I might disagree with this. To me, the joy of the books was developing a deep understanding of the societies and their norms. This felt almost entirely missing from the movies, which focused more on events. This is fine--they're different mediums, after all, but the second movie in particular left me a little disappointed.
I think this is kind of my point -- there's no way to develop that level of nuance in a movie. The options are to take way more time (see Silo), to do a crappy job (see... almost every 2 - 3 hour movie), or to instead change the goal: Don't have the viewer "develop… a deep understanding", but down-select to those viewers who already respect the work and have that deep understanding, and instead focus on showing them the society and its norms. Do what movies are great at -- make a story come to life -- and make the viewer/reader do the work of knowing the background, knowing what they're seeing, knowing what's important.
I believe they were responding to your "confirmation bias, how?" question, rather than the narrative around thermometers. So from that lens, the confirmation bias is choosing to show temperature (objectively measured with assumed-reliable instruments / thermometers), but arguably choosing to hide other kinds/categories of data.
Fwiw, I am not backing them up, since I do not know what other data they might be referring to (and I am not very knowledgeable in topics within climate science).
You're surprised in the context of global warming that the physical quantity of temperature was selected? The temperature quantity itself was cherry-picked?
Does anyone besides you expect them to demonstrate global warming but please without mentioning temperature - that's obviously cherry-picked of course... /s
1 - the area was cherry picked.
2 - only this year's data is highlighted in red - the data from last year wasn't highlighted. It's hard to know if this is a trend or it's just a weird year.
3 - the time horizon is cherry picked. Why mean on a given day rather than the mean for a week?
Imagine someone else cherry picks the line that is really low and highlights it. Or they pick a different area which shows cooling. Now you have some idiot claiming global cooling.
The thing about cherry picking is that it works so well. When someone pointed out the cherry picked data, you couldn't even come to the conclusion it was cherry picked. And you are on hacker news. Imagine the really really silly people.
Fwiw--it's not digitally removed, it is just behind her sleeve. In the video she starts in the same pose and you can't see the text, but you can once she moves her arm.
Bit of an aside, but I just checked them out and TIL that Immich (which I use as my primary photos solution) is also a FUTO product (the website says "powered by FUTO").
Video description, from the Velcro brand YouTube channel:
Our Velcro Brand Companies legal team decided to clear a few things up about using the VELCRO® trademark correctly – because they’re lawyers and that’s what they do. When you use “velcro” as a noun or a verb (e.g., velcro shoes), you diminish the importance of our brand and our lawyers lose their insert fastening sound. So please, do not say “velcro shoes” (or “velcro wallet” or “velcro gloves”) - we repeat “velcro” is not a noun or a verb. VELCRO® is our brand. #dontsayvelcro
You would certainly notice if your genitals were absorbing enough energy via RF emissions to pose any kind of hazard. You would probably notice long before that threshold.
