot is everywhere, yet it is nowhere. Nobody deliberately opens it to solve a problem. Instead, it's like Google Plus from back in the day. If you randomly clicked seven times on the web, you would somehow end up with a Google Plus account and, for some reason, two YouTube accounts. Copilot is visible when it should be invisible, and verbose when it should be silent. It interrupts your workflow to offer help you didn't ask for, then fails to provide useful answers when you actually need them. It's the opposite of the AI in The Expanse. It doesn't fade in the background. It is constantly reminding you that you need to use it here and now. In The Expanse , the AI doesn't have a personality because it doesn't need one. It's not trying to be your friend or impress you with its conversational abilities. It's a tool, refined to perfection. It is not trying to replace your job, it is there to support you. Copilot only exists to impress you, and it fails at it every single time. Satya should binge-watch The Expanse. I'm not advocating for AI everything, but I am all for creating useful tools. And Copilot, as it currently exists, is one of the least useful implementations of AI I've encountered. The best technology is invisible. It doesn't announce itself, doesn't demand attention, and doesn't try to be clever. It simply works when you need it and disappears when you don't. I know Microsoft won't read this or learn from it. Instead, I expect Windows 12 to be renamed Microsoft Copilot OS. In The Expanse, the AI turn people into heroes. In our world, Copilot, Gemini, ChatGPT, all want to be the heroes. And they will differentiate themselves by trying to be the loudest.

