Sorry, I strongly disagree. Without any overt spoilers, the ending was an outrage - an illustration of human arrogance. There were many ways it could have ended, but not that.
For me, the story was a little too elaborate for its own good. (The film is based on a novel and may have tried to keep too much of its source.) But it addresses a lot of issues. And the rugged landscapes of the film, which was shot in Tasmania, are just the place for an elusive creature to roam. Besides, Willem Dafoe plays the title character. There's a trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgfB9kebFNI
As for thylacines themselves, they've been discussed here and elsewhere. They're probably extinct, but they haven't really left, since they turn up in film and fiction, and they may be coming back, if de-extinction works.
I agree on a longer time scale, but my life and the lives of many I know is markedly worse than 5 years ago. Crime is up a LOT in NYC, and the subway for the first time in my lifetime feels sketchy during the day. Inflation has really hurt a lot of my lower SES friends, and there's a general nihilism that's pretty unpleasant.
Also, the mass shooting thing has gotten much worse in the last 30 years.
I hope your comment is being sarcastic, because if not, it really highlights how completely and utterly bonkers the discourse on school shootings has become in the USA. Your numbers do not take into account the thousands of students at each school (and surrounding schools), and their parents, that experience horrific trauma from shootings, which is simply not comparable to an accidental pool or car death.
I'm living with a disabled father from a car accident. Decades to go caring for a completely disabled person. Many thousands of people every year are in pain from car accidents. Or medical malpractice which takes like a quarter million lives yearly.
No need to go on about extremely rare insane people that are almost all medicated. They would drive a truck through a crowd if not gun them down.
The numbers don't make sense, 200 vs millions impacted by other real problems
With the lack of unified empathy surrounding school shootings, it’s not surprising that millions of people are impacted by things like shitty healthcare, dangerous driving, relentless marketing for unhealthy lifestyles, etc. The shootings and its highly toxic discourse are symptoms of something very rotten.
School shootings in the USA absolutely eclipse every other first world nation combined. Also, 200 deaths equates to potentially hundreds of thousands of traumatised kids. With such fear permeating it’s not surprising that the system produces mentally unstable people that can’t access treatment.
Could you please stop posting slurs about my home town? You can make the point you're trying to make without inventing nonsense numbers for the murder rate in Chicago, which is a tragedy worth taking seriously rather than snarking about. Thanks.
The actual numbers for what's going on in Chicago are remarkably easy to get.
A society/group that entertains the idea that teachers should carry deadly weapons, to combat students carrying deadly weapons, is very warped, and an indication that something has gone very wrong for so many people to consider that as a viable solution. It is the “necessity” to carry weapons which is the problem in the first place.
I am sorry that one of your loved ones was involved in an accident and I am sure that is extremely painful to experience.
If the chances are so low, why is a gunless teacher considered defenceless? Why carry a gun unless you think there is a distinct chance that it will be need to be used? Probably because of the real possibility that there are students walking around with guns?
I went to a school with a bunch of psycho kids who carried knives. No one ever got stabbed, but it creates an emotionally unsafe environment the isn’t conducive of learning, or just being a kid. A feeling of violence and aggression permeates and grants the worst students an unreasonable level of power over everyone else. Do you think in this instance giving the teachers knives would actually make anyone feel at ease?
Schools have fire alarms, fire extinguishers, and regularly practice drills to evacuate in the case of a fire. It doesn't mean we have an crisis of schools catching on fire all the time. It's not unreasonable that one or two adults who are reasonably trained might have a firearm on campus. Firearms already exist in the world. Wishing them away won't make them disappear. Not to mention, shootings are only a fraction of the reasons you might need a firearm.
What if a kid is getting mauled by a dog, or a violent person wanders into the building and starts hurting people? Are you going to wait minutes for the police to show up when seconds count? It seems like all the pragmatic people have left the room whenever any kind of discussion about firearms comes up.
