I wonder how Reddit's propensity to comment without actually reading factors into this. I've seen quite a few negative comments that essentially boil down to knee jerk reactions to the headline without actually clicking the link.

What in the wizarding world

I would be inclined to agree, except that it's at Amazon which doesn't have the track record HBO does.

1. Choose a game with a strong narrative. Not every game has enough substance to be an entire movie/series. (looking at you Rampage)

2. Play the fuckin' game and hire people who loved it. Or better yet hire people that actually made it.

3. Don't cheap out on it. If you don't believe in it enough to put real money on the line, don't do it at all.

4. Take your time. Even a short video game can be 8-12 hours of content. Don't try to cram it all into a 2 hour movie.

5. Understand the difference between video games and film as a medium. It's one thing to watch a character do something, it's entirely different to be the one doing it, but the emotion needs to translate all the same.

6. Video games are more than just splashy effects. Even the best VFX won't save poorly developed characters and shoddy writing.

Just imagine lighting up with Mike Tyson, Rick Ross, Charlie Sheen, and Ric Flair to talk about boner pills.

Isn't this exactly what they bought the Clancy franchise for? Jack Ryan, No Remorse, leading into Rainbow Six, and maybe Splinter Cell?

$15 million is a drop in the bucket for California. Plenty of room in the budget to work on all of those things.

They do, when they violate federal laws.

So your theory is that prosecutors intentionally withheld evidence that would have helped the defense win the case but the double secret plan was actually to get caught doing that in order to help the defense win the case?

Did you even read the story? They intentionally withheld this evidence because it would have helped the defense.

>Some of the withheld evidence included videos from surveillance footage, memos from investigators, communications between prosecutors and cellphones from people arrested after Mr. Franco identified them as drug dealers, Mr. Tanner said in an interview. He described the evidence as “potentially exculpatory.”

>Mr. Tanner said that prosecutors in court blamed their failure to turn over evidence on “gross negligence,” but said that he did not trust that their actions had not been willful.

They did it to win the case, not lose. And when they got caught, they said "oops, it was an accident".

Who said anything about angry redditors? At least 320 people were convicted on cases he was involved in. That's a long list of people with motive.

How many people would threaten to kill her for letting him walk?

Nonsense conspiracy theory. Her law career is fucked. Think about how much she's just lost in lifetime earnings from this very public firing. No one is paying that kind of money to get one shitty cop off the hook.

edit:

Did y'all even read the story? They intentionally withheld this evidence because it would have helped the defense.

>Some of the withheld evidence included videos from surveillance footage, memos from investigators, communications between prosecutors and cellphones from people arrested after Mr. Franco identified them as drug dealers, Mr. Tanner said in an interview. He described the evidence as “potentially exculpatory.”

>Mr. Tanner said that prosecutors in court blamed their failure to turn over evidence on “gross negligence,” but said that he did not trust that their actions had not been willful.

They did it to win the case, not lose. And when they got caught, they said "oops, it was an accident".

Not a chance. She's been publicly fired for repeat ethical violations that tanked a major case. She'll be lucky if she can salvage a law career at all, let alone recoup the millions less in lifetime earnings. No one is paying her off with that kind of money for one shitty cop.

Once again highlighting that shitty prosecutors are just as much of a problem as shitty cops.

edit:

Did y'all even read the story? They intentionally withheld this evidence because it would have helped the defense.

>Some of the withheld evidence included videos from surveillance footage, memos from investigators, communications between prosecutors and cellphones from people arrested after Mr. Franco identified them as drug dealers, Mr. Tanner said in an interview. He described the evidence as “potentially exculpatory.”

>Mr. Tanner said that prosecutors in court blamed their failure to turn over evidence on “gross negligence,” but said that he did not trust that their actions had not been willful.

They did it to win the case, not lose. And when they got caught, they said "oops, it was an accident".

Exactly. I can see this at a flagship/test location that gets studied then rolled out to other stores.

I can only find a handful of articles from around the same time period. I'm guessing this is tech that never really proved its value so it didn't catch on widely. TBH they're probably just using regular security cameras and Bluetooth beacons, if they're analyzing this at all.

> So, when will these mannequins start analyzing you? They might already be. Not only does Almax sell the EyeSee to stores oversees, it already has one client in the U.S. "It is already in some stores in the U.S., but I cannot disclose the client."

TL;DR: this is not widespread and may never be.

I thought it was OK. Biggest problem IMO was the anticlimactic ending. Everything up until that moment felt like a setup for a much bigger conspiracy, but it somehow still felt small and wrapped up too easily.

Seriously. She suspected the guy was involved in a plot to kill or rob her boss and she got into the car with him anyway.

I just finished both seasons and I gotta say I much preferred Season 1, mostly because of Armond.

> Was she supposed to just stay in a random town in Italy alone with no phone or money?

As opposed to getting into a car with a guy who might murder her?

Yes.

Can't cancel a successful show if you cancel everything before it has a chance to become one!

He's right. Oil use is going to decline but technology needs are only going to rise drastically. More than just the volume required, it's going to be the raw materials (see Sweden's rare Earth metals and the Neon bottleneck created by Russia's invasion) and the security of those supply lines (see US concerns over Huawei devices). Global alliances will be made based on securing a steady and trusted source of chips.

Plot twist: the little girl becomes a biologist and genetically engineers a unicorn.