0 views
Stone Tools 4 weeks ago

Scala Multimedia on the Commodore Amiga

The ocean is huge. It's not only big enough to separate landmasses and cultures, but also big enough to separate ideas and trends. Born and raised in the United States, I couldn't understand why the UK was always eating so much pudding. Please forgive my pre-internet cultural naiveté. I should also be kind to myself for thinking the Video Toaster was the be-all-end-all for video production and multimedia authoring on the Amiga. Search Amiga World metadata on Internet Archive for "toaster" and "scala" and you'll see my point. "Toaster" brings up dozens of top-level hits, and "Scala" gets zero. The NTSC/PAL divide was as vast as the ocean. From the States, cross either ocean and Scala was everywhere, including a full, physical-dongle-copy-protection-removed, copy distributed on the cover disk of CU Amiga Magazine , issue 96. Listening to Scala founder, Jon Bøhmer, speak of Scala 's creation in an interview on The Retro Hour , his early intuition on the Amiga's potential in television production built Scala into an omnipresent staple across multiple continents. Intuition alone can't build an empire. Bøhmer also had gladiatorial-like aggression to maintain his dominance in that market. As he recounted, "A Dutch company tried to make a Scala clone, and they made a mistake of putting...the spec sheet on their booth and said all those different things that Scala didn't have yet. So I took that spec sheet back to my developers (then, later) lo and behold before those guys had a bug free version out on the street, we had all their features and totally eradicated their whole proposal." Now, of course I understand that it would have been folly to ignore the threat. Looked at from another angle, Scala had apparently put themselves in a position where their dominance could face a legitimate threat from a disruptor. Ultimately, that's neither here nor there as in the end, Scala had early momentum and could swing the industry their direction. Scala (the software) remains alive and well even now, in the digital signage authoring and playback software arena. You know the stuff, like interactive touchscreens at restaurant checkouts, or animated displays at retail stores. As with the outliner/PIM software in the ThinkTank article , the world of digital signage is likewise shockingly crowded. Discovering this felt like catching a glimpse of a secondary, invisible world just below the surface of conscious understanding. Scala didn't find success without good reason. It solved some thorny broadcast production issues on hardware that was alone in its class for a time. A unique blend of software characteristics (multitasking, IFF, ARexx) turned an Amiga running Scala into more than the sum of its parts. Scala by itself would have made rumbles. Scala on the Amiga was seismic. At heart, I'm a print guy. Like anyone, I enjoy watching cool video effects, and I once met Kiki Stockhammer in person. But my brain has never been wired for animation or motion design. My 3D art was always static; my designs were committed to ink on paper. I liked holding a physical artifact in my hands at the end of the design process. Considering the sheer depths of my video naivete, for this investigation I will need a lot of help from the tutorials. I'll build the demo stuff from the manual, and try to push myself further and see where my explorations take me. CU Amiga Magazine issues 97 - 102 contain Scala MM300 tutorials as well, so I'll check those out for a man-on-the-streets point of view. The first preconception I need to shed is thinking Scala is HyperCard for the Amiga. It flirts with certain concepts, but building Myst with this would be out of reach for most people. I'll never say it's "impossible," as I don't like tempting the Fates that way, but it would need considerable effort and development skills. A little terminology is useful before we really dig in. I usually start an exploration of GUI applications by checking out the available menus. With Scala , there aren't any. I don't mean the menubar is empty, I mean there isn't a menubar, period. It does not exist. I am firmly in Scala Land and Scala 's vision of how multimedia work gets done. As with PaperClip , I find its opinionated interface comforting. I have serious doubts about common assumptions of interface homogeneity being a noble goal, but that's a discussion for a future post. Despite its plain look, what we see when the program launches is richly complex. Anything in purple (or whatever your chosen color scheme uses) is clickable, and if it has its own boundaries it does its own thing. Across the top we have the Scala logo, program title bar, and the Amiga Workbench "depth gadget." Clicking the logo is how we save our project and/or exit the program. Then we have what is clearly a list, and judging from interface cues its a list of pages. This list ("script") is akin to a HyperCard stack with transitions ("wipes") between cards ("pages"). Each subsection of any given line item is its own button for interfacing with that specific aspect of the page. It's approachable and nonthreatening, and to my mind encourages me to just click on things and see what happens. The bottom-sixth holds an array of buttons that would normally be secreted away under standard Amiga GUI menus. On the one hand, this means if you see it, it's available; no poking through dozens of greyed-out items. On the other hand, keyboard shortcuts and deeper tools aren't exposed. There's no learning through osmosis here. Following the tutorial, the first thing to do is define my first "page." Click "New," choose a background as a visual starting point if you like, click "OK", choose a resolution and color depth (this is per-screen, not per-project), and click "OK" to finish. The program steps me through the process; it is clear how to proceed. The design team for Scala really should be commended for the artistic craftsmanship of the product. It is easy to put something professional together with the included backgrounds, images, and music. Everything is tasteful and (mostly) subdued, if aesthetically "of its time" occasionally. Thanks to IFF support, if you don't like the built-in assets, you can create your own in one of the Amiga's many paint or music programs. That visual care extends to the included fonts, which are a murderer's row of well-crafted classics. All the big stars are here! Futura, Garamond, Gill Sans, Compact, and more. Hey, is that Goudy I see coming down the red carpet? And behind them? Why it's none other than Helvetica, star of their own hit movie that has the art world buzzing! And, oh no! Someone just threw red paint all over Franklin Gothic. What a shame, because I'm pretty sure that's a pleather dress. The next screen is where probably 85% of my time will be spent. One thing I've noticed with the manual is a lack of getting the reader up to speed on the nomenclature of the program. This screen contains the "Edit Menu" but is that what I should call this screen? The "Edit Menu" screen? Screen layouts are called "pages." Is this the "Page Edit" screen? Anyway, the "Edit Menu" gives a lot of control, both fine and coarse, for text styling, shape types, creating buttons, setting the color palette, coordinating object reveals, and more. Buttons with hide extra options, for styling or importing other resources, and it could be argued the interface works against itself a bit. As Scala has chosen to eschew typical Amiga GUI conventions, they walk a delicate line of showing as much as possible, while avoiding visual confusion. It never feels overwhelming, but only just and could stand to borrow from the MacOS playbook's popup menus, rather than cycling of options. Entering text is simple; click anywhere on the screen and begin typing. Where it gets weird is how Scala treats all text as one continuous block. Every line is ordered by Y-position on screen, but every line is connected to the next. Typing too much on a given line will spill over into the next line down, wherever it may be, and however it may be styled. 0:00 / 0:17 1× Text weirdness in the Edit Screen. (I think I had a Trapper Keeper in that pattern.) The unobtrusive buttons "IN" and "OUT" on the left define how the currently selected object will transition into or out of the screen. Doing this by mouse selection is kind of a drag, as there is no visible selection border for the object being modified. There is an option to draw boxes around objects, but there is no differentiation of selected vs. unselected objects, except when there is. It's a bit inconsistent. The "List" button reveals a method for assigning transitions and rearranging object timings precisely. It is quickly my preferred method for anything more complex than "a simple piece of text flies into view." As a list we can define only a pure sequence. Do a thing. Do a second thing. Do a third thing. The end. Multiple items can be "chained" to perform precisely the same wipe as the parent object, with no variation. It's a grouping tool, not a timing tool. 0:00 / 0:04 1× "List" editing of text effect timings. Stay tuned for the sequel: "celeriac and jicama" I'm having a lot of fun exploring these tools, and have immediately wandered off the tutorial path just to play around. Everything works like I'd expect, and I don't need to consult the manual much at all. There are no destructive surprises nor wait times. I click buttons and see immediate results; my inquisitiveness is rewarded. Pages with animation are all good and well, but it is interactivity which elevates a Scala page over the stoicism of a PowerPoint slide. That means it's time for the go-to interaction metaphor: the good ole' button. Where HyperCard has the concept of buttons as objects, in Scala a button is just a region of the screen. It accepts two events: and , though it burdens these simple actions with the confusing names and . I mix up these terms constantly in my mind. To add a button, draw a box. Alternately, click something you've drawn and a box bound to that object's dimensions will be auto-generated. Don't be fooled! That box is not tethered to the object. It just happens to be sized precisely to the object's current dimensions and position on screen, as a helpful shortcut to generate the most-likely button for your needs. Button interactions can do a few things. First, it can adjust colors within its boundaries. Amiga palettes use indexed color, so color swaps are trivial and pixel-perfect. Have some white text that should highlight in red when the mouse enters it? Set the "mark" (mouse enter) palette to remap white to red. Same for "select" (mouse click), a separate palette remap could turn the white to yellow on click. Why am I talking about this when I can just show you? 0:00 / 0:24 1× I intentionally drew the button to be half the text height to illustrate that the button has no relation to the text itself. Color remapping occurs within button boundaries. The double palettes represent the current palette (top), and the remapped palette (bottom). Buttons can also contain simple logic, setting or reading global variable states to determine how to behave at any given moment. IF-THEN statements can likewise be embedded to route presentation order based on those variables. So, a click could add +1 to a global counter, then if the counter is a certain value it could transition to a corresponding page. 0:00 / 0:03 1× If we feel particularly clever with index color palette remapping, it is possible to give the illusion of complete image replacement. Buttons do not need any visible attributes, nor do they need to be mouse-clicked to perform their actions. If "Function Keys" are enabled at the Scala "System" level, the first 10 buttons on a page are automatically linked to F1 - F10. A sample script which ships with Scala demonstrates F-Key control over a page in real-time, altering the values of sports scores by set amounts. This is a clever trick, and with deeper thought opens up interesting possibilities. If every page in a script were to secretly contain such a set of buttons, a makeshift control panel could function like a "video soundboard" of sorts. F-Keys could keep a presentation dynamic, perhaps reacting to live audience participation. I mention this for no particular reason and it is not a setup for a later reveal. ahem Once we've made some pages, its time to stitch them together into a proper presentation, a "script" in Scala parlance. This all happens in the "Main Menu" which works similarly to the "List" view when editing page text elements, with a few differences. "Wipe" is the transition from the previous page to the selected page. If you want to wipe "out" from a page with transition X, then wipe "in" to next page with transition Y, a page must be added in-between to facilitate that. The quality of the real-time wipe effects surprises me. Again, my video naivete is showing, because I always thought the Amiga needed specialized hardware to do stuff like this, especially when there is video input. The wipes are fun, if perhaps a little staid compared to the Toaster 's. In Scala 's defense, they remain a bit more timeless in their simplicity. "Pause" controls, by time or frame count, how long to linger on a page before moving on to the next one. Time can be relative to the start of the screen reveal, or absolute so as to coordinate Scala animations with known timestamps on a pre-recorded video source. A mouse click can also be assigned as the "pause," waiting for a click to continue. "Sound" attaches a sound effect, or a MOD music file, to the reveal. There are rudimentary tools for adjusting pitch and timing, and even for trimming sounds to fit. An in-built sampler makes quick, crunchy, low-fidelity voice recordings, for when you need to add a little extra pizazz in a pinch, or to rough out an idea to see how it works. Sometimes the best tool for the job is the one you have with you. There are hidden tools on the Main Menu. Like many modern GUI table views, the gap between columns is draggable. Narrowing the "Name" column reveals two hidden options to the right: Variables and Execute. Now I'm finally getting a whiff of HyperCard . Unlike HyperCard , these tools are rather opaque and non-intuitive. Right off the bat, there is no built-in script editor. Rather, Scala is happy to position itself as one tool in your toolbox, not to provide every tool you need out of the box. It's going to take some time to get to know how these work, perhaps more than I have allocated for this project, but I'll endeavor to at least come to grips with these. The Scala manual says, "The Scala definition of variables (closely resembles) ARexx, since all variable operators are performed by ARexx." After 40 years, I guess it's time to finally learn about ARexx. ARexx is the Amiga implementation of the REXX scripting language . From ARexx User's Reference Manual, "ARexx is particularly well suited as a command language. Command programs, sometimes called "scripts" or "macros", are widely used to extend the predefined commands of an operating system or to customize an applications program." This is essentially the Amiga's AppleScript equivalent, a statement which surely has a pedant somewhere punching their 1084 monitor at my ignorance. Indeed, the Amiga had ARexx before Apple had AppleScript, but not before Apple had HyperCard . Amiga Magazine , August 1989, described it thusly, "Amiga's answer to HyperCard is found in ARexx, a programming and DOS command language, macro processor, and inter-process controller, all rolled into one easy-to-use command language." "Easy-to-use" you say? Commodore had their heart in the right place, but the "Getting Acquainted" section of the ARexx manual immediately steers hard into programmer-speak. From the jump we're hit with stuff like, "(ARexx) uses the double-precision math library called "mathieeedoubbas.library" that is supplied with the Amiga WorkBench disk, so make sure that this file is present in your LIBS: directory. The distribution disk includes the language system, some example programs, and a set of the INCLUDE files required for integrating ARexx with other software packages." I know exactly what I'd have thought back in the day. What is a "mathieeedoubbas?" What is a "library?" Is "LIBS" and "library" the same thing? What is "double-precision?" What is "INCLUDE"? What is a "language system?" You, manual, said yourself on page 2, "If you are new to the REXX language, or perhaps to programming itself, you should review chapters 1 through 4." So far, that ain't helpin'. Luckily for young me, now me knows a thing or two about programming and can make sense of this stuff. Well, "sense" in the broadest definition only. What this means for Scala is that we have lots of options for handling variables and logic in our project. The manual says, "Any ARexx operators and functions can be used (in the variable field)." However, a function like "Say," which outputs text to console, doesn't make any sense in a Scala context, so I'm not always 100% clear where lie the boundaries of useful operators and functions. In addition to typical math functions and simple string concatentation, ARexx gives us boolean and equality checks, bitwise operators, random number generation, string to digit conversion, string filtering and trimming, the current time, and a lot more. Even checking for file existence works, which possibly carried over from Scala 's roots as a modem-capable automated remote video-titler. Realistically, there's only so much we can do given the tiny tiny OMG it's so small interface into which we type our expressions. My aspirations are scoped by the interface design. This is not necessarily a bad thing , IMHO. " Small, sharp tools " is a handy mental scoping model. Variables are global, starting from the page on which they're defined. So page 1 cannot reach variables defined on page 2. A page can display the value of any currently defined variable by using the prefix in the on-screen text, as in . 