For the academy awards, to its defense, it was competing against Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, Four Weddings and a Funeral, or the Madness of King George. I can barely name one good movie a year these days, and certainly none that makes it to the oscars. The contrast with the 90s is brutal.
> can barely name one good movie a year these days
Not really.
Of the recent movies, Everything Everywhere All at Once is a storytelling masterpiece. Since you mentioned it, I personally rate it alongside Tarantino's Pulp Fiction.
Everything Everywhere All at Once was the last time I sat in a theater where, for the first half at least, I thought I was watching an instant classic.
But that movie just dragged on, and now I look back and see it as a bungled opportunity. It could've been so much tighter in the edit. They could've cut a third of the movie and made the whole thing so much better.
This has generally been my experience with most highly acclaimed movies over the past 10 years. Most recently had this w/ Marty Supreme... last year had this w/ The Brutalist and The Substance.
The first half has me thinking instant classic, my hope is sky high. But then toward the end I find myself looking at my watch and realize it's simply not going to the stick the landing.
OTOH, many acclaimed streaming series have generally done this well. My take is that as long-form storytelling has evolved, movies have transitioned into this post-modernist phase as directors/writers don't feel they have the runway to tell something truly cohesive that doesn't end up being trite. It's much more about saying 'something' or imbuing a feeling than telling a fully fleshed 3 act story.
This was a good movie, but what was it up against. Were there 4 or 5 other movies of comparable goodness that any of could have won the oscar? So 'can barely name one good movie' is apt here. There are some, but way fewer and farther between.
Everything Everywhere... is a much better movie than the incredible Pulp Fiction. Some of the visual effects are actually psychedelic (I've "seent" them), and the storytelling is exceptional.
The scene where the antagonist is walking down a hallway while the background keeps changing — is among the best fight scenes / visuals in any film, ever.
I think you're going to see more and more people saying things like that as the audience gets younger and more people see the antecedents of Pulp Fiction before they see Pulp Fiction itself. There wouldn't be an EEAaO without Pulp Fiction.
Even setting its influence aside, Pulp Fiction is the better movie.
I wouldn't even rate pulp fiction highly on Tarantino's filmography. I tried watching it recently and found it to be incredibly pretentious and overwritten.
It's quintessential-Tarantino, but I don't ever recommend it anymore (start with Django or Reservoir Dogs). Decades ago I shared this movie with college friends — mostly because we enjoyed decadence.
If you've not seen Pulp Fiction by 2026 [0], how can I safely recommend you submit yourself to hours of semi-disconnected robberies, rapes, and deceit? It's a great movie, EEAaO is just better storytelling.
[0] similarly, how does one recommend the acclaimed Deliverance without blushing?
Django has low re-watchability (unlike most of Tarantino's work) but incredible acting/twists/cinematography.
Once Upon a Time is too much for me (bottom-tier Tarantino IMHO), but it does have many great actors/scenes (the overall storyline/premise is what I didn't care for).
Haven't seen Deathproof, but Basterds is wonderful storytelling.
Yeah I think Basterds is probably the most undeniably great, even if it's not my favourite. He even calls his shot with the last spoken line being “i think this might be my masterpiece”.
Probably my favourite thing about cinema is how slippery the subjective experience is.
For example I can appreciate a movie I don't really enjoy in a way I can't with music. Also on a rewatch a movie can go from hated to loved, or vice versa, in a way that feels unique to the medium.
>Yeah I think Basterds is probably the most undeniably great [Tarantino film], even if it's not my favourite.
Well-said.
>...on a rewatch [it] can go from hated to loved
I typically don't rewatch movies for at least five years — this is enough time for life experiences to change media interpretations. Yet I listen to the same tracklist of catchy MP3 earworms, on repeat.
Songs are motivational background energy (for me), and skipping a track isn't nearly as hard as bailing out of two hours invested in a cozy full-length film.
Goodness no. It was such a drag! That movie became famous from the hype. I couldn’t finish it. I am really wary of famous + acclaimed films now. These days this combo almost always disappoints. Like Nolan films. I know he has a massive “fan base” now and anything he churns out will become crazy famous and an instant classic. Anything!
I thought it did an extremely good job of conjuring a particular place/time, and I find the Nosferatu backstory of being Temu Dracula sort of inherently entertaining.
YMMV. I found Anora quite tiresome - all of the people depicted were awful and stupid, and the point that it made was so basic that it could have been made in 10 minutes flat. I'd call it "preachy" but that's overselling it.
Fair enough, not everyone needs to like the same things. In fact, I had a rather negative view on Shawshank Redemption, but it's been too long since I saw it that I barely remember why.
YMMV. I found EEAAO to be engaging but shambolic. It was an experiment that kinda worked, kinda not. The chaos of it can't be cleaned up, it's intrinsic to the concept.
It's not going to a template for lots of similar films. It's more of a one-off.
But anyway, that was several years ago, it stretches the meaning of "recent".
Well you either remove all the bureaucracy around drug testing and approval and make it cheap to develop a new drug, or you prevent drug makers from making money if they are successful at developing a new molecule. But if you do both, all you will get is zero research. Right now it takes 10s of billions in R&D budget to bring new molecules to the market, which is insane.
