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 would like to have a discussion of the season finale and season as a whole of Silo with other book readers who know the overarching plot. Non book readers are welcome obviously, but spoilers will be here.

Overall, would watch season 2. I wanna know what ends up happening.

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.

First It was mentioned that, there are 12 of them. If one dies there memory is uploaded and another gets activated, I thought it was somewhat like cylo in star wars. later, we see all of them operating together, so they sync continously or at certain period? I'm wondering how do they actually work, in data sharing/sync scenario?

PS. My heart weeps for firefly.

I just finished a show, and it, like a lot of shows that I've watched recently, ended rather abruptly. As soon as "the point of the show" concluded, so did the show itself. I don't know if this is a more recent trend or just something I've noticed recently, but I find nine times out of ten I really dislike it. It feels like they just don't give the viewers a chance to sit with the ending and this universe they've come to love. No time to sit and enjoy the view from the peak, no last drink with the friends you made along the way, no five years later "where are they now?". Just a kind of ambiguous ending that can be taken either way and a feeling of "there's gotta be one more episode right?"

Do people actually enjoy this? I feel like they must because how often I see it in movies and TV, but at the same time, I sorta just feel like it's a cheap way to add some depth to the ending without actually pinning yourself down to actually ending the show/movie. If people wanted it to end with A they can read into the ending that A happened, if they wanted B, same case.

Would anyone who watches more TV than I do (not hard) like to help me pick some shows for my parents to watch? On their own they just watch whatever's on cable/satellite channels and don't enjoy it very much. They're conservative-leaning boomers, but I like to give them subtly progressive stuff. In the past they have praised The Good Place (but, crucially, lost interest before the end of season 2). They really loved the first two seasons of Ted Lasso (will watch the third one soon) and of Only Murders In the Building (I believe they'll watch season 3 of that as well, when it's out).

Some more information about their tastes: Probably no recurring kid stuff whatsoever (a side character or two in their late teens are probably fine). Good humor is fine but nothing that gets too goofy (might be why The Good Place was dropped). Nothing that's too heavily horror or mystery; no police procedurals (Only Murders was skirting that line). Anything that feels like generic, quintessential hollywood will probably be rejected outright (european shows will get more of a pass). And definitely, absolutely, not a hint of high fantasy, sci-fi or space travel of any kind. Some light romance is good; travel is good; places around the world instead of LA-is-everything.

I'm looking for modern shows with good writing and actors, don't necessarily have to be famous. Modern shows - especially shows made for streaming - are more likely to have portuguese subtitles available, which are a must.

Thanks!

EDIT: A clarification re: children - My parents love children. They have toddler grandkids and spend an unreasonable amount of time with them. They're just the kind of TV watchers who aren't at all interested in kid POV/kid centric episodes, because they don't identify with their worries and dramas anymore, so these quickly make them lose interest. I know there are people right here on tildes who feel the same way.

It's still OK for children to exist in the story, though. Don't overthink it too much :)

One of my favorite subreddits was about the show "The Leftovers". I don't know anyone in real life that has watched it and seeing what people thought while watching the show / after their first watch was great.

So, has anyone here seen the show and what are your thoughts about it?

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 recently finished the second season of a hilarious but little-known Canadian animated TV show called Gary and His Demons about a middle-aged, "Chosen One" demon slayer who just wants to retire. The amount of laughs, charm, and animation quality that this show packs into each episode's less than 10 minute run time truly blew my expectations away. I originally stumbled upon it while browsing Mondo Media's channel on the now-defunct VRV animation app and now, tragically, the show is not available to stream anywhere in the US currently. But, it got me thinking...

If I have a few favorite niche shows that are difficult to access or stream, then surely others do as well. I was also inspired by this thread about similarly obscure video games.

The other show that immediately comes to mind for me is GameCenter CX, a precursor to the traditional "Let's Play", in which Shinya Arino, a Japanese comedian, attempts to clear brutal retro games in one sitting. I randomly came across the show while searching for unique Nintendo DS titles and browsing the Wikipedia page for "Retro Game Challenge", a curious title that I assumed was shovelware. The game is actually very good and now the show is one of my favorite cozy and comfortable shows to just chill out to.

So, what are your favorite treasured and unique TV shows? I'm looking for mostly for shows that are not easily available on traditional streaming services or physical media, but feel free to suggest very underrated shows as well!

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.

The 16th season of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia started airing last night and is now available for streaming on Hulu too! What did y'all think about the new episodes?

Please make sure to provide warnings for any spoilers you may post! If you want to hide your spoilers, please follow the formatting tips at https://docs.tildes.net/instructions/text-formatting#expandable-sections to hide them under expandable sections. Thank you!