0:00 / 0:08 1× I was trying to do Cheifet's melt effect, but I couldn't get animated brushes to work in Scala . Still, I was happy to get even this level of control over genlock/ Scala interplay. "Execution" in the Main Menu means "execute a script." Three options are available: Workbench, CLI, and ARexx. For a feature that gets two pages in the manual with extra-wide margins, this is a big one, but I get why it only receives a brief mention. The only other recourse would be to include hundreds of pages of training material. "It exists. Have fun." is the basic thrust here. "Workbench" can launch anything reachable via the Workbench GUI, the same as double-clicking it. This is useful for having a script set up the working environment with helper apps, so an unpaid intern doesn't forget to open them. For ARexx stuff, programs must be running to receive commands, for example. "CLI" does the same thing as Workbench, except for AmigaDOS programs; programs that don't have a GUI front-end. Maybe open a terminal connection or monitor a system resource. "ARexx" of course runs ARexx scripts. For a program to accept ARexx commands, it must have an active REXX port open. Scala can send commands, and even its own variable data, to a target program to automate it in interesting ways. I saw an example of drawing images in a paint program entirely through ARexx scripting. Scala itself has an open REXX port, meaning its own tools can be controlled by other programs. In this way, data can flow between software, even from different makers, to form a little self-enclosed, automation ecosystem. One unusually powerful option is that Scala can export its own presentation script, which includes information for all pages, wipes, timings, sound cues, etc, as a self-contained ARexx script. Once in that format, it can be extended (in any text editor) with advanced ARexx commands and logic, perhaps to extract data from a database and build dynamic pages from that. Now it gets wild. That modified ARexx file can then be brought back into Scala as an "Execute" ARexx script on a page. Let me clarify this. A Scala script, which builds and runs an entire multi-page presentation, can itself be transformed into just another ARexx script assigned to a single page of a Scala project. One could imagine building a Scala front-end with a selection of buttons, each navigating on-click to a separate page which itself contains a complete, embedded presentation on a given topic. Scripts all the way down. There's one more scripting language Scala supports, and that's its own. Dubbed Scala Lingo (or is it Lingua?), when we save a presentation script we're saving in Lingo. It's human-readable and ARexx-friendly, which is what made it possible to save a presentation as an ARexx script in the previous section. Here's pure Lingo. This is a 320x200x16 (default palette) page, solid blue background with fade in. It displays one line of white text with anti-aliasing. The text slides in from the left, pauses 3 seconds, then slides out to the right. Here's the same page as an ARexx script. Looks like all we have to do is wrap each line of Lingo in single quotes, and add a little boilerplate. So, we have Scala on speaking terms with the Amiga and its applications, already a thing that could only be done on this particular platform at the time. Scala's choice of platform was further benefited by one of the Amiga's greatest strengths. That was thanks to the "villain" of the PaperClip article , Electronic Arts. The hardware and software landscape of the 70s and 80s was a real Wild West, anything goes, invent your own way, period of experimentation. Ideas could grow and bloom and wither on the vine multiple times over the course of a decade. Why, enough was going on a guy could devote an entire blog to it all. ahem While this was fun for the developers who had an opportunity to put their own stamp on the industry, for end-users it could create a bit of a logistical nightmare. Specifically, apps tended to be siloed, self-contained worlds which read and wrote their own private file types. Five different art programs? Five different file formats. Data migration was occasionally supported, as with VisiCalc's use of DIF (data interchange format) to store its documents. DIF was not a "standard" per se, but rather a set of guidelines for storing document data in ASCII format. Everyone using DIF could roll their own flavor and still call it DIF, like Lotus did in extending (but not diverging from) VisiCalc's original. Microsoft's DIF variant broke with everyone else, a fact we'll just let linger in the air like a fart for a moment. Let's really breathe it in, especially those of us on Windows 11 . More often than not, especially in the case of graphics and sound, DIF-like options were simply not available. Consider The Print Shop on the Apple 2. When its sequel, The New Print Shop , arrived it couldn't even open graphics from the immediately previous version of itself . A converter program was included to bring original Print Shop graphics into New Print Shop . On the C64, the Koala file format became semi-standard for images, simply by virtue of its popularity. Even so, there was a market for helping users move graphics across applications on the exact same hardware. While other systems struggled, programs like Deluxe Video on the Amiga were bringing in Deluxe Music and Deluxe Paint assets without fuss. A cynic will say, "Well yeah, those were all EA products so of course they worked together." That would be true in today's "silos are good, actually" regression of computing platforms into rent extractors. But, I will reiterate once more, there was genuinely a time when EA was good to its users. They didn't just treat developers as artists, they also empowered users in their creative pursuits. EA had had enough of the file format wars. They envisioned a brighter future and proposed an open file standard to achieve precisely that. According Dave Parkinson's article "A bit IFFy," in Amiga Computing Magazine , issue 7, "The origins of IFF are to be found in the (Apple) Macintosh's clipboard, and the file conventions which allow data to be cut and pasted between different Mac applications. The success of this led Electronic Arts to wonder — why not generalize this?" Why not, indeed! In 1985, working directly in conjunction with Commodore, the Electronic Arts Interchange File Format 1985 was introduced; IFF for short. It cannot be overstated how monumental it was to unlocking the Amiga's potential as a creative workhorse. From the Scala manual, "Unlike other computers, the Amiga has very standardized file formats for graphics and sound. This makes it easy to exchange data between different software packages. This is why you can grab a video image in one program, modify it in another, and display it in yet another." I know it's hard for younger readers to understand the excitement this created, except to simply say that everything in computing has its starting point. EA and the Amiga led the charge on this one. So, what is it? From "A Quick Introduction to IFF" by Jerry Morrison of Electronic Arts, "IFF is a 2-level standard. The first layer is the "wrapper" or “envelope” structure for all IFF files. Technically, it’s the syntax. The second layer defines particular IFF file types such as ILBM (standard raster pictures), ANIM (animation), SMUS (simple musical score), and 8SVX (8-bit sampled audio voice)." To assist in the explanation of the IFF file format, I built a Scala presentation just for you, taken from Amiga ROM Kernel Reference Manual . This probably would have been better built in Lingo, rather than trying to fiddle with the cumbersome editing tools and how they (don't) handle overlapping objects well. What's done is done. 0:00 / 0:07 1× I used the previously mentioned "link" wipe to move objects as groups. IFF is a thin wrapper around a series of data "chunks." It begins with a declaration of what type of IFF this particular file is, known as its "FORM." Above we see the ILBM "FORM," probably the most prevalent image format on the Amiga. Each chunk has its own label, describes how many bytes long it is, and is then followed by that many data bytes. That's really all there is to it. IDs for the FORM and the expected chunks are spec'd out in the registered definition document. Commodore wanted developers to always try to use a pre-existing IFF definition for data when possible. If there was no such definition, say for ultra-specialized data structures, then a new definition should be drawn up. "To prevent conflicts, new FORM identifications must be registered with Commodore before use," says Amiga ROM Kernel Reference Manual . In Morrison's write-up on IFF, he likened it to ASCII. When ASCII data is read into a program, it is sliced, diced, mangled, and whatever else needs to be done internally to make the program go. However, the data itself is on disk in a format unrelated to the program's needs. Morrison described a generic system for storing data, of whatever type, in a standardized way which separated data from software implementations. At its heart, IFF first declares what kind of data it holds (the FORM type), then that data is stored in a series of labelled chunks. The specification of how many chunks a given FORM needs, the proper labels for those chunks, the byte order for the raw data, and so on are all in the FORM's IFF definition document. In this way, anyone could write a simple IFF reader that follows the registered definition, et voila! Deluxe Paint animations are suddenly a valid media resource for Scala to consume. It can be confusing when hearing claims of "IFF compatibility" in magazines or amongst the Amiga faithful, but this does not mean that any random Amiga program can consume any random IFF file. The burden of supporting various FORMS still rests on each individual developer. FORM definitions which are almost identical, yet slightly different, were allowed. For example, the image FORM is "almost identical to " with differences in the chunk and the requirement of a new chunk called . "Almost identical" is not "identical" and so though both RGBN and ILBM are wrapped in standardized IFF envelopes, a program must explicitly support the ones of interest. Prevalent support for any given FORM type came out of a communal interest to make it standard. Cooperation was the unsung hero of the IFF format. "Two can do something better than one," has been on infinite loop in my mind since 1974. How evergreen is that XKCD comic about standards ? Obviously, given we're not using it these days, IFF wound up being one more format on the historical pile. We can find vestiges of its DNA here and there , but not the same ubiquity. There were moves to adopt IFF across other platforms. Tom Hudson, he of DEGAS Elite and CAD-3D , published a plea in the Fall 1986 issue of START Magazine for the Atari ST development crowd to adopt IFF for graphics files. He's the type to put up, not shut up, and so he also provided an IFF implementation on the cover disk, and detailed the format and things to watch out for. Though inspired by Apple originally, Apple seemed to believe IFF only had a place within a specific niche. AIFF, audio interchange file format, essentially standardized audio on the Mac, much like ILBM did for Amiga graphics. Despite being an IFF variant registered with Commodore, Scala doesn't recognize it in my tests. So, again, IFF itself wasn't a magical panacea for all file format woes. That fact was recognized even back in the 80s. In Amazing Computing , July 1987, in an article "Is IFF Really a Standard?" by John Foust, "Although the Amiga has a standard file format, it does not mean Babel has been avoided." He noted that programs can interpret IFF data incorrectly, resulting in distorted images, or outright failure. Ah well, nevertheless . Side note: One might reasonably believe TIFF to be a successful variant of IFF. Alas, TIFF shares "IFF" in name only and stands for "tagged image file format." One more side note: Microsoft also did to IFF what they did to DIF. fart noise The last major feature of note is Scala's extensibility. In the Main Menu list view, we have columns for various page controls. The options there can be expanded by including EX modules, programs which control external systems. This feels adjacent to HyperCard's XCMDs and XFCNs, which could extend HyperCard beyond its factory settings. EX modules bundled with Scala can control Sony Laserdisc controllers, enable MIDI file playback, control advanced Genlock hardware, and more. Once installed as a "Startup" item in Scala , these show up in the Main Menu and are as simple to control as any of Scala's built-in features. As an EX module, it is also Lingo scriptable so the opportunity to coordinate complex hardware interactions all through point-and-click is abundant. I turned on WinUAE's MIDI output and set it to "Microsoft GS Wave Table." In Amiga Workbench, I enabled the MIDI EX for Scala . On launch, Scala showed a MIDI option for my pages so I loaded up Bohemian-Rhapsody-1.mid . Mamma mia, it worked! I haven't found information about how to make new EXes, nor am I clear what EXes are available beyond Scala's own. However, here at the tail end of my investigation, Scala is suddenly doing things I didn't think it could do. The potential energy for this program is crazy high. No, I'm not going to be doing that any time soon, but boy do I see the appeal. Electronic Arts's documentation quoted Alan Kay for the philosophy behind the IFF standard, "Simple things should be simple, complex things should possible." Scala upholds this ideal beautifully. Making text animate is simple. Bringing in Deluxe Paint animations is simple. Adding buttons which highlight on hover and travel to arbitrary pages on click is simple. The pages someone would typically want to build, the bread-and-butter stuff, is simple. The complex stuff though, especially ARexx scripting, is not fooling around. I tried to script Scala to speak a phrase using the Amiga's built-in voice synthesizer and utterly failed. Jimmy Maher wrote of ARexx in The Future Was Here: The Commodore Amiga , "Like AmigaOS itself, it requires an informed, careful user to take it to its full potential, but that potential is remarkable indeed." While Scala didn't make me a video convert, it did retire within me the notion that the Toaster was the Alpha and Omega of the desktop video space. Interactivity, cross-application scripting, and genlock all come together into a program that feels boundless. In isolation, Scala a not a killer app. It becomes one when used as the central hub for a broader creative workflow. A paint program is transformed into a television graphics department. A basic sampler becomes a sound booth. A database and a little Lingo becomes an editing suite. Scala really proves the old Commodore advertising slogan correct, "Only Amiga Makes it Possible." 0:00 / 1:48 1× I'm accelerating the cycle of nostalgia. Now, we long for "four months ago." The more I worked with Scala , the more I wanted to see how close I could get to emulating video workflows of the day. Piece by piece over a few weeks I discovered the following (needs WinUAE , sorry) setup for using live Scala graphics with an untethered video source in a Discord stream. Scala can't do video switching*, so I'm locked to whatever video source happens to be genlocked to WinUAE at the moment. But since when were limitations a hindrance to creativity? * ARexx and EX are super-powerful and can extend Scala beyond its built-in limitations, but I don't see an obvious way to explore this within WinUAE. This is optional, depending on your needs, but its the fun part. You can use whatever webcam you have connected just as well. Camo Camera can stream mobile phone video to a desktop computer, wirelessly no less. Camo Camera on the desktop advertises your phone as a webcam to the desktop operating system. So, install that on both the mobile device and desktop, and connect them up. WinUAE can see the "default" Windows webcam, and only the default, as a genlock source; we can't select from a list of available inputs. It was tricky getting Windows 11 to ignore my webcam and treat Camo Camera as my default, but I got it to work. When you launch WinUAE , you should see your camera feed live in Workbench as the background. So far, so good. Next, in Scala > Settings turn on Genlock. You should now see your camera feed in Scala with Scala's UI overlaid. Now that we have Scala and our phone's video composited, switch over to OBS Studio . Set the OBS "Source" to "Window Capture" on WinUAE. Adjust the crop and scale to focus in on the portion of the video you're interested in broadcasting. On the right, under "Controls" click "Start Virtual Camera." Discord, Twitch , et al are able to see OBS as the camera input for streaming. When you can see the final output in your streaming service of choice (I used Discord 's camera test to preview), design the overlay graphics of your heart's desire. Use that to help position graphics so they won't be cut off due to Amiga/Discord aspect ratio differences. While streaming, interactivity with the live Scala presentation is possible. If you build the graphics and scripts just right, interesting real-time options are possible. Combine this with what we learned about buttons and F-Keys, and you could wipe to a custom screen like "Existential Crisis - Back in 5" with a keypress. 0:00 / 0:35 1× Headline transitions were manually triggered by the F-Keys, just to pay off the threat I made earlier in the post. See? I set'em up, I knock'em down. I also wrote a short piece about Cheifet , because of course I did. Ways to improve the experience, notable deficiencies, workarounds, and notes about incorporating the software into modern workflows (if possible). WinUAE v6.0.2 (2025.12.21) 64-bit on Windows 11 Emulating an NTSC Amiga 1200 2MB Chip RAM, 8MB Z2 Fast RAM AGA Chipset 68020 CPU, 24-bit addressing, no FPU, no MMU, cycle-exact emulation Kickstart/Workbench 3.1 (from Amiga Forever ) Windows directory mounted as HD0: For that extra analog spice, I set up the video Filter as per this article Scala Multimedia MM300 Cover disk version from CU Amiga Magazine , issue 96 (no copy protection) I didn't have luck running MM400 , nor could I find a MM400 manual Also using Deluxe Paint IV and TurboText Nothing to speak of. The "stock" Amiga 1200 setup worked great. I never felt the need to speed boost it, though I did give myself as much RAM as possible. I'll go ahead and recommend Deluxe Paint IV over III as a companion to Scala , because it supports the same resolutions and color depths. If you wind up with a copy of Scala that needs the hardware dongle, WinUAE emulates that as well. Under are the "red" (MM200) and "green" (MM300 and higher) variants I'm not aware of any other emulators that offer a Genlock option. I did not encounter any crashes of the application nor emulator. One time I had an "out of chip RAM" memory warning pop up in Scala . I was unclear what triggered it, as I had maxed out the chip RAM setting in WinUAE . Never saw it again after that. I did twice have a script become corrupted. Scripts are plain text and human-readable, so I was able to open it, see what was faulting, and delete the offending line. So, -6 points for corrupting my script; +2 points for keeping things simple enough that I could fix it on my own. F-Keys stopped working in Scala 's demonstration pages. Then, it started working again. I think there might have been an insidious script error that looked visually correct but was not. Deleting button variable settings and resetting them got it working again. This happened a few times. I saw some unusual drawing errors. Once was when a bar of color touched the bottom right edge of the visible portion of the screen, extra pixels were drawn into the overscan area. Another time, I had the phrase "Deluxe Paint" in Edit Mode, but when I viewed the page it only said "Deluxe Pa". Inspecting the text in "List" mode revealed unusual characters (the infinity symbol?!) had somehow been inserted into the middle of the text. I outlined one option above under "Bonus: Streaming Like Its 1993" above. OBS recording works quite well and is what I used for this post. WinUAE has recording options, but I didn't have a chance to explore them. I don't yet know how to export Scala animations into a Windows-playable format. For 2026, it would surely be nice to have native 16:9 aspect ratio support. Temporary script changes would be useful. I'd love to be able to turn off a page temporarily to better judge before/after flow. It can be difficult to visualize an entire project flow sometimes. With page transitions, object transitions, variable changes, logic flow, and more, understanding precisely what to do to create a desired effect can get a little confusing. Scala wants to maintain a super simple interface almost to its detriment. Having less pretty, more information dense, "advanced" interface options would be welcome. I suppose that's what building a script in pure ARexx is for. I'd like to be able to use DPaint animated brushes. Then I could make my own custom "transition" effects that mix with the Scala page elements. Maybe it's possible and I haven't figured out the correct methodology? The main thing I wanted was a Genlock switch, so I could do camera transitions easily. That's more of a WinUAE wishlist item though.