Or you pay them directly. Most countries have research funding. Since there's no way to know what you'll find or how long it will take, research doesn't fit well in the capitalist model. Makes much more sense to apply a fixed effort and accept whatever results come out, but only the government can do that — or a rich monopoly like Bell.
Most enterprises have fully encrypted workstations, when they don't use VM where the desktop is just a thin client that doesn't store any data. So there should be really nothing of interest in the office itself.
Electricity doesn't travel continents the way shipping containers do. So it's not like anyone wants to build a wind farm and wonders where in the world they are going to place it. Plus if you are a major single customer (eg datacenter, factory), you need reliable energy, so would be odd to build a wind farm. As far as I am aware wind farms only makes sense when you sell to the grid, and where there is an alternative on demand source of energy to take over the weeks there is no wind.
> So it's not like anyone wants to build a wind farm and wonders where in the world they are going to place it.
No, but there's demand everywhere. So it's all down to how likely you are to get your money back?
And this is for adding power to the grid, if you have a major single customer you're already adding a ton of risk to your project... What if the datacenter is no longer needed after a few years or isn't completed ever?
It's a double edge sword. If the Boss has decided that the country should do X, it's much harder to make him reverse course if it's a bad direction. Zero covid and return to good old communism are two recent examples. For all their flaws and ineffectiveness, democracies are self correcting.
Stupid question: datacenters need water for cooling right? But they don't boil that water, ie it comes out of the datacenter just a little warmer? If that is the case does it matter to the city? The warmer water can still be used for agriculture or any other common usage.
There are multiple ways. Closed loops, well not big deal you fill up and there is slight evaporation losses, but you could ship that in in tanker truck maybe once every few years.
Next is open loop cooling using secondary loop. Take a river, lake or sea. Pump some water from it, pass through heat exchanger and pump back out. Manageable for most of the year. Worse version is pump ground water and return it to these. Depletes the ground water...
And finally evaporative cooling. Which is boiling, but not at boiling point. Water goes to sky. No immediate return to local ground water or downstream the river... In this case you actually do in sense use up the water. Kinda like burning fossil fuels returns co2 to atmosphere. It will later turn to biomass, but that is a separate cycle.
The CO2 cycle is problematic because of timelines. We are releasing millions of years of CO2 accumulation.
Rain is more of a location problem. The evaporated water returns as rain quickly, but maybe somewhere else, such as over ocean. And the aquifer compresses and loses water retention ability.
It's not a stupid question but: technically, after passing through Google's facility that is now gray water, and you can't use that for agriculture or any other 'common usage' without a whole raft of work and you can't just dump it into the aquifer either.
But if it just went through some heat exchangers, it's not like if it was dirty? As far as I know, nuclear power plants return the water they consume to the rivers they extracted it from.
Heat exchangers could easily contaminate the water. If they're not kept hot enough they could be breeding ground for Legionella and a whole raft of other bacteria. Clean water is science, not just a matter of bulk pumping stuff from one place to another (though that's definitely a part of it). Water treatment plants are complex and have a ton of QA on their product. You can't just run it into a factory and pretend it is the same stuff going in modulo some increase in temperature.
But you are talking about drinking water. I would be surprised if they even use that for cooling. But any non human consumption use of water (like agriculture) should happily use that water, shouldn't it?
No, agriculture has fairly strict standards about the quality of the water, they can't use gray water to irrigate. Of course it will still work but depending on where you live the produce may then no longer be fit for human consumption.
You can use it for irrigating your lawn but not for vegetables, especially not if you plan on selling them. But 'light' gray water requires relatively little treatment before you can use it again, however this could still be quite expensive compared to just letting it go. I wonder if they've done any quantitative research on this that's public.
That's very interesting, thanks! I had no idea that legionella risk was a thing for data centers. This article mentions that to avoid the risk most data centers treat the water with disinfectants which are sometimes toxic:
They're really nasty bacteria and once in a system they are hard to get rid of because then you have to heat everything to temperatures that the system normally might never reach.
That's why central heating systems that run 'low' every now and then stoke up to 60 degrees or more on the secondary circuit for tap water.
And data centers are the perfect location, endless 35 to 45 degree water. Cooling towers are the main problem for this, another is aerosols of water that has been sitting in the sun for a while, for instance in a garden hose exposed to the sun.
This is America. Our toilets use _clean potable water_ to flush our shit.
Drinking water from the mains is metered, so it is observable from the business perspective. Life finds a way. Heat exchangers and datacenter plumbing absolutely breed life and put things into the water that were not there when it was pumped in.
Imagine if a datacenter used a shady supplier of pipe that used, say, lead in their alloy. Do you want that datacenter grey water going into crops?
Do you think that water that the water that flows from kitchen sink and water that flushes in the toilet in normal house/apartment come from different pipes in any other place of the world?
The water from the lake isn't drinking water either, it is contaminated with all sort of stuff including dead animals and animals excrements. But it doesn't mean it is not suitable for agriculture.
