http://nerdist.com/wp-content/upload...l-07312016.jpg

So I saw the pilot of Stan against Evil...
People say: oh no, it's a clone of Evil Dead,and with that guy from Scrubs.. it will also be a clone of scrubs.
And it is. And when it gets it right, it's AMAZING. Several times though.. well, it doesn't.
Still, it's only the pilot, I remember just how underwhelmed I was by the 1st episode of GoT ;)
Evil Dead fans should give this a try, Scrubs fans too as Stan is very similar to dr Cox.
The biggest flaw I have noticed, and it's one that they might not be able to actually deal with, is that the show follows the sitcom time format and this .. well, it seems to be problematic as there is simply not enough time per episode to fully flesh out the details and characters.
So, tl;dr: 1st episode made me literally lol several times, but several times it was just bad. Hopefully the series will get better because it has a ton of potential.

Planet Earth II

Enjoyed the first program. Vowels I think you would like this.

The baby dragons outrunning the snakes :cool:. The snakes :eek:, stuff of nightmares.

I just started Black Mirror because everyone I've ever met is talking about it. The 3rd episode of Season 3 (with the kid who has malware on his laptop) really ****ed me up. Incredible writing and acting in every episode I've seen so far, but some really intense **** goes on. I couldn't binge watch it.

im the same way. I watch one and then sit with for a few days before being able to watch another. I think that's a good thing tho

The multilevel marketing episode of John Oliver was an easy target, but a great episode nonetheless.

That episode hit too close to home. So while it was good I guess. I didn't enjoy it at all.

I love John Oliver, but I feel like his critiques have lost a bit of bite in the last year. Maybe it's a factor of exposure to the type of jokes and running gags on the show, but I feel like most of the stories haven't fully eviscerated their subjects like they used to. Like Oliver's piece on Science. He barely even skimmed the surface of the problems in science and there were some places where I felt he even misinformed viewers to a degree. Or the segment he did on the Canadian election last October (mostly just shallowly mocked the candidates; didn't even talk about their policy).

How so in the science one? I remember feeling like he left some important info out that could have been presented alongside the negatives to give a more realistic representation of the massive field.

If I'm being honest, I usually skip the closing joke sketch whatever they usually do. I like Oliver for his reporting more than his comedy, though he has slacked on that a few times as you point out.

If I remember correctly, he just kind of grazed p-hacking and barely mentioned the bias present in peer review, and didn't really get to how the tenure system causes biased writing, review, and publication of results, how journals rely on p-values to determine whether to publish results (despite the fact that most scientists even misunderstand what they're for).

He didn't get to how the funding for grants is determined in a biased manner, and that same funding is drying up every year, so certain types of studies which provide really valuable information but take longer to perform aren't getting done. He didn't talk about the importance of replication studies or why nobody in science does them, or how in social science, a shocking number of studies aren't replicating but are still treated and disseminated as fact.

He also didn't get to the very human problems in science--not just biased writing and peer review processes, but a competitive structure that has its students (undergrad through post-doc) working progressively longer hours for progressively lower wages, which is resulting in a very real burnout problem and high rates of depression/anxiety in its researchers at every level.

And then there are the issues with knowledge translation and informing the public--academics generally make no effort at all to inform the public, only other academics (because your tenure, publication status, and grants are in part based on how frequently other researchers cite your work), so valuable information about, for instance, whether or not culturally-adapted health services are any more effective than the normal ones never makes it to the public, to policymakers, or practitioners, and then those people continue to funnel millions of dollars into programs that do not clearly work. Further, we leave it up to journalists (with less experience in technical jargon and the scientific method) to report our findings, and that results in catastrophic misunderstandings and bull**** like "eating chocolate will kill your baby" or "if you read a book a day you'll live ten years longer".

And all of these problems contribute to the biggest problem of all: Science is rigorous in theory, but not in practice, and we can't trust it just because it's science.

Been re-watching season 1 of The Twilight Zone. Great stuff that mostly still holds up really well.