Have you watched any TV shows recently you want to discuss? Any shows you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.

Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.

I have a burner phone for the next month.

(Lately a number of services refuse to accept my google voice number, and I refuse to share my actual number.)

Are there any cool services I should try out that maybe require a phone number to sign up?

This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.

This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.

This thread is posted weekly, and is intended as a place for more-casual discussion of the coronavirus and questions/updates that may not warrant their own dedicated topics. Tell us about what the situation is like where you live!

Photography is a bit of an odd form of art, especially if you're not doing anything 'weird' with it. Occasionally I'll be thinking about photography as a hobby and a bit of dread sets in about how every photograph I could think of has already been taken and done better than I could. And so I think, what is the point? Why do I enjoy photography?

So, after a few highly coherent 3am thinking sessions, I have come to my conclusion. My "philosophy", if you can call it that, behind why I enjoy photography is that I use it as a way to appreciate what I see and the world around me. I don't consider myself an artist because I just use photography as a way to display something beautiful that already existed. (Not that I don't consider other photographers who do similar stuff to me artists, that's just how I view myself.)

If there are any other photographers on here, amateur or professional, I am interested in hearing your beliefs and what meaning you put towards your photography, whether its general or for specific photos.

This is not gonna be a weekly thing or anything. I was just stuck at home thanks to me contracting pink eye, so I got to see two new streaming movies after I had seen the big theatrical release (before I got pink eye).

Bullet Train released this weekend. And although it received mixed reviews, I thought it was quite a bit of fun. It comes from director David Leitch (who was actually Pitt’s stunt double in movies like Fight Club and Troy). He co-directed the first John Wick before going out on his own and directing Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2, and Hobbs and Shaw. With the exception of Hobbs and Shaw all of his films have been hyper stylized and this is no different. I’d actually describe this movie as being a mix of Atomic Blonde (in aesthetic) and Deadpool 2 (in humor). If you don’t like those movies you won’t like this, but personally I love his filmography. This was fun, funny, and super violent with a stand out performance from Aaron Taylor Johnson.

Released straight to streaming this weekend was Prey. A reintroduction of the predator franchise after the disastrous The Predator released four years ago. The film received great reviews and everyone online has been loving it. It’s a great tense thriller. It’s the type of movie that should have been released in theaters but it still kicks ass at home.

Finally, Thirteen Lives released on Amazon Prime after being given a limited release. Thanks to MGM now being owned by Amazon. The Ron Howard film has gotten mostly positive reviews and a good audience response. However, I thought the film was kind of dull and boring. It’s really matter of fact in depicting the event without any drama. There’s actually more tension and drama in the documentary about this event called The Rescue.

So those are the three big movies that came out this weekend.

Falling Down

Runtime: 1h 53m

Budget: $25m

Tomatometer: 75% 6.8/10 (Audience 88% 4/5)

IMDB Rating: 7.6 / 10 - 188k ratings (Top 1000 7.5/10)

Language: English

Streaming: Vudu , Amazon

Michael Douglas plays Foster, a man with 1950's era mentality who is having a really bad day. He just wants to make it across LA in time for his daughters birthday. The increasing setbacks he faces from modern 1990's society see him increasingly break down into a string of violence episodes. But his violence is guided by his 1950's era set of morals. And in spite of Fosters nerdy 50's appearance, he is surprisingly good at the modern violence thing. Does the movie glorify the violent anti-hero? Not so fast.

Robert Duvell plays Prendergast. A retiring cop on desk duty who is the only who connects the violent dots together. But because he is a retiring desk jockey who is clearly too afraid to take on a real cops job, almost no one listens to him. Almost no one. There is one person on the force who knows Prendergast has a lot more going on than people realize.

This story is an interesting analysis of the male psyche under pressure. Foster reacts with anger and aggression. Predergast bends to the point of being a doormat, and he just lies there and takes it.

What the movie uncovers at the end, is there is a middle ground, that handling life's setbacks sometimes requires patience and grace, and sometimes requires assertiveness and boldness, and that wisdom is knowing what you can and should try to change and what you can and should try to accept.

This movie has always been a favorite of mine, because I love a little bit of the old ultra violence, and I love an unusual ending that makes you rethink about the entire movie with a new perspective.

