Not the prettiest graph, but a neat way of putting all this information into one image.

Wiki Commons page: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Generation_timeline.svg#mw-jump-to-license

Wikipedia page on Generations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation

Edit: Here's the exact same clip on the standard YouTube Watch page.

courtesy of zagorath

Brandon Sanderson the fantasy author

For those uninterested in watching a youtube short (sorry), the theory is pretty simple:

COVID and the death of theatres broke the film industry's controlled, simple and effective marketing pipeline (watch movie in theatres -> watch trailer before hand -> watch that tailer's movie in theatres ...) and so now films have the same problems books have always had which is that of finding a way to break through in a saturated market, grab people's attention and find an audience. Not being experienced with this, the film industry is floundering.

In just this clip he doesn't mention streaming and TV (perhaps he does in the full podcast), but that basically contributes to the same dynamic of saturation and noise.

Do note that Sanderson openly admits its a mostly unfounded theory.

For me personally, I'm not sure how effective the theatrical trailers have been in governing my movie watching choices for a long time. Certainly there was a time that they did. But since trailers went online (anyone remember Apple Trailers!?) it's been through YouTube and online spaces like this.

Perhaps that's relatively uncommon? Or perhaps COVID was just the straw that broke the camel's back? Or maybe there's a generational factor where now, compared to 10 years ago, the post X-Gen and "more online" demographic is relatively decisive of TV/Film sales?

After Chs 5 and 6 (see the reading club post here), we get a capstone quiz that covers ownership along with struts and enums.

So, lets do the quiz together! If you've done it already, revisiting might still be very instructive! I certainly thought these questions were useful "revision".

I'll post a comment for each question with the answer, along with my own personal notes (and quotes from The Book if helpful), behind spoiler tags.

Feel free to try to answer in a comment before checking (if you dare). But the main point is to understand the point the question is making, so share any confusions/difficulties too, and of course any corrections of my comments/notes!.

Finally, we can make our own types (or data structures)!!

This is supplementary/separate from the Twitch Streams (see sidebar for links), intended for discussion here on lemmy.

The idea being, now that both twitch streams have read Chapters 5 and 6, we can have a discussion here and those from the twitch streams can have a retrospective or re-cap on the topic.

This will be a regular occurrence for each discrete set of topics coming out of The Book as the twitch streams cover them

With Ch 4 on the borrow checker out of the way, chapters 5 & 6 feel like the "inflection point" ... the point where we're ready to actually start programming in rust.

Custom types, data structures, objects with methods, pattern matching, and even dipping into rust's traits system and it's quasi answer to class inheritance.

If you're comfortable enough with the borrow checker, you can really start to program with rust now!

I personally didn't think this content was difficult, though it prompts some interesting points and topics (which I'll mention in my own comment below).

• Any thoughts, difficulties or confusions?
• Any quizzes stump you?
• Any major tips or rules of thumb you've taken away or generally have about using structs and enums?

This seems to be the case from what I've seen and from a quick check just now.

Is this intentionally so? Is it likely to remain so?

Not that I have any problems with it. I'm just thinking about trying to run a poll through lemmy's current features (where native polls are in the roadmap anyway). And I figure, for simple polls, a bunch of comments for each option in a locked thread where people can only up vote would roughly do the trick (except that a voter would know the results ahead of time).

I only discovered the River Songs audio piece for the last few nights (it played just after sunset around the Yarra every day, bouncing sounds and singing around all the buildings around the Yarra) ... and I honestly really loved it, easily one of my favourite urban art pieces ever.

Otherwise, I felt like this round was somewhat underwhelming and underfunded from what I saw, which feels like a trend with these White Night / Rising things ... seems like they have a ~3 year lifetime before they just dwindle to being underwhelming? But I didn't really dig into this one or see much of it. I'd guess the works along the river put a constraint on this year? But still ...

Any thoughts? Is it something only central/inner dwellers tend to notice?

I never got around to watching it when it came out, and I think I'd completely missed the critical reception and box-office failure it received. Which saddened me to read after the watch, I have to say, as I was really happy to have watched it.

For those who don't know the film, I personally liked Roger Ebert's review (with whom I generally vibed). It was polarising, and genuinely confusing if you want to "understand" a film, while also potentially being vacuous and overwrought. I'm not going to say it was a good film or recommend it to people. If it's for you, you'll know. All I'll say is that it was, for me, a very good kind of film and generally well executed. Some ambitious film ideas and high level or broad concepts put to screen pretty full-throttle.

I haven't seen a film in this general category of viewing experience for a while (probably entirely on me). Last probably would have been 3000 Years of Longing and maybe Twin Peaks S3 (I count that as an 18 hr film), and then Aronofsky's The Fountain (to which Cloud Atlas is probably the closest sibling I can think of).

Without getting nostalgic about films or critical of the current era (I'm not on top of film enough to do that) ... I was certainly reminded that I need to revise my film/TV diet. It re-affirmed for me a sense that films are more powerful than TV and that this era of TV has been productionised in a way that seems to suck the art of it.

As for what the film was actually about, I think it's much like 2001 A Space Odyssey, it's both obvious and confused/inexplicable. I'm sure there's a whole technical breakdown one could read or endeavour to create oneself, but I'm happy to have watched it once and perhaps revisit it again later to try to pick up on all of the connections I'm guessing they wove through the film, in large part because I think that's in line with the spirit of the film which I'm happy to embrace.

Beyond all of that, but kinda connected I think, was to reminisce about the Wachowskis' career, where whatever their flaws, I think I prefer them making things to not ... there's a certain essence of good-hearted and ambitious geek-dom to their stuff that I'm just happy to watch (including Jupiter Ascending and Matrix 4).

For those who know Rick Beato, you may already have opinions one way or another. Generally I welcome his channel to YouTube.

He has been beating this AI and "computerised music" drum for a while though. I was grateful to see him join the dots between computerised music and AI just taking over: "a computer makes better computer music than a human".

It's a pattern I think I see in technological development. While for us or socially it may look like inflection points change everything, there is likely to be a continuous arc of technology that just happens to mean different things to us as it goes. Electrical technology for music -> electrical technological music ... was always a clear trajectory ... and that people are already accustomed to the hyper-polished "digital" sound of AI music because of the past 20 years just confirms that.

Nicely executed VFX experiment (they have a companion video on how they did this and what their motivation was, which is interesting if you're into VFX stuff).

Sounds like I'm trying to be controversial, but I'm really not. Nor a Luka hater (I'm a fan). I'm just thinking out loud here ...

It's just that watching the first two games of the finals, I can't shake the feeling that the Celtics make him look small. Not physically, but in terms of the power he has over the game, even though he's probably the best or top 2 of the players on the court.

It just feels like being 1 way and ball heavy is too often just too much of a weakness, especially while watching Brown, Jrue and Porzingis (and even Tatum managing his slump) be impactful all over the court in ways that connect together as a team.

Meanwhile Luka is too often getting frustrated with his shot not going down or not getting the call he wanted and clearly wanting to wait for the next offensive possession to have another go at his favourite moves (though being frustrated with his team makes sense, but TBF he's had some frustrating turn overs too).

Like, it feels like this finals could be the beginning of a story about Luka being this mercurial and prodigious offensive player that never wanted to (or could) take care of his weaknesses enough to get a ring.

I'm not calling it or anything ... it's just what I'm coming away from the first two games with ... in part because while the Celtics (especially with Porzingis in) are the better team I don't think they've played well and have still made it look clearly one-sided while it doesn't feel like Luka is a miraculous hero who just needs some help.