0 views
HeyDingus 1 months ago

Netflix’s ‘Famous Last Words’ is ingenious and not easily replicated

The premise of Netflix’s Famous Last Words is simply brilliant. From its announcement : What would you say if you knew it would be your last opportunity? New Netflix documentary interview series Famous Last Words asks some of the world’s cultural icons to do just that, recording in-depth, intimate interviews with the understanding that they’ll only be aired posthumously. […] Each interview is conducted with extreme discretion — conversations so private that only the interviewee and interviewer are present. The session is recorded by remotely operated cameras and is then preserved. This ensures an intimacy of conversation and fidelity of reflection from some of the world’s greatest minds. Each one, starting with Dr. Jane Goodall , promises to be captivating and, I bet, quite spicy. The level of trust that Netflix will have had to earn from each subject is very high. The contents of their interview leaking early could be disastrous. I cannot imagine traditional media networks, or their related streaming services, securing the same reputation anymore. HeyDingus is a blog by Jarrod Blundy about technology, the great outdoors, and other musings. If you like what you see — the blog posts , shortcuts , wallpapers , scripts , or anything — please consider leaving a tip , checking out my store , or just sharing my work. Your support is much appreciated! I’m always happy to hear from you on social , or by good ol' email .

0 views
A Room of My Own 1 months ago

2026-2: Week Notes

This week felt like a slow, slightly awkward return to routine. I worked from home , which I’m grateful for, but with the kids home (summer holidays) and my mum visiting, it took a surprising amount of energy to focus and do anything at all. Not productive necessarily. Just not completely stagnant. I noticed how easily I slip into managing everyone’s time and behavior when I’m physically around. It also made me notice, again, where most of my mental energy actually goes outside of work. One big chunk goes into managing my food and weight (as much as I hate to admit it). The second big energy drain is navigating the kids and electronics. (I am just mentioning it here, but I plan to write about it some more later). A bright spot was spending time creating my 2026 direction. I realised I don’t really want achievement-style goals right now. I want a way of being. My central theme is “Let myself be happier.” With gentler yoga goals, I managed to do yoga every day this week (15–20 minutes). I can already feel the difference. I went for almost two weeks without it and could feel myself getting stiffer. It doesn’t take long at this age. On the fun side, I’ve been watching Dark Matter and thinking about regret and the paths we don’t take. I’ve always enjoyed Blake Crouch’s work. It’s slightly terrifying and bordering on hard sci-fi. I also discovered (and loved!) Pluribus . If you’ve watched it, do the Others remind you of ChatGPT or other GenAI? (to save from spoiling it for anyone, I won’t say why). Family movie nights were dominated by Avatar rewatches and finally seeing the latest one in the cinema last night. It’s three and a half hours long, which honestly felt offensive. I kept thinking, who does James Cameron think he is, taking that much of my life? It was beautiful and fine, but not three-and-a-half-hours good. I would have happily traded that time for three more episodes of Pluribus. That said, the kids loved it, especially my (almost sixteen year old) son. My husband had a terrible cough, so I ended up sleeping on a mattress on the floor in my daughter’s room so everyone (maybe not him) could get some sleep, especially with my mum in the guest room. It reminded me (again) how much I care about furniture being practical and multi-use. I still regret not insisting on couches you can properly sleep on. Where I come from, all couches can become beds. It just makes sense to me. I don’t like furniture that only serves one purpose, no matter how pretty it may be. This also nudged me back toward the idea of doing another round of simplifying at home, not because the house is cluttered, but because less always feels lighter to me (makes me feel lighter, I guess). I will make a plan. Maybe start in February or so. Socially, I’m moving toward my 2026 direction of hosting gatherings and bringing people together. Drinks with a neighbour, lunches with my mum and the kids, and long phone calls with friends overseas. The first gathering of neighbours for 2026 is booked for next Saturday (granted, my husband organised that one, but nevertheless). I’ve been thinking more about how many social catch-ups become pure life recaps and updates rather than shared experiences. The life itself is lived somewhere else, not inside the friendship. I’d like to experiment with hosting and gatherings that create something memorable together, not just conversation. That idea has been sitting with me. Because of that, I’m feeling more drawn to creating gatherings that have some kind of purpose or shared experience, not just conversation. I’m reading The Life Impossible by Matt Haig. I usually enjoy his books. The lessons and themes tend to be obvious, a bit like Paulo Coelho, but that’s part of the appeal and probably why they’re so popular. And also, I have no idea where this book is taking me. It’s also nice to see an older protagonist. The main character is 72. I also just finished Better Than Happiness: The True Antidote to Discontent by Gregory P. Smith, a memoir I picked up from the library intending to skim, but it fascinated me enough to read the whole thing. There were some really nice insights around acceptance, self-acceptance, anger, and learning how to actually live in the present moment. “In some ways, it’s a paradox. To change something we first have to accept it for what it is. Only through accepting my perceived flows and limitations? Could I see that there were pathways to improvement? The same applied when it came to learning to accept one of the biggest conundrums in my life, the man in the mirror. Self acceptance is the main reason I’m not only here today, but able to look at myself in the mirror.” Overall, the week felt reflective. I’m noticing how hard I still am on myself and trying to soften that. Self-acceptance! If this year really is about letting myself be happier, then noticing these small choices and energy leaks feels like the right place to start. PREVIOUS WEEK: 2026-1: Week Notes One big chunk goes into managing my food and weight (as much as I hate to admit it). The second big energy drain is navigating the kids and electronics.

