Something Random

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I did! I watched the last two episodes and thought it ended great. One of my favorite all-time shows.
I'm sort of undecided on the ending of Mr. Robot. It's not a spectacular disappointment like LOST, but I'm not sure I thought the ending was good either.
I'm not real down with the idea that the viewer was misled to for about 43 episodes with effectively no hints that the Elliot we knew for the duration of the show was just another personality like Mr. Robot. Sure, they threw in a few snippets from earlier seasons to sort of back up the idea that Elliot wasn't himself, but those were throwaway lines that could have meant anything and had no significance or noteworthiness at the time. It felt like a last minute series retcon, not a planned from the beginning reveal. Why didn't Elliot's hacker persona know what happened to Elliot in the past? Mr. Robot generally seemed away of what "hacker" Elliot did (except when it wasn't convenient to the plot for him to be aware), but Mr. Robot was able able to do things that "hacker" Elliot didn't know about. I'm not certain they followed consistent rules here in what each identity knew, didn't know, could hide from others, etc.

Additionally, they did LOST us a bit with some plot MacGuffins. Like Whiterose's machine. It's not quite the smoke monster of Mr. Robot, but it sort of is. Or, how Whiterose kills himself, but leaves Elliot a way to shut down the machine after going through all that to get to the moment of using it.
I just started into Expanse Season 4 and it's enjoyable so far.
I thought Season 4 was a bit of a slog. It's good, but it's seems a bit longer than it needed to be and it feels a bit like a long setup to the next season where things take off (speculating).
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
I'm sort of undecided on the ending of Mr. Robot. It's not a spectacular disappointment like LOST, but I'm not sure I thought the ending was good either.
I'm not real down with the idea that the viewer was misled to for about 43 episodes with effectively no hints that the Elliot we knew for the duration of the show was just another personality like Mr. Robot. Sure, they threw in a few snippets from earlier seasons to sort of back up the idea that Elliot wasn't himself, but those were throwaway lines that could have meant anything and had no significance or noteworthiness at the time. It felt like a last minute series retcon, not a planned from the beginning reveal. Why didn't Elliot's hacker persona know what happened to Elliot in the past? Mr. Robot generally seemed away of what "hacker" Elliot did (except when it wasn't convenient to the plot for him to be aware), but Mr. Robot was able able to do things that "hacker" Elliot didn't know about. I'm not certain they followed consistent rules here in what each identity knew, didn't know, could hide from others, etc.

Additionally, they did LOST us a bit with some plot MacGuffins. Like Whiterose's machine. It's not quite the smoke monster of Mr. Robot, but it sort of is. Or, how Whiterose kills himself, but leaves Elliot a way to shut down the machine after going through all that to get to the moment of using it.

I thought Season 4 was a bit of a slog. It's good, but it's seems a bit longer than it needed to be and it feels a bit like a long setup to the next season where things take off (speculating).
I thought the series ended great and I was not disappointed with Mr. Robot as much as I was with Lost.

I never felt mislead with this story, in fact is was a slow progression getting to the point of revealing the final identity. I knew early on that the writing was doing a very good job of portraying mental health problems on a significant order. This show does a fantastic job in representing a person with DiD and other mental health issues. At the very end when the family of personalities were sitting in the movie theater watching the true Elliot is actually something a person with DiD might describe...that being a viewer to one's persona like watching a movie and having no control over the outcome. The fact that there were multiple personalities are real and true to life in kids that are victims of such abuse that was portrayed in his story. This build up didn't feel like it was a revision or alteration to the core concept and it wasn't deciding a new fate for the show.
I can't really come up with a reason why Elliot's hacker persona didn't know what happened in the past but that wouldn't be far-fetched for a person with traumatic abuse to not have a recollection between the identities.

I agree with the Whiterose's machine being a bit too mysterious and useless in the plot. I don't think it's anywhere close to the smoke monster as I don't recall it being introduced from the very beginning like the smoke monster was. The whole interaction with this machine was a bit contrived so I'll definitely agree there. That didn't detract from the overall plot of the show even though it was made to be some kind of final boss.

