From what I've seen the video and audio quality is stunning and I'd really love to watch the whole thing. I don't necessarily want a Disney subscription just for that, if I can avoid it. Does anyone know if it is available in good quality elsewhere. (I have no idea if that is even still a thing, but I do not have a Blu-ray player either.)
I've made my peace with occasionally subscribing to services for one month, binging a queue (not too big) of things they mete out slowly and cancelling immediately. If you think of it as paying for a package deal it feels like it works out price-wise (unless you're avoiding subscription to eg support the writers strike)
We subscribed to Disney+ for one month to watch it. I think a month is something like $10 which is a pretty good deal even if you only are going to watch one series. We watched an hour or so a night over about 3 weeks.
We ended up watching Get Back (which was great!), Mandalorian (it was good), and one or two other series that we never finished because they just weren't very good.
I usually subscribe and then immediately unsubscribe. You get the service for a month, no need to remember to cancel. It’s just like renting a movie, and (to me) definitely worth it for Get Back. I wasn’t expecting it to be as good as it was; I was engrossed and plowed through it, and thought about it a lot for a couple weeks afterward.
Seeing ‘Get Back’ come together was actually amazing. The way way they argued was distinctive - objective and strongly opinionated without personal attacks.
I tend to have these types of conversations with one of my good friends. Anything we both say to each other is honest and opinionated but we both know we don't come from a place of hostility. We are past the idea that one of us said something because we personally want the other person to suffer.
Just today I was thinking how strange it is that the Beatles and the Stones are so present nowadays. And I don't mean only articles like OP that celebrate the past, but literally Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger being on TikTok. These guy were already stone old when I was a kid.
At the same time so many superstars of my childhood and youth, like Michael Jackson, Prince, Sinéad O'Connor and I don't even want start to enumerate the rappers, are dead, some for decades.
At any rate I love white haired Paul, Mick and Keith telling stories and I hope they can and will for the coming decades.
this might be interesting
"The Music Industry’s Darkest Secret"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_y_zeql7pc
"The following content may contain topics related to suicide or self-harm."
This is an interesting post and has been upvoted and attracted a bunch of comments without generating a lot of low quality, off-topic comments. All of that makes it a quality submission.
Their point is Hacker News is branded as a place for posting links to content specifically relevant to the technology industry, and this isn't that. It's clearly a general interest piece.
Is that a problem?
Well, first I'd point out the majority of posts are still in keeping with what I think of as HN's raison d'etre.
But the more basic question is: does HN have an overarching theme at I've described it? Or is it, as you believe, just a general link aggregator and the only thing that matters is whether its audience upvotes the post?
I honestly don't know.
Though I will say I wish I could apply a filter to eliminate every American political post (I swear I see a post complaining about homelessness in SF at least once a week). I get enough of that elsewhere...
Actually, it's branded as a place for content that hackers may find interesting. While often that tends to be technology, the stereotypical hacker mindset certainly doesn't shy away from lengthy detailed dives into variety topics. Especially topics that have a nostalgic appeal to the demographic here.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I guess there's a thing with when artists who excel at writing their own song play Other People's Material. They put everything into the "how", and unless they have a very clear idea of what that how will be and why it will be good they'll rather make more original stuff. Where the "how" will quite literally be an afterthought.
35 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 78.6 ms ] threadWe ended up watching Get Back (which was great!), Mandalorian (it was good), and one or two other series that we never finished because they just weren't very good.
Even the Beatles struggled.
At the same time so many superstars of my childhood and youth, like Michael Jackson, Prince, Sinéad O'Connor and I don't even want start to enumerate the rappers, are dead, some for decades.
At any rate I love white haired Paul, Mick and Keith telling stories and I hope they can and will for the coming decades.
When you have a chance to see these folks in concert, take it. I was too lazy to see Petty one night and he passed a week later. :-/
This is an interesting post and has been upvoted and attracted a bunch of comments without generating a lot of low quality, off-topic comments. All of that makes it a quality submission.
Is that a problem?
Well, first I'd point out the majority of posts are still in keeping with what I think of as HN's raison d'etre.
But the more basic question is: does HN have an overarching theme at I've described it? Or is it, as you believe, just a general link aggregator and the only thing that matters is whether its audience upvotes the post?
I honestly don't know.
Though I will say I wish I could apply a filter to eliminate every American political post (I swear I see a post complaining about homelessness in SF at least once a week). I get enough of that elsewhere...
Because if it's "content that hackers may find interesting", then that's literally any topic at all.
To be clear I'm not saying you're wrong or right, it's just a neverending debate around here and I can see where the OP is coming from.
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Again, I'm not making a claim one way or the other, but it's hardly an invalid question.
Or, at least, I thought so, but at least a couple of people were mad enough to press the downvote button. Go figure.
And the downvotes are probably coming because complaining about submissions goes against HN guidelines.