0 views
iDiallo 1 months ago

How I Taught My Neighbor to Keep the Volume Down

When I moved to a new apartment with my family, the cable company we were used to wasn't available. We had to settle for Dish Network. I wasn't too happy about making that switch, but something on their website caught my attention. For an additional $5 a month, I could have access to DVR. I switched immediately. This was 2007. DVR was not new, but it wasn't commonly bundled with set-top boxes. TiVo was still the popular way to record, pause, and rewind live TV. We received two set-top boxes, one for each room with a TV, and three remotes. Two remotes had IR (infrared) blasters and, surprisingly, one RF (radio frequency) remote. After using the RF remote, I wondered: Why would anyone ever use an IR remote again? You didn't need a direct line of sight with the device you were controlling. I could actually stand in the kitchen and control the TV. It was amazing. But with the convenience of RF came other problems that IR users never had to worry about. Interference. After several months of enjoying my service, one of my neighbors, the loudest in the building, also switched to Dish Network. And he also got the RF remote. This was the type of neighbor who would leave the house with the TV on, volume blasting. One day, I was in the living room watching TV when the channel just flipped. I must have accidentally hit a button, so I changed it back. But not a few seconds later, the channel changed again. Then the volume went up. I figured my sister must have had the RF remote and was messing with me. But no, the remote was in my hand. I assumed something was wrong with it. The whole time I was watching TV, the channels kept randomly switching. I banged the remote on the table a couple of times, but it still switched. I removed the batteries from the remote, it still switched. I unplugged the device for a few minutes, plugged it back in, and… it still switched. Frustrated, I went through the device settings and disabled the RF remote. That's when it finally stopped. I wasn't happy with this solution, but it allowed me to watch TV until I figured something out. One evening, when everyone was asleep and the neighbor was watching a loud TV show, I decided to diagnose the issue. The moment I pressed the power button on the RF remote, my TV and set-top box turned on, and the neighbor's TV went silent. "Fuck!" I heard someone say. I was confused. Did I just do that? The TV turned back on, the volume went up. I walked to the window armed with the remote. I counted to three, then pressed the power button. My neighbor's TV went silent. He growled. I am the captain now. Every time he turned the TV on, I pressed the power button again and his device went off. Well, what do you know? We had interference somehow. Our remotes were set up to operate at the same frequency. Each remote controlled both devices. But I'm not that kind of neighbor. I wasn't going to continue to mess with him. Instead, I decided I would pay him a visit in the morning and explain that our remotes are tuned to the same frequency. I would bring the RF remote with me just to show him a demo. I was going to be a good neighbor. In the morning, I went downstairs, remote in hand. I knocked on the door, and a gentleman in his forties answered the door. I had rehearsed my speech and presentation. This would be a good opportunity to build a good rapport, and have a shared story. Maybe he would tell me how he felt when the TV went off. How he thought there was a ghost in the house or something. But that's not what happened. "Hi, I'm Ibrahim. Your upstairs neighbor..." I started and was interrupted almost immediately. "Whatever you are selling," he yelled. "I'm not buying." and he closed the door on my face. I knocked a second time, because obviously there was a misunderstanding. He never answered. Instead, the TV turned on and a movie played at high volume. So much for my prepared speech. The RF settings on my set-top box remained turned off. My family never discovered its benefit anyway, they always pointed at the box when pressing the buttons. It wasn't much of an inconvenience. In fact, I later found in the manual that you could reprogram the device and remote to use a different frequency. I did not reprogram my remote. Instead, my family used the two IR remotes, and brought the RF remote in my bedroom where it permanently remained on my night stand. Why in the bedroom? Because I decided to teach my neighbor some good manners. Whenever he turned up his volume, I would simply turn off his device. I would hear his frustration, and his attempts at solving the problem. Like a circus animal trainer, I remained consistent. If the volume of his TV went above what I imagined to be 15 to 20, I would press the power button. It became a routine for me for weeks. Some nights were difficult, I would keep the remote under my pillow, battling my stubborn neighbor all night. One day, I noticed that I hadn't pressed the button in days. I opened the window and I could still hear the faint sound of his TV. Through trial and error, he learned the lesson. If the volume remained under my arbitrary threshold, the TV would remain on. But as soon as he passed that threshold, the device would turn off. Sometimes, he would have company and there would be noise coming out of his apartment. I used the one tool in my tool box to send him a message. Turn off the TV. All of the sudden, my neighbor and his guest will be reminded of the unspoken rules, and become mindful of their neighbors. Maybe somewhere on the web, in some obscure forum, someone asked the question: "Why does my set-top box turn off when I increase the volume?" Well, it might be 18 years too late, but there's your answer. There is a man out there who religiously sets his volume to 18. He doesn't quite know why. That's Pavlovian conditioning at its best.

0 views
Pete Warden 2 months ago

TV Shows I Love That Nobody’s Ever Heard Of

A big reason I started this blog (almost twenty years ago!) was to have a safe space to rant about things I’m obsessed with. One of those obsessions is TV, but growing up in the UK and living in the US most of my adult life has left me with tastes that don’t seem to match up with anyone’s demographic. That means I spend a lot of time trying to find shows that I enjoy, and while I hope I’m not a snob (I watched almost every 9-1-1 show, love Rob Lowe and Angela Bassett) I do sometimes discover obscure programs that I can’t believe aren’t better known. Here’s my brain dump of recent TV shows I’ve loved that I don’t feel like got the audiences they deserved. Despite the risque title and setting, this period drama is a razor-sharp examination of power, class, and gender politics. Based very loosely on a historical guide to the prostitutes of Covent Garden, the three seasons follow the fight of a group of women to find their own space and safety in 1760s London. It features some top-tier performances from actors like Lesley Manville , Kate Fleetwood (whose stunning cheekbones you may know from Wheel of Time), Holli Dempsey , Julian Rhind-Tutt , and Liv Tyler . The story moves fast, it’s often a pitch-black comedy, and the stakes always feel high. In the US you can find its three seasons on Hulu. This was a show that I thought I’d hate based on first impressions, but two seasons in I’m hooked. It’s a throwback to a time before scifi shows had to be prestige TV, a space western with a non-existent budget but strong writing that doesn’t take itself too seriously. It jumps right into archetypes we’ve seen before, but manages to breathe a lot of life into some stale cliches. It has hints of other Canadian productions like BSG and Orphan Black in its best moments, playing with a lot of the themes of identity, and always entertains. I’ve been watching it on Apple TV. The Equalizer I have to admit this one is a guilty pleasure. Did you know that Queen Latifah starred in an updated version of the old Edward Woodward show for five seasons? I love her, which helped me get through the crazily ridiculous plots of most episodes. She wears sweaters that only she could pull off, is a badass assassin, and generally has an incredible amount of fun onscreen. Sometimes I just need a show where I can turn off my brain and be swept along, and this definitely scratches that itch. I watch it on Amazon Prime. A French spy thriller that focuses on the flow, denial, and corruption of intelligence in what feels like a very grounded and realistic way. Nobody here is 007, villains and heroes aren’t clearly separated, and everyone is working within larger systems that constrain their actions. A lot of the elements even felt familiar from my decades working in an office, going against the bureaucracy often leads to disaster, and unlike most US thrillers there’s a real price to pay for going rogue. The writing, world, and characters are fresh and absorbing, this show hooked me in a way few others have. I watched it on Amazon Prime. A Chris Estrada comedy set in LA, this show was one of the funniest things I’ve seen in years. The whole cast is spot on, with Michael Imperioli giving a scene-stealing performance as the broken-down Unitarian minister running “Hugs not Thugs”, the non-profit that Chris’s uptight Julio is drawn into by his bad boy cousin, who’s trying to go straight. The comic chemistry between Julio and his cousin played by Frankie Quiñones is perfect, and Michelle Ortiz brings crazy-eyed energy as Julio’s sometime-girlfriend. Short and sweet, I watched this on Hulu. Game of Thrones’ deranged younger cousin, this show starts with Donovan’s Hurdy Gurdy Man as the theme song, and gets weirder from there. Set during the Roman invasion of Britain, it manages to make the past seem truly alien in a way I’ve never seen before. It helps that David Morrissey , Zoe Wanamaker , McKenzie Crook , Kelly Reilly (you may know her from Yosemite) and Julian Rhind-Tutt (again) are absolutely committed to their roles. This is a world where everyone believes in spirits, gods, and demons to a terrifying extent, and the show does an excellent job leaving the viewer unsure of whether what they’re seeing is truly supernatural or just the consequences of fanatical belief. David Morrissey’s Roman general manages to be charming, even sympathetic, while behaving in monstrous ways, and Eleanor Worthington-Cox brings depth to a teenage role that could easily have been lightweight, even irritating if it wasn’t handled carefully. I watched it on Prime. I’ve only made it partway down my mental list of shows I want to feature, but dinner calls, so I guess this post will be part of a series? Stay tuned for more, and let me know any shows that might fit my sensibilities in the comments!