Mr. Robot isn't perfect; no show really is. However, the sum of all the great parts really left me with a sense of what a great show Sam Esmail put together. Rami did a fantastic job acting his parts as did all the other actors. I thought the filming style was done well along with good use of music and spatial sound to fill it all in setting the moods.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
I know politics discussions is not easy here, but in all seriousness, what the hell is with Trump starting shit with Iran provoking a conflict and then threatening 52 cultural and significant sites? We do not want another war.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I know politics discussions is not easy here, but in all seriousness, what the hell is with Trump starting shit with Iran provoking a conflict and then threatening 52 cultural and significant sites? We do not want another war.
Starting?!? More like finally responding to the 4 decades of provoking Iran has been doing against the US. This could very well make war with Iran less likely now that they see Trump isn't a pushover like his predecessors.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
Trump isn't intelligent enough to even plan his way out of a paper bag, do you really think this makes sense to send the US into another war? It'll go on for decades and we'll lose. Trump is incredibly insecure and petty, neither are strengths. He's the biggest joke to foreign leaders; I'm not sure where you're seeing him as strong.

Congress wasn’t consulted or provided sanction for this action. The assassination of a foreign general is an act of war and we are not at war with Iran. Now Iran vows revenge and we're sending in troops to risk their lives over an old guy's ego. Soleimani is a PoS no doubt but wtf, this isn't the right way to do things. This is all a distraction that's going to cost all of us.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Trump isn't intelligent enough to even plan his way out of a paper bag, do you really think this makes sense to send the US into another war? It'll go on for decades and we'll lose. Trump is incredibly insecure and petty, neither are strengths. He's the biggest joke to foreign leaders; I'm not sure where you're seeing him as strong.
No, because there's not going to be another war like that. No more Iraqs or Afghanistans. No more attempts at country rebuilding or democracy installation in the Middle East. Let them fix their own countries paid for in their own blood, not the blood of US soldiers. Slapping problem countries around with hard hitting targeted strategic strikes is not another "war".

Congress wasn’t consulted or provided sanction for this action. The assassination of a foreign general is an act of war and we are not at war with Iran. Now Iran vows revenge and we're sending in troops to risk their lives over an old guy's ego. Soleimani is a PoS no doubt but wtf, this isn't the right way to do things. This is all a distraction that's going to cost all of us.
Killing a terrorist is not an assassination. The President doesn't have to consult with Congress. He only has to notify them within 48 hours.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,859
Location
Flushing, New York
Congress wasn’t consulted or provided sanction for this action. The assassination of a foreign general is an act of war and we are not at war with Iran. Now Iran vows revenge and we're sending in troops to risk their lives over an old guy's ego. Soleimani is a PoS no doubt but wtf, this isn't the right way to do things. This is all a distraction that's going to cost all of us.
Trump's biggest enemy is his mouth. I'm fine with the US taking out generals, religious leaders, even heads of state in Middle Eastern countries. The Middle East is the cause of a lot of the world's terrorism problems. However, I would do things exactly the opposite of Trump. I wouldn't brag we took out so-and-so, or even hint at US responsibility. Instead, I would make them think another ME country they had animosities towards did. Maybe in this case I would put a trail leading back to Iraq or Israel or Saudi Arabia. I would kill important people in those countries too, and lay the blame on Iran, Iraq, Palestine, etc. The idea is to get them to all go to war and kill each other off, solving the Middle Eastern problem for good. Even our so-called allies in the region, like Saudi Arabia or Israel, are two-faced scum the planet would be better off without. Maybe even let Russian or China or the EU in on it to help, with the caveat when the nukes start flying down there everyone will stay out of it. I'm sure those countries would love to solve their terrorist problems in one fell swoop, but they're not going to be the ones to initiate a major conflict. Neither will the US. Too easy for things to spiral out of control. Make it look like an entirely ME conflict. Sit back until it's over. It'll be a pity if any historical sites are destroyed as that's the only thing of value there, but everything has its price. Let's not bother fighting over the oil, either, once it's over. With what's happening to the planet, it should stay in the ground. The oil fields might well be radioactive for centuries anyway after it's over.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,859
Location
Flushing, New York
No, because there's not going to be another war like that. No more Iraqs or Afghanistans. No more attempts at country rebuilding or democracy installation in the Middle East. Let them fix their own countries paid for in their own blood, not the blood of US soldiers. Slapping problem countries around with hard hitting targeted strategic strikes is not another "war".
It's pretty obvious most of the countries there have zero interest in democracy. That said, our ME policy should involve one of two things. Plan A is what I described above, which is to basically get them to all kill each other. Plan B is to just remain neutral unless US interests are directly threatened, and then to give a proportional response, hopefully at the guilty parties. That could include preemptively taking out known terrorist cells gunning for the US if the host country is unable or unwilling to do so. Under no circumstances should the US invade and occupy any of these countries. That's a recipe for disaster. Remember we still have troops in Japan, Germany, and Korea, even though those wars ended when my parents were still in school.