Yes, but that does not mean it is now clean water. Anything could happen between the moment Google ingests it and spits it back out, the assumption that it is 'just' a little warmer is nice but it misses the option of for instance contamination from a secondary circuit or various substances leaching into the water used as a coolant.
It’s gray water, and just as how I can’t dump gray water from my RV camper into the river, neither can a data center. After running through a heat exchanger there can be all kinds of crap in that water.
Data centers and power plants can and do return cooling water from a river back to the same river but warmer. What do you think is inside their heat exchangers but metal and water?
What do you think is inside their heat exchangers but metal and water?
It's a bad idea to drink hot water from the tap because of the concentration of metals that accumulate in the water heater. Don't assume that a little metal in your water is perfectly safe. As for agriculture, now the metals can concentrate in your lettuce.
And, as other commenters have pointed out, what else is in there? How about Legionnaires Disease?
How is that different from the metal pipes through which drinking water goes through to reach your kitchen tap, some of which are over 100 years old if you live in the UK? The contact with metal shouldn't be the problem in itself. Legionnaires disease either, the water from the river isn't drinking water to start with and the water out of the datacenter wouldn't be drinking water either.
When you start of with 'a stupid question' and people then give you lots of reasonable answers and you persist with more such questions at some point you cause me to doubt if you were really asking your first question in good faith.
I apologize for not humbly submitting to the first comment on HN. If I gave the impression that you were not the ultimate authority on this topic, I certainly did not intend to do so. I should know better than to oppose common sense on a topic that is way over my head.
I'm definitely not the ultimate authority on this subject or any other but you are either interested and want to know about this or you can keep putting up objections that are masked as questions which seems to be what you are doing.
The main reason we are talking about this is because 'environmentalists' (which in itself gives a hint about the levels of expertise) are worried, they are not worried for no reason. Listing a multitude of reasons should at least make you pause about whether or not they are sincere in their concern.
The degree to which industry would wreck the environment if we let it is by now very well documented. But the EPA has been gutted and lots of safeguards have been abandoned in the name of 'progress'. This is not without risk and I am very happy that in spite of all this a lot of people are still willing to speak up and to make sure that at least the worst excesses are curbed.
You can approach this with curiosity to try to learn about the subject and to try to understand what drives the worry of people that have studied this stuff for a long time. These are not just idle musings. Or you can put up a barrage of questions effectively casting doubt on anything that might be of concern.
The problem with environmentalists is that it is full of militants that aren't engineers and have very strong opinions that don't pass the most cursory smell test.
I am all open to there being problems with re-using water used to cool datacenters (hence my question). But 1) "it boils" defies common sense, no component in a computer should run at >100 degree celcius continuously, so I find it hard to believe that datacentres boil water (and I would have noticed the big cooling tower on the side of them). 2) Legionnaire disease is certainly a big deal in residential buildings with stagnant warm water, sitting in pipes sometimes for days until someone takes a shower. I fail to see how it is a major issue for a continuously flowing industrial application where the water spends very little time at elevated temperature and is continuously flowing before being released into colder water. 3) "contact with metal is bad" certainly doesn't come from someone who has seen the water supply chain in the UK or any European country with ancient infrastructures. Many of which are still made of lead. 4) "water is then not suitable for human consumption", well neither is the water in a lake. All drinking water has been filtered and sterilised. I would be surprised water used for cooling has been treated that way. So unclear to me why there would be any expectation that the water coming out of a datacenter should be any cleaner than the water coming out of a lake.
Now there is common sense, and there are regulations. The two often form a perfectly disjoint venn diagram. So I am happy to believe that there are regulations resulting in absurd situations. But from an actual risk point of view, I don't see how a datacenter "consumes" water, in any comparable way than a swimming pool, agriculture, chemical plants, or gardening, where the water cannot be used for anything else after that. To me it is more akin to a nuclear power plant, which releases water at a slightly higher temperature (despite actually boiling it), and therefore has a fairly limited impact on the water supply.
> it comes out of the datacenter just a little warmer
Exact values matter. Some power plants had been found dumping +10 C water into lakes/rivers, while they had permit only for +5, and it totally destroyed local ecosystem. And most efficient (in terms of money) is evaporation cooling, where at least part of water is "lost".
A lot of it gets converted to water vapor in the evaporative coolers, so it doesn't flow out -- it becomes humidity or clouds. The coolers do also produce waste water, but with all the minerals left behind after evaporation it's not suitable for drinking.
Not if you compare states with similar levels of economic development, like US states or EU countries.
Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma have around 50% wind and 10 cent electricity.
When comparing EU states, the correlation is more about who taxes electricity and who builds wind. Comparing pre-tax prices has a very slight downward trend as the country has more wind.
You see a lot of propaganda graphs online that have the EU states clustered in the top right and a cluster of unlabelled Petro states and dictatorships who subsidize electricity in the other quadrant.
The intended implication is that you should emulate the countries they are afraid to name because it would make their graph ridiculous.
To add to the list: on iOS, if your music library is mp3s transfered on the phone with itunes, iOS randomizes the artwork of the mp3s, so a song will show a completely different artwork. Have experienced that for years, on multiple devices and across versions of iOS.
reply