1 views
Brain Baking 2 months ago

Pascale De Backer Likes Playing On The Game Gear

After pointing out yesterday that Sinterklaas likes the Game Boy , I feel I need to make it up to Sega. It wasn’t that difficult to come up with a counterargument that’s also part of the Flemish canon . In F.C. De Kampioenen (“The Champions”), a long running Flemish sitcom about misunderstandings and misadventures of a lowly ranked football team, Pascale De Backer—the ex-wife of the ex-trainer of the club that runs the café that is not of René 1 —has been pictured playing the Game Gear: Pascale playing Sonic on the Game Gear. Copyright VRT 2001. Pascale is playing the mobile version of Sonic in season 12, episode 2 called Stoelendans (dancing chairs I guess?). For exactly ten seconds, we hear the iconic theme song of Sonic playing and the ploing jumping sound as she presses the buttons, before throwing the thing aside and calling her daughter. She’s alone that evening and having a hard time adjusting after her daughter and son-in-law just moved out. Bieke, her daughter, is fed up with Pascale constant checking up on her. This is different from Sinterklaas playing the Game Boy for a few key reasons. First, Sinterklaas is having fun, while Pascale is just seeking a distraction and doesn’t know what to do with herself. Second, Sinterklaas, being the saint of the children, is an authority when it comes to toys, while Pascale is just a lonely café owner. Yet De Kampioenen , with more than twenty seasons, is one of the most watched Flemish TV shows of all time, and loved by virtually everyone—even the ones who saw the unfortunate downfall after season eight or so. The strangest part of this very short Game Gear appearance is that episode 2 of season 12 originally aired in 2001—the launch year of the Game Boy Advance. The GBA got to us Europeans in the late summer of 2001, and season 2 aired the 15th December 2001. Why didn’t they have Pascale play Mario Advance ? At first, I couldn’t trace the exact episode in which the above scene takes place. Being the handheld game nerd that I am, I remembered the Game Gear scene, but I misremembered the period. I went looking for it in seasons five, six, and seven because my mind reconstructed the scene as a time period correct one, when the Game Gear was in full motion. Considered it ever was in motion at all. Dang it, I did it again, sorry Sega. Perhaps the crew asked Danni Heylen who portrayed Pascale to bring a handheld device. “We’re gonna do a scene in which you’re lonely and bored, bring an electronic device to play on the couch so our viewers can place the feeling”. If she brought a Game Boy—any Game Boy would do here—she certainly wouldn’t be bored. Ah dang it, again!? The Game Gear was discontinued in 1997, only six years after its initial release. Four years later, it pops up in F.C. De Kampioenen . It turns out to be next to impossible to find local historical sales data to see when the popularity of the Game Gear dipped into obscureness here in Belgium. I do remember Sega being stronger than initially suspected: we had a Mega Drive instead of a SNES and a buddy did own the Game Gear. Me and my sisters didn’t: we went the Game Boy—and later, Color—route. The suspected reasons for that? A couple: Yes, it’s got colours, but that’s basically it. Technically, the Game Gear was essentially a shrunken down Sega Master System, which was impressive considering the Game Boy couldn’t even emulate the NES until the 1998 Color revision came by. So why does Pascale like hers so much? The still image I captured might evoke “liking” but the scene in motion does not do a very good job at convincing potential buyers. For that, we’ll need Sinterklaas. Mijn Gedacht . For the international reader enticed by this piece of excellent writing, here’s one of my favourite episodes of the TV show called Doping available on YouTube.  ↩︎ Related topics: / game gear / flemish culture / tv shows / By Wouter Groeneveld on 7 December 2025.  Reply via email . The overabundance of Game Boy games available back then (on school playgrounds, during vacation trips, in shops, …) The GB’s 4 batteries lasted for 20 hours. The GG’s 6 batteries for nearly 4. The GG initially sold for —that’s almost nowadays. The GB? The Pocket revision released in 1996 started at . That’s less than half the price! Who are you going to Link Cable Play Tetris and Mortal Kombat with if you were the poor soul with rich parents that got you a Game Gear for Christmas? For the international reader enticed by this piece of excellent writing, here’s one of my favourite episodes of the TV show called Doping available on YouTube.  ↩︎