Admittedly, quite of bit of the mess over there is an end result of decades of US interference in the region. I wish we could turn back the clock and undo all that, starting with the establishment of Israel in 1947. If the US really believed there should be an Israel, it should have offered to have it locate in the deserts in the southwestern US. Similar climate to Israel, but far removed from any potential enemies. And largely uninhabited at the time, so few residents would have needed to be relocated.
 

Will Rickards

Storage Freak
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
1,990
Location
Here
Website
willrickards.net
Starting?!? More like finally responding to the 4 decades of provoking Iran has been doing against the US. This could very well make war with Iran less likely now that they see Trump isn't a pushover like his predecessors.
Holy shit dude. I was totally unaware of this. Can you detail some of these events from 4 decades?
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,859
Location
Flushing, New York
The Islamic Revolution was a reaction to decades of US interference in the area, including the installation of the Shah who was basically a puppet of the US. While Iran admittedly has stirred the pot for the last 40 years, the US is hardly blameless. That said, we created monsters in the region, and something has to be done now regardless of whose fault it is. It's sort of like when bad parents raise a kid who goes on to become a serial killer. It may not be the kid's fault, but eventually society has to take the serial killer out for its own safety.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,859
Location
Flushing, New York
Well, looks like Doug's worst fears were realized:


No mention if the "ballistic missiles" had conventional or nuclear warheads.
 

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
708
Location
on the floor
Well, looks like Doug's worst fears were realized:


No mention if the "ballistic missiles" had conventional or nuclear warheads.
They don't have the capability to deliver a single nuke let alone a bunch of them. Any nuclear attack on a US target would result in a devastating counterattack. Seems like no injuries for our guys. Curious if there were Patriot batteries involved in engaging the inbound missiles. We'll have to see if this failed attack is enough to calm the Iranians down.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
Let this just sink in regarding Trump. Right now some of the feedback I'm reading here is in support of Trump taking out a really bad guy and this is justified. Sure, he's terrible, I am not disagreeing.

"President Donald Trump said he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "fell in love" because of Kim's "beautiful letters,".

This is a brutal dictator. Supporters justifying Trump's actions are full of shit here with a double standard. Why didn't he take out Un? Trump has committed another crime here and of course like Bush, there's no recent evidence to suggest the US should have partake in these actions in the Middle East. He is abusing his position and he will be putting American lives at risk and this will cost all of us trillions like the last GOP initiated war.
 

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
708
Location
on the floor
Let this just sink in regarding Trump. Right now some of the feedback I'm reading here is in support of Trump taking out a really bad guy and this is justified. Sure, he's terrible, I am not disagreeing.

"President Donald Trump said he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "fell in love" because of Kim's "beautiful letters,".

This is a brutal dictator. Supporters justifying Trump's actions are full of shit here with a double standard. Why didn't he take out Un? Trump has committed another crime here and of course like Bush, there's no recent evidence to suggest the US should have partake in these actions in the Middle East. He is abusing his position and he will be putting American lives at risk and this will cost all of us trillions like the last GOP initiated war.
Soleimani was responsible for the murder of hundreds of US citizens and would have continued to do so in the future. We had the opportunity to terminate him outside of a direct strike within Iran, he got cocky and thought he was safe driving around in Baghdad.

Little Rocketman Kim has 30-60 nukes. Millions of North Koreans have probably starved to death while he funneled billions into weapons research to get that program going. He has ballistic missiles that could potentially reach the US. The US has to take that into account when considering an attack on NK. Kim could lob something into Seoul and Japan and kill hundreds of thousands or millions.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
Iran is a different animal but still, this notion of the US being soft and Trump finally acting is going to put us in another multi-decade long battle costing numerous lives, foreign and domestic and trillions of dollars.