Having finished out the Amazon Prime series "The Expanse" I'm now working my way through the novels and I keep coming up against a problem with with railguns. Specifically, the way that railguns are used in The Expanse doesn't mesh well with the way they're portrayed.

First, some background. Ships in The Expanse are generally unarmored. There are a bunch of reasons for this but the short version is "most things that can hit you in space will kill you anyway" and armor adds mass which makes every manuver more expensive in terms of reaction mass. So no one has armor. This is important because it means that ships in the Expanse can get ripped up by something as mundane as a stray bullet from a Point Defense Cannon (PDC). PDCs are... well, they're guns. Regular guns which are flinging around much less mass and at much lower velocities than railguns.

Thus, ships in the Expanse are equipped to handle impacts but nothing much bigger than a sand-grain moving at a few km/s.

When we're introduced to rail-guns in the series we're given to understand that they use magnetic acceleration to chuck a 5kg chunk of tungsten and/or uranium at a target at an "appreciable percentage of C." That's much faster than a bullet or any micrometeors ships are likely to encounter. Even 1% of C is ~3,000 km/s.

5 kg of Tungsten is less than you think. Some back of the envelope math suggests that's about cube about 2.6 inches on a side... which is not big. That works out to an incredible energy density which would make a lot of sense if railguns were routinely being fired at planets or asteroids but, since they seem to mainly target ships, the vast, vast majority of the energy that goes into flinging that slug at its target is going to carry through to the other side of the ship.

All total we're talking about 488.5 million Newtons of force for 1% of the speed of light. Helpfully, this scales roughly lineraly so long as we don't get too close to C and induce relativistic mass issues, so 10% of C is 4.8 billion Newtons and so on. So, that railgun slug is carrying a lot of energy. At 1% of C it represents 22.5 trillion joules of kinetic energy. Written out long-ways so we can appreciate all those zeros it's 22,500,000,000,000 J. At 10%, we're talking 2.25 quadrillion joules. To give some sense of scale, that means that, at 1% of C, three rail-gun slugs are delivering about as much energy as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. At 10% of C one round carries about 537 kilotons, or about the yield of a modern, city-busting hydrogen bomb.

Those are absolutely titanic amounts of energy but, realistically, they'll never deliver that much power to a target. After all, a railgun round can only push on its target as hard as the target can push back on it. If the round just punches through the entire ship like it's made of paper, most of the energy stays in the railgun slug as it exits the other side of the ship and you get a neat hole rather than a gigantic flash as trillions of joules of kinetic energy turn into heat.

And obviously, if we're trying to kill things, we want the latter. The solution to this problem is fairly obvious: you need fragmentation. While it's great to have a tungsten cube all tightly packed together as you accelerate it, if you're shooting at a ship, you want a fairly diffuse impact, especially if we're talking about a 10% of C railgun slug. There aren't a lot of things out there in the solar system which can take 500 kilotons of hate and come out the other side in one piece. Moreover, at the distances at which a rail-gun fight happens, that spread would help ensure that you hit your target. Like a shotgun loaded with birdshot, a fragmenting railgun round would provide a cone of impact rather than a line, making dodges less effective.

And, as I mentioned earlier, you don't need a ton of mass to make this work. If a PDC round can go straight through a military craft then we can safely assume that a chunk of tungsten with the same kinetic energy will do the same thing. PDCs look rather a lot like the close in weapons systems in use on many naval ships today so we'll use those as a guide. The 20mm cannon on a Phallanx CWIS tosses out rounds at about 1,035 m/s. Those rounds weigh about 100 g (0.1 kg) which gives them a kinetic energy at the muzzle of 53,422 J.

So, if we could predictably shatter our 1% C railgun round into 421,136 pieces, each would have about the same kinetic energy as a PDC round and be able to hole the ship. At 10% C we could go even smaller and do the same thing with upwards of 40 million shards. 1% is plenty though. Each hull-penetrating piece of our original 5 kg bullet needs only weigh about 1/100th of a gram, which works out to being about 1/100th of the size of a grain of sand.

Put another way, if the fragmentation of a rail round could be precisely controlled, a target ship would experience hundreds of thousands of individual hull breaches with the mean distance between them determined only by the geometry of the ship and the angle of the attack. The result of this would be either the delivery of a titanic amount of energy to the ship itself as the armor attempts to absorb the impact or, if no armor is present (as seems to be the case in the Expanse) the rapid conversion of the interior of the ship to a thin soup.

This, however, seems never to happen in the series and what leaves me scratching my head. As a book and TV series, The Expanse does an otherwise bang-up job with hard science fiction. Most things in universe make sense. This, however, does not. We have take as a given that the materials science technology exists to allow the mounting and firing of a railgun on a ship -- there are a lot of challenges there -- but the straight-line-of-fire use of them is a rare problem with the world-building.

Any fans have any suggestions to help me square this circle?