0 views
Owen Lacey 3 months ago

"Are you the one?" is free money

OK, so this is niche. One of my wife's guilty pleasures is reality TV, usually ones centred around dating - the more American, the better. By extension, I absorb some of this noise and I'm happy to admit I can sometimes get invested. At one point, she was (let's face it, we were) watching a show called "Are you the one?" on MTV. I'm going to show you how this game is pretty much free money. Consider a group of equal numbers of men & women: Each contestant has exactly one perfect match of the opposite sex that is pre-determined for them, as represented by the colours. Click the "Match" button to pair up the contestants correctly. Crucially, they don't initially know who their perfect match is. If the group can correctly guess all the perfect matches, they win a cash prize of $1M. You probably have the follow up question of how the perfect matches are calculated, which is a great question. In short: dunno, it's black-boxed, but let's just say "science"? How this is calculated isn't really the point, I could even argue that it doesn't matter so long as you get your strategy right. For what it's worth, the plot of the TV show mentions employing "the most extensive match-making process ever seen". Let's get into it. Here are the two ways in which contestants can learn new pieces of information throughout the game: truth booths and match ups . A truth booth is where a male & female are chosen by the contestants, and it is revealed definitively whether they're a perfect match or not. So there are two potential outcomes: If you've found a way to stream this and want to skip straight to the good stuff, I'd fast-forward to the fallout from these. In S1E6 it took Shanley an entire episode to come to terms with Chris T & Paige being a perfect match, even though in E1 she learned she was no match with him anyway (sigh). At the end of each episode, all contestants match up and they are informed (via dramatic lighting) how many correct matches they've got. If they've got all matches, the game is over and they win. Crucially, they don't know what the correct matches are, just how many they got in total. The only way they can definitively rule out a pairing is if they scored zero: the dreaded blackout. Though it might seem like a bad thing, a blackout can in fact be helpful in the long-term, as it gives you a definitive answer for all pairs that were matched up, it's like getting a free truth booth for each pair. Much like a high school disco, let's put all the boys on one side and the girls on the other, and re-use the pairs from the match up example above: Here we have two correct pairs red and pink at position 1 and 5 respectively. The orange man at position 2 was paired with the purple woman from position 6, and so on. How good is a score of two? Is that any better than if you were to randomly pair people up? Let's experiment by doing just that: click the 'shuffle' button to re-pick: You'll notice that the average score comes out at around 1 after a while, which this line chart keeps track of. Below is a chart capturing the frequency of each score, you'll notice it eventually converges to a specific shape. The height of each outlined bar is the probability of scoring that number in a random pairing in a game of 6 couples. Interestingly, both these probabilities and the average score stay the same no matter how many couples we use. Whatever the selected # couples, the probability stays this same. There's tonnes of tangents we could explore that you might find interesting here 1 , but for our purposes we just wanted to put some data behind "how good is a score of X". I created a model that computes the remaining viable matchings of all couples. By 'viable', I mean that there's still a chance that it's the perfect match. Initially, as you can imagine, this is a big number. The aim of the game then becomes getting that number down to 1 as quickly as possible. Each time new information is learned, we recalculate the remaining matches. For example if we have a positive truth booth result, the remaining matches are filtered out to only those that contain these two people as a pair. Conversely, if the truth booth result was negative, then the remaining matches cannot contain any where these two are paired. Imagine a huge a game of "Guess Who?" where each image is a viable matching and you flip down the options that become invalid each time you learn new information. Match ups also massively help you reduce this number, however their impact is a bit more indirect and it's very difficult for a human brain to figure out the implications of the result of one. Here is a graph of the remaining viable matches in Season 1 as the season progresses. It may surprise you that in this game of 10 men and 10 women, the initial number of viable matches is almost 4 million: Hovering over the dots will tell you what's responsible for that change in the remaining matches. As you can see, they gain enough information to win the game by episode 8, so why does it take them so long to get it right? As mentioned earlier, it's almost impossible for humans to keep tabs on all these potential matchings so it's very likely they just didn't know. That being said, the graph itself isn't particularly useful, is it? After a couple of events, the line hugs the x-axis, and it's hard to see the difference between 1 and 5,773 seen in episodes 8 and 2 respectively. Let's try a log base 2 graph: That's hopefully a lot clearer. You can see how they learn information as they go, and at which point the model 'cracks it' with the match up in episode 8. You can also clearly see that the most valuable piece of information they gained was the match up in episode 2 - with a decent early score of 4. This might be intuitive to you, but as we found earlier you've got a less than 2% chance of scoring 4 when randomly selecting. Let's plot this again along with a few more seasons 2 : Other than S3 and S7 , the contests mathematically learn enough information to win the game with time to spare. Could they have got there sooner though? Could they have chosen better truth booths / match ups to spare us all of the extra episodes of trashy TV? Before I get into this, I need to cover some basics of information theory. We're going to revisit the "Guess Who?" game now, which you can think of as a simplified version of "Are you the one?". Stick with me; the idea is that we can use the more straightforward game mechanics to establish an information theory based strategy that we can then apply to "Are you the one?". These two games are similar in that: Consider an 8x8 grid of potential answers: Now I'm a terrible artist so I thought I would be able to articulate this more clearly with shapes instead. There are 4 shapes ( , , and ), 2 different types (opaque or outlined), and 8 colours - this makes 64 unique combinations. The aim of the game is to guess the correct answer before your opponent guesses yours. To give yourself the best chance of winning, you need to rule out as many answers as you can, as quickly as you can. Should you then employ a strategy that splits the potential answers in half (e.g "is it opaque?"), or something a bit more specific (e.g "is it an orange star?"). The latter is high-risk, high-reward, whereas the former will almost always rule out half of the remaining answers. Consider a bit of information as reducing the problem space by half. That is, by ruling out half the remaining answers. I want to stress that the word bit is a common term in information theory, as opposed to something that might sound less exact as it's intended in this context. The opaque question is a sure-fire way of gaining 1 bit of information. On the other hand, let's say you find out that the answer is a which allows you to flip down three quarters of the answers, that's the same as halving the problem space twice and therefore gaining two bits of information. In this example the answer is : As you can see, different answers are more useful than others. "Opaque?" rules out half of the remaining answers (1 bit), whereas " Blue ?" rules out 7/8ths of them (3 bits). Getting from 64 potential answers to 1 involves halving the problem space 6 times - 64 becomes 32, then 16, 8, 4, 2 and 1. In other words, if you're able to gain 6 bits of information, you'll know for sure what the answer is. This is supported by the fact that the sum of the information gained by asking all three above questions is 6. Let's simulate an actual game now, keeping tabs on the information gained throughout. Once everything but remains, you'll have gained 6 bits of information and can be 100% confident in the answer. Now we know we need to get to 6 bits of information as quickly as possible, our strategy becomes picking the question that we expect to give us the most information. That is, the sum of the information we would gain if that answer were true or false, multiplied by the probability of that specific outcome. Let's work through our three questions to give the expected information for each: This table shows the expected information for each of our 3 questions. As you can see, the more "Hail Mary" the question, the lower expected information. " Blue ?" comes out at 0.54, which is almost half the amount of expected information as "Opaque?". Therefore, we can speculate that a decent strategy for this game would be to ask questions that split the remaining problem space in half. To support this, we can plot a graph 3 for all possible probabilities between 0 and 1: This shows that splitting the problem space in half (where the probability is 0.5), gives the highest expected information. This means that asking a very specific question like " Blue ?" is statistically the worst thing you can do. Let's play one final game, this time I'll show you the questions ordered by most to least expected information: How did you do? You'll notice that picking the questions at the top of the list gets you to the answer quicker, whereas the opposite is true when picking from the bottom. You'll also notice that you're never presented with a question that gives you more than 1 expected information, which is backed up by the above graph never going higher than 1. Now we've got a strategy that works well for "Guess Who?", we can get back to the proper game. Earlier on, I posed a (until now) rhetorical question as to the performance of the contestants on the show. In order to answer this question, we need two things: A way to measure performance: For this, we'll use the average bits gained per event . That is, each time there is a match up or truth booth , how many bits of information did they gain? A sensible benchmark: How do the contestants stack up against something that employed a strategy of randomly selecting match ups and truth booths ? For this sensible benchmark, I simulated over 100 fake seasons of "Are you the one?" to see how much information was gained if the match ups and truth booths were selected (almost 4 ) arbitrarily. The performance of the random simulated models was . Let's plot all the simulations on a graph, with trendlines for random and actual performance: So the actual performance hits the x-axis sooner, meaning it's able to zero-in on the perfect match earlier. That's reassuring, right? Maybe love is real after all. That, or they're just performing better than someone shooting fish in a barrel. Here's the numbers behind this comparison: The success rate is calculated as the number of seasons in which they're able to mathematically determine the perfect match before the game finishes. As you can see the success rate for the random simulation is higher than in real life. The sample of size of only 7 seasons of "Are you the one?" undoubtedly is too small for this to be a useful comparison. Now that we know the contestants make better decisions than randomly selecting pairings, the remaining question is exactly how much better. To show this, we'll employ our information theory strategy that we used for "Guess Who?" to this game. This simulation works similarly to the random simulation, only the mechanism for selecting pairings is different. That is, the pairings that are selected for either a truth booth or a match up are the ones that are statistically likeliest to give the most information. Suppose we have calculated the expected information gained by potential truth booths like below: The model would therefore pick and as it's the most likely to give it the most information. Match ups work similarly, however we know that it's not a simple true or false question. Instead, we've got to calculate the information we would gain for every score between 0 and 10 (where 10 is the number of couples), for every viable matching. I ran this information theory simulation 41 times (for no other reason than I got bored waiting), and saw it perform significantly better than random simulation or real life data: Now we can compare all three scenarios: This means that, all you need is a bit of code and a can-do attitude to perform better than the "vibes" approach of the contestants in the show. Before you pop the champagne, we still haven't shown if this is good enough such that we get to the perfect match before we run out of time (or episodes). In a game of , the problem space is (for brevity, you can take my word for this), which is bits of information. This means you would need to gain bits of information per event minimum to ensure that you go into the final match up knowing for certain what the perfect match is. Wait, isn't that a lower number than the random simulation? Doesn't that mean that someone shooting fish in a barrel could win this game? I should stress that these are averages , and in 26% of random simulations they didn't get to there in time. Hopefully now you agree with me that "Are you the one?" is free money, albeit with a just about near-perfect success rate. I showed that even picking pairings at random will more often than not give you enough information to win the game, as well as showing how to use classic information theory practices to get you there with episodes to spare. Maybe this haemorrhaging of money is what got the show cancelled in the first place, or maybe love is real, whatever you prefer. This post is my first foray into content like this. I wanted to scratch the itch of an interesting maths problem, with a light-hearted spin that I hope you enjoyed as much as I did making it. The techniques shown in this post are very common information theory approaches, though I was inspired to apply them based on this video on wordle by 3Blue1Brown. I very rarely watch youtube videos over 10 minutes long (maybe that's my loss), but I wholly recommend this one if you found this interesting. Other than that, in my research I came across a boardgame called Mastermind, which has been around since the 70s. This is a very similar premise - think of it as "Guess Who?" on hard mode. I also pitched this idea to The Pudding , and had a great experience with them nerding out about this subject. Though they didn't take my up on my idea, I left with really great and actionable feedback, and I'm looking forward to my next rejection. Next steps for me would be to see if I can make a web-based game (don't hold me to this) on this theme. I'm interested in how people would intuitively make decisions based on information gained so far so the plan would be to see if I can find a way to capture that, and ideally make it fun. Finally, the code for my OR Tools model can also be found here . As the number of couples increase, the probabilities trend towards a poisson distribution with λ=1. The probability of 0 and 1 is also given by 1/e, which is a classic result in derangements , specifically with the "hat-check problem". ↩ I omitted Seasons 2, 8 and 9. Each season that wasn't considered was due to them introducing different game mechanics, which would have been hard to take into account for my model. Maybe my model was too rigid and I'm a bad developer, or maybe it's just inappropriate to find commonality there. Season 2: One female contestant had two perfect matches, meaning there were two perfect matchings. Season 8: In this season, they introduced gender fluidity. Whilst an interesting problem on its own, this would have wreaked havoc on my model. Season 9: One of the contestants left the show at an early stage, so the decisions made by the contestants would have been biased. ↩ This is known as the binary entropy function . ↩ I say "almost" here because I wanted this simulation to have some common sense. Specifically, if a pair were to have an unsuccessful truth booth , then it wouldn't be paired up for any subsequent events. My reasoning here is that no right-minded person would ever pair up people who can't be a match, as you would learn nothing new, and crucially it wasn't too arduous to code this into my random simulation model. ↩ There is a correct answer unknown to the player(s). The player(s) are able to learn information by offering up hypotheses, and getting definitive answers to them. A way to measure performance: For this, we'll use the average bits gained per event . That is, each time there is a match up or truth booth , how many bits of information did they gain? A sensible benchmark: How do the contestants stack up against something that employed a strategy of randomly selecting match ups and truth booths ? As the number of couples increase, the probabilities trend towards a poisson distribution with λ=1. The probability of 0 and 1 is also given by 1/e, which is a classic result in derangements , specifically with the "hat-check problem". ↩ I omitted Seasons 2, 8 and 9. Each season that wasn't considered was due to them introducing different game mechanics, which would have been hard to take into account for my model. Maybe my model was too rigid and I'm a bad developer, or maybe it's just inappropriate to find commonality there. Season 2: One female contestant had two perfect matches, meaning there were two perfect matchings. Season 8: In this season, they introduced gender fluidity. Whilst an interesting problem on its own, this would have wreaked havoc on my model. Season 9: One of the contestants left the show at an early stage, so the decisions made by the contestants would have been biased. ↩ This is known as the binary entropy function . ↩ I say "almost" here because I wanted this simulation to have some common sense. Specifically, if a pair were to have an unsuccessful truth booth , then it wouldn't be paired up for any subsequent events. My reasoning here is that no right-minded person would ever pair up people who can't be a match, as you would learn nothing new, and crucially it wasn't too arduous to code this into my random simulation model. ↩

0 views
fLaMEd fury 4 months ago

Cyberpunk: Edgerunners (2022)

What’s going on, Internet? I’ve been catching up on a few shows lately, and the latest one I finished was Cyperpunk: Edgerunners (2022) which first aired back in 2022. Cyberpunk Edgerunners is a Netflix anime created by Studio Trigger in collaboration with CD Projekt Red (the developers of the game), set in the same world as the Cyberpunk 2077 game. I really enjoyed this one. Familiar locations from the game, an intense storyline, and that over-the-top animation I associate with anime (not that I’m super familiar with it). It dives into relationships, survival, and the mental toll of living with cybernetic enhancements. The animation was quite grousome at times. So far this year I’ve enjoyed Arcane , which had a seriously good soundtrack, and Cyberpunk: Edgerunners. I’d love to see something similar set in the Warcraft universe. Got any other anime recommendations based on stuff I might already be into? Hey, thanks for reading this post in your feed reader! Want to chat? Reply by email or add me on XMPP , or send a webmention . Check out the posts archive on the website.