But what is really interesting, is this movie touches on the 1950's era males ideals and expectations men are still raised with today, and the outrage that arises when that sense of entitlement goes unfulfilled.

Out of Death

Runtime: 1h 36m.

Budget: Unknown. Shot over 9 days.

Tomatometer: 0% - "The cryptic title is about the only intriguing facet of this formulaic cat-and-mouse thriller."

IMDB Rating: 3.2 / 10 - 4.9k ratings

Language: English

Streaming: Hulu , Amazon

This movie is bad. The acting is bad. The dialogue is bad. The plot is bad. But it's a good kind of bad, a watchable kind of bad.

This is the last movie Bruce Willis stared in before he announced his retirement due to Aphasia. He filmed all his scenes in one day. It's not easy watching a great actor brought down low. But even on his worst day, he still out acts all the other actors.

I have a work-related ethics question, and I thought the fine people here on tildes were perfect to give feedback. I'll try to be brief but still give all of the information.

Background

I work for an energy utility. This company isn't a charity, but it is a non-profit. We are owned by the people who buy power from us (called "members"). We don't profit off of the electricity we sell to our members, but we do generate extra electricity to sell to other utilities (mostly to for-profit ones). Any profit we make is either set aside for future use or is sent out to the members as a check. Yes, our members actually get a check each year. This cooperative was built to serve rural communities since at that point in history profit-driven companies weren't willing to spend the money to run electricity to these communities. We cover 90% (geographically) of our state, along with portions of a neighboring state. We generate using wind, hydro, solar, coal, and natural gas. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe roughly 30%-40% of our generation comes from renewables, and we now have a dedicated team researching nuclear power (SMNR) and energy storage (which would allow us to further shift to renewables).

Context

There is a PAC (an entity that throws money at politicians in exchange for votes) for rural electric cooperatives that we participate in. This PAC can only accept donations from our members or employees. While the stated purpose is to advocate for rural cooperatives in general, I personally think that largely translates into advocating for fossil fuels.

Every year there is a 10-day period in August where they start asking us employees to donate. Anyone can donate at any time, this is just the time that they emphasize it. Leadership has REPEATEDLY emphasized that there is no pressure and that our supervisors can't see who has and hasn't donated. I've been here nearly five years, and they've said this each time. I know that under the previous CEO (he left ~10 years ago) there was pressure to donate, and that's probably why they emphasize this now.

Issue

I've discovered however that the leadership CAN see information on who has donated and how much. PAC donations are public information, and the names and amounts can be easily seen online if you know where to look. I do believe that my division leader didn't know this, though I can't really know whether the other leadership did or didn't. There's no way to know if any supervisors have looked at this data or made decisions on it. After I brought it up to my division leader he thanked me and said he will send this new information out to our division.

However, communicating this to the rest of the company is beyond his control. He's alerted the people who can do this but what they do is up to them. While my division doesn't really care who donates, I get the impression that other divisions feel differently. IT has a profoundly different culture than the rest of the company. Senior leaders say there's no pressure, but that's not neciserily the case for supervisors and managers. It's been implied to me that the teams that work in power production, transmission planning, etc still have expectations about donations.

What to do?

So here's the core ethics question: Is it unethical for senior leadership to withhold this new information about the visibility of donations from the rest of the company? The assurance of anonymity was intended to reassure us that there would be no retaliation for those who don't donate and that there would be no favoritism for those who do.

Is this just a small thing that's not really important? If this is an issue, how significant is it? It's obviously not "dumping toxic waste in the river" bad, but it still feels like it must have some level (or potential level) of impact. If this is an issue, what actions would you personally take? How much would you be willing to risk taking action on this?

Thanks in advance, I just want to do the right thing.

What have you been listening to this week? You don't need to do a 6000 word review if you don't want to, but please write something! If you've just picked up some music, please update on that as well, we'd love to see your hauls :)

Feel free to give recs or discuss anything about each others' listening habits.

You can make a chart if you use last.fm:

http://www.tapmusic.net/lastfm/

Remember that linking directly to your image will update with your future listening, make sure to reupload to somewhere like imgur if you'd like it to remain what you have at the time of posting.

As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!