Iran was ready; this was a calculate and explicit response to Trump's actions. They were not reactionary here, there is a distinction and they are making a point. Trump has no plan, there is no good follow up option for their response, and he's proven in numerous events that he's a child with an ego so he's fine with making this about him and how powerful he is at the expense of many others. He chose the extreme option to engage in the assassination this time...how many more tit for tat will have to transpire before he opts to use nuclear devices to prove his ego? This may seem alarmist, but he's unhinged.

There is a reason why over the past 40 years the US hasn't done more...this isn't a battle we can actually win.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
You're pretty sick if you think it's funny to start a war where people's lives are at the expense of this man's agenda to distract from an impeachment he caused. No one wins in these. I don't see how this is funny to you.

Next we'll see him suspending voting for the election for some excuse related to the war he's going to cause. This was avoidable. This can still be avoided, but his ego and pettiness won't let that happen. Iran knows this.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
I'd also consider people listening to this guys points on the current events and what may unfold next.

 

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
708
Location
on the floor
Looks like we are stepping back from the brink per the latest press conference.

Also I've found Trump to be disinclined to get involved in war mongering, which the ilk of John Bolton etc wanted to proceed with.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
You're pretty sick if you think it's funny to start a war where people's lives are at the expense of this man's agenda to distract from an impeachment he caused. No one wins in these. I don't see how this is funny to you.
You're comment is funny because it's completely absurd. Iran would get squashed like a bug in a military conflict with the US. Can't win... :ROFLMAO:

You sound like the media pontificating before the Gulf War ('91) that Sadam's battle hardened troops were going to wipe the floor with the US.

War isn't funny, but funny comments are.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,859
Location
Flushing, New York
Next we'll see him suspending voting for the election for some excuse related to the war he's going to cause. This was avoidable. This can still be avoided, but his ego and pettiness won't let that happen. Iran knows this.
I've been saying this since day one. He never wanted to be President. He wants to be dictator with a lifetime term. And who knows, he may well find a way to make it happen.

Iran is a different animal but still, this notion of the US being soft and Trump finally acting is going to put us in another multi-decade long battle costing numerous lives, foreign and domestic and trillions of dollars.
That can only happen if the US lets it happen. We killed their general. Iran sent some missiles our way. It could end at that. Or Trump could try to make it into a full-blown war but it seems he has no appetite for that. I think the public has had it with these "forever" wars. If Trump gets us in another one he can kiss the election goodbye regardless of how the economy is doing. Iran of course could try to drag the US unwillingly into war with some massive strike that can't go unanswered. That's a really risky strategy on their part, especially because of what you mentioned here:

...how many more tit for tat will have to transpire before he opts to use nuclear devices to prove his ego? This may seem alarmist, but he's unhinged.
Nuclear weapons are a very appealing option for someone who doesn't want to get dragged into an ongoing quagmire, but has their hand forced with a response because the enemy crossed the line. A massive terrorist act against US civilians on the order of 9/11 or greater will probably even give Trump public support for using nukes in response. The big question is how will the rest of the world react? Can we negotiate with Russia, China, Israel, and every other nuclear power to just stay on the sidelines so it doesn't escalate? We obviously don't want this blowing up into WWIII. If we nuked a few mostly military targets in Iran following such a hypothetical massive terrorist attack on the US, Trump might just get away with it. It will also send the message to other countries harboring terrorists that you're next if you don't reign them in. Anyway, those are my thoughts.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
You're comment is funny because it's completely absurd. Iran would get squashed like a bug in a military conflict with the US. Can't win... :ROFLMAO:

You sound like the media pontificating before the Gulf War ('91) that Sadam's battle hardened troops were going to wipe the floor with the US.

War isn't funny, but funny comments are.
I guess you're too shallow to see the bigger picture of how the US loses and that's not at all funny. Sure, we can send munitions over, bomb the hell out of them, but a ground war would cause so many casualties it's incredibly sad you think this is funny that our troops lives are so expendable just to make a point that you think the US would win. It's terribly ignorant to think the US would simply wipe the floor. Yes, we have a very well-stocked and technically proficient military, but the commander in chief can't make a plan other than to play golf and eat ice cream while attacking a country and has also removed valuable advisors to guide through a conflict or resolution that you're delusional to think we would win this. If we had a better Whitehouse and leadership maybe, but I suspect they would not have provoked in the first place.