0 views
fLaMEd fury 4 months ago

Peacemaker (2022) Season 1

What’s going on, Internet? I just finished watching the first season of Peacemaker (2022) over the last couple days after seeing it on Cory’s new upcoming shows page. What an unhinged show. I haven’t watched a TV series set in the DC universe since giving up on The Arrow and The Flash years ago, so this one felt like a fresh change of pace. Nothing to do with CW I guess. I got curious about the Vigilante character, Adrian Chase, the name sounded familiar from The Arrow, but turns out it’s a different character entirely. There’s plenty of discussion on Reddit if you want to go down that rabbit hole. I’ve always liked John Cena, and he absolutely nails this role. The supporting cast was great too, especially Jennifer Holland as Emilia Harcourt, who pops up across a few of the other DC projects. Oh, James Gunn is behind this show, no wonder I loved it. I really enjoyed his recent Superman movie too. I’m not usually a DC fan, but I’m definitely a DC fan when James Gunn is involved. The best part? I get to dive straight into season two. Peace. Hey, thanks for reading this post in your feed reader! Want to chat? Reply by email or add me on XMPP , or send a webmention . Check out the posts archive on the website.

0 views
Tara's Website 8 months ago

Planet Papalla

Planet Papalla Sometimes I say I’m from Planet Papalla. At first, it sounds like a joke. And to be fair, it is a reference, a playful 1960s Italian ad from the show Carosello, where strange, round little creatures (the “Papallesi”) live on a distant planet where joy and invention rule the week. But if you’ve heard me say it, or read it, and wondered why, here’s the truth behind the smile:

0 views
HeyDingus 9 months ago

Two bits of good Apple TV+ news

Acapulco returns in July for a fourth and final season . I’ve enjoyed this series, and I’m glad they’re wrapping up here — it feels like a natural conclusion. Trying , my underrated favorite, is renewed for a fifth season ! Maybe we already knew this and I forgot, but I can’t wait. S4 felt a bit off, so I hope they’ve got their mojo back. HeyDingus is a blog by Jarrod Blundy about technology, the great outdoors, and other musings. If you like what you see — the blog posts , shortcuts , wallpapers , scripts , or anything — please consider leaving a tip , checking out my store , or just sharing my work. Your support is much appreciated! I’m always happy to hear from you on social , or by good ol' email .

0 views
Lambda Land 10 months ago

TV Shows for Kids

When I was in my early 20s, I vowed that I would keep my kids from watching any amount of television. Turns out, sometimes you really need a break as a parent. A good show can keep your kid entertained while you perform necessary tasks like preparing a meal, doing the dishes, or getting just enough extra sleep to not blow your top or doze off in the car while you drive your kid to preschool. So, I have had a change of heart: TV can be a tool, but not all TV programs are created equal. Without further ado, here is my tier list of the shows I’ve seen or heard about: These are the shows that I am fine with my kid watching any time. They are well-written, low-stimulus, and never get annoying. Why do I care so much about low-stimulus shows? I don’t want my kids getting hooked on dopamine rushes. I’d rather that they play imaginatively as much as possible. Low-stimulus shows help by not desensitizing kids to the gentler kind of happiness that comes through creative play. How could it not be Bluey ?! It’s a low-stimulus show about parenting that kids happen to enjoy as well. The dad, Bandit, is an enthusiastic, clever, engaged parent who sometimes messes up but always makes up for it. The mum, Chili, is loving, firm, hard-working, and creative. The relationships are positive and realistic. My favorite episodes are: There are more. Bluey deserves all the hype it gets. It’s that good. If you have a toddler, watch Bluey . This feels like an Irish-flavored Bluey -type show, but with Irish-accented puffins. Sweet show with a pretty animation style. Most episodes are just about the main character, Oona, exploring the island. Less anthropomorphic than Bluey . Good shows that don’t quite rise to the level of Bluey and aren’t as visually beautiful as Puffin Rock but are still fun and occasionally educational. Four kids fly around in a “Rocket”. Each episode features a work of classical music and some art by a famous artist. The kids never fight—the whole show is about them solving problems. The best part is that my kid can now recognize lots of different important classical pieces and enjoys listening to them. Occasionally the episodes get a little annoying because of how formulaic they are, but maybe that’s good for the kids. I grew up watching Blue’s Clues and it’s still such a nice, sweet show. These are shows that we will turn on if we have to. I wouldn’t consider them bad , but they are moderately annoying. This is a TV show based off of the series of children’s books by Laura Numeroff and Felicia Bond. The show is… fine. Most of the characters seem to have a sense of helplessness when something gets lost/broken and they feel that the circumstances “…will be ruined—forever!" This is a phrase that I am pretty sure crops up in every episode. Ugh. At least half the episodes involve some MacGuffin rolling down a hill to a pond. Again, it’s not a bad show, but sometimes my daughter will start talking like Mouse with one-word requests for things like “thirsty” or “hungry” instead of speaking in full sentences. These are shows that I don’t consider actively harmful, but I strongly dislike because of how annoying they are or because my kid picks up bad behaviors from them. On the surface, this is the perfect show: it’s a spin-off of Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood , the animation gentle and low-stimulus, and it’s moderately cute. But oh—oh how deceptive it is. Daniel Tiger displays an impressive degree of learned helplessness and timidity. All of the “problems” that he encounters in the show are invented and stupid. E.g., it is raining outside so we can’t play on the beach—grrr I’m mad and now I need help calming down from a total meltdown. The worst thing from this rainy-beach episode is when the kids drag in several wheelbarrows’ worth of sand onto the living room carpet and, when the mom comes in and gets angry, Daniel tells the mom to take a deep breath and calm down from her slightly agitated state. If my kid ever dragged several cubic meters of sand into any part of my house, I reserve the right to be upset. Anyway, cute on the surface, aggravating underneath. I have not watched these shows. I’m too scared to go near them with a stick. CoComelon is the epitome of high-stimulus children’s programming. In every shot the camera is panning, no shot lasts more than 3 seconds, and the show’s developers utilize a tool they call “The Distraction” to determine when scenes are insufficiently attention-grabbing: when a test subject (a small child) looks away from the show to look at a screen showing adults doing banal household chores, the animators will amp up the show at that point to keep kids dialed in. I would rather not have my child’s dopamine receptors burned out by stimulus-overload. Look, if you like CoComelon , I won’t judge you. If you’re wondering if you should pull it up for your kids, I would stay far away . Kids need to be bored. The more bored they are, the more time they have to be creative and develop an internal world. I do think it’s fine to have some TV—I grew up loving Arthur , Cyber Chase , and Reading Rainbow . It is really nice to have half an hour to shower, eat, and get some chores done so I can better take care of my child. I’m trying to find good shows though. I hope this helps any parents out there looking for ideas. :) Hang in there—raising kids is the very best experience this world has to offer.

0 views
HeyDingus 11 months ago

‘I’m a season 1 sorta guy’

Matt Birchler in a (paywalled) post on Birchtree : I’m of course publishing this the day after the Severance season 2 finale, but I’ve had this draft open for a few weeks as the entire second season (and Silo season 2 a few months earlier) has gotten this “ I’m a season one guy” idea rolling around in my head. I think it’s cool to see more of the world and have new characters come into the mix, but I also think that Severance season 1 captured lightning in a bottle; it was a perfect, contained concept, masterfully executed. I loved the Severance S2 finale — it’s an edge-of-the-seat, heart pounding, yell at the TV sort of episode — but felt the same way as Matt throughout the season. My wife and I actually had this same discussion after the finale, how many Apple TV+ shows are this way. Ted Lasso , Trying , and Mythic Quest all immediately come to mind. Fantastic shows, each one, and I’ve enjoyed all subsequent seasons, but their first seasons all wrapped with satisfying endings despite there being cliffhangers. Shrinking and For All Mankind buck the trend with returning seasons just as good as the first, and Silo I actually liked season 2 more, but overall I might be a season 1 sorta guy too. HeyDingus is a blog by Jarrod Blundy about technology, the great outdoors, and other musings. If you like what you see — the blog posts , shortcuts , wallpapers , scripts , or anything — please consider leaving a tip , checking out my store , or just sharing my work. Your support is much appreciated! I’m always happy to hear from you on social , or by good ol' email .

0 views
Nate Berkopec 8 years ago

I'm Glad I Failed In Front of Millions on Shark Tank

That's me on Shark Tank. It's episode 12 or 13 of season 1. When I was 19 years old, I appeared on the American reality television show Shark Tank . The premise is simple: entrepreneurs pitch a hard-boiled set of investors to give them money for a piece of their business. It's based on a Japanese television show called Dragon's Den . I appeared on Shark Tank in 2009

0 views