> If the chances are so low, why is a gunless teacher considered defenceless?
b-because your are taking away their gun... huh? Again: every time you go grocery shopping a substantial number of people around you are armed. You wouldn't know it.
> Why carry a gun unless you think there is a distinct chance that it will be need to be used?
You don't carry? You just carry. Do you carry pepper spray?
> Do you think in this instance giving the teachers knives would actually make anyone feel at ease?
I'd rather they have guns ???
Now that we have that solved we can talk about actual issues.
FYI, teachers are disarmed and that is a good thing. This argument just show how manipulative andnutterly lacking brain pro-mass shooting side of debate became.
It is perfectly valid for people to be angry about mass shootings, even if people die more from something else. It even actually rationally does not make sense to act like it is a gotcha.
Moreover, actually in USA deaths on roads went up
Moreover, there is large overlap between those who see mass shooting as issue and those who want walkable streets and the kind of zoning that promotes less driving.
The two tragedies don't have comparable psychological impacts. If all we cared about was minmaxing deaths, we'd work on nothing but CVD and automobile accidents.
And, of course, the number of kids shot in Chicago last month doesn't even resemble 200.
I completely agree, but also agree with their priority - almost all humans will die of heart disease, the remainder from various cancers or kidney failure.
That said, Alzheimer's is the only one that I've discussed with my wife - I'm not going through all that. Absolutely taking MAID in that case.
I agree. The GOP gerrymandering SF so that they have complete control of city council is obviously the problem here. /s
There are no GOP members in City government, and haven't been for a long, long time. This is the result of progressive policies. Accept that or this will continue.
Americans have a major fetish for blaming the GOP. In my city of Portland which has many similar problems to sf, I constantly hear the reasons things are so bad is the GOP. What causes this kind of analysis to become so widespread?
People don't like to believe that problems are of their own making. You legalize meth, then your city fills up with people using meth - that's not the problem of the GOP. There's approximately no Republicans in Seattle, SF, or Portland - the problem is progressivism.
>I agree. The GOP gerrymandering SF so that they have complete control of city council is obviously the problem here. /s
Hey now, I was addressing this part of the comment "In a democracy, you are the government"
I am speaking as someone who lives in a red state where our abortion laws have been rolled back and have seen the impact of the gerrymandering first hand. This is the result of conservative policies and will likely have a negative effect on our state; whether by an exodus of those who don't see the point in staying or by increasing poverty for forced birth for those who can't afford to skirt the laws
>This is the result of progressive policies. Accept that or this will continue.
I don't live in SF so I can't speak with any authority to how much worse it has become. I can say that my city's murder rate is almost 50% higher than SF while being much smaller. From what I've read, SF is at least trying something in terms of harm reduction instead of just outright criminalizing or ignoring, which is what we're do and isn't working.
I don't have the answers and it seems to be a difficult task to come up with plans without violating a person's autonomy.
I did not mention the GOP initially. You did in your reply and I replied to you. As mentioned earlier, I was addressing this part of the comment "In a democracy, you are the government"
No one forced you to interact with me and I think we're both worse off that you chose to do so.
This thread is 90%+ people denying the very existence of a problem.
Last time I was in SF, people were shocked that I felt less comfortable than I do in Detroit. Detroit doesn't tolerate half the shit SF does - no encampments, no wandering screamers, etc. Yes, violent and organized crime is much higher - but when you're QOL is lower than the symbol of urban decline........
Detroit is almost exactly the same size as SF. Detroit has cheap housing AND STILL BUILDS MORE. SF has decided that NIMBYism is the solution to homelessness, and it's obviously not working.
Size as in geographic area or population? Detroit has blocks and blocks where only a single house exists, thousands of empty lots and abandoned homes. Easier to build when there’s cheap empty lots.
South Australia (my home state) just announced that our main steel plant will be switching to methane and hydrogen instead of coal. The plan is eventually to switch to almost 100% green hydrogen.
See: IBM's software engineering, vs Delta's offering of their maintenance ops to other airlines. One has really, really worked out, the other hasn't.