Fallout from our actions is not what I would consider winning in any sense. We all lose, mainly the men and women sent in risking their lives and the lives of the people we destroy who aren't a part of this conflict.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I guess you're too shallow to see the bigger picture of how the US loses and that's not at all funny. Sure, we can send munitions over, bomb the hell out of them, but a ground war would cause so many casualties it's incredibly sad you think this is funny that our troops lives are so expendable just to make a point that you think the US would win. It's terribly ignorant to think the US would simply wipe the floor. Yes, we have a very well-stocked and technically proficient military, but the commander in chief can't make a plan other than to play golf and eat ice cream while attacking a country and has also removed valuable advisors to guide through a conflict or resolution that you're delusional to think we would win this. If we had a better Whitehouse and leadership maybe, but I suspect they would not have provoked in the first place.

Fallout from our actions is not what I would consider winning in any sense. We all lose, mainly the men and women sent in risking their lives and the lives of the people we destroy who aren't a part of this conflict.
You just keep digging and slinging insults. Maybe I should get in the game... You're working awfully hard to twist my words and intentionally misunderstand what's funny. I never said the US should get into a war with Iran. I'm not advocating a war with Iran. Your belief that the US can't win a war against Iran is laughable (ie: funny).

There's no reason for a ground war with Iran. We don't want their country. We don't need it. Treat them like Libya before Hillary and Obama decided to needlessly break the country. The US sent a Gaddafi a message with some airstrikes when he acted out back when Reagan was President. He got the message loud and clear. Then Hillary and Obama did exactly what you claim Trump is doing in Iran (but Trump isn't). I don't recall your posts of consternation over that debacle.

BTW, if you're so worried about the troops, how come you're not upset about Iran's use of proxies to kill the troops over and over and over again? You're just upset that Trump might put and end to Iran's bad behavior. Of course your TDS has blinded you to the fact that he might actually know what he's doing even if he's not following the DC Beltway conventional wisdom (which has proven itself a failure over and over).
 
Last edited:

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
Classic Trump move; attempt number 50+. Causes chaos or crisis and then wants praise for fixing it. I don't get why people accept this behavior.
 

Newtun

Storage is nice
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
367
Location
Virginia
Then I hope you were able to shut off the water at the main valve in time to minimize the damage.

A few years ago, we got to have a kitchen remodeling because a pipe froze. (The builder forgot to insulate one little corner of the house. :mad:)
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Then I hope you were able to shut off the water at the main valve in time to minimize the damage.

A few years ago, we got to have a kitchen remodeling because a pipe froze. (The builder forgot to insulate one little corner of the house. :mad:)
It was a slow leak inside the hot water heater. There was a ~12" puddle on the ground under the unit. I nursed it along for about a week until I was able to replace it.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,859
Location
Flushing, New York
It seems like these things reliably spring a leak after you have them a while. Don't they make some with stainless steel tanks so they'll never leak? To me it seems like planned obsolescence.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
The ones with longer warranties or lifetime warranty tend to be made of a plastic or stainless material inside so they don't rot but they cost a lot more. You are supposed to flush the hot water tanks to maintain the tank but most don't bother doing that. You can also replace the anode rod to lengthen the lifespan but it can often be too tall to replace with a low basement ceiling. They do make replacement anode rods that are segmented to fit in low ceiling applications.

I suspect when my tank gets a little closer I'll consider switching from natural gas as my heat source to one of the heat pump hybrid units.
 
Last edited:

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
The whole anode rod thing was news to me. I had never heard anything about that before I started researching replacing the leaking one. I'm not sure my old unit had a user replaceable one. There's no markings on the top or obvious spot for it. I'm going to pop some of the molded caps off it and see before I trash it. If you don't replace the anode rod regularly the tank will fail. In my conversations with people in the past week or so about hot water heaters it seems like maybe 1 in 10 people know about the anode rod and replacing them.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,253
Location
USA
Not all tanks have replaceable anodes so you will have to check like you said. I also believe the plastic tanks don't use an anode.
 
Top