Okay, I've devoted my last few blogs to wonderful science news... and ongoing not-so-wonderful arguments over how to get max benefits and minimize the harms from 'generative artificial intelligence,' as the mélange of chatGPT/Bard/LLM-golems are now being called.
(Alas, and I say this with love: any emerging super AI would look at the insipid level of discussion going on right now and conclude there's little sapience to emulate, here on Planet Earth!)
Anyway, for my own health and yours, let's turn to a less-infuriating topic. Time for a political posting! Let's start with the so-called "election steal"...
== Thieves think everyone else does it, too ==
Latest word is that half of the saps who signed on to be on Trump's slates of shill 'alternate electors' are now turning state witness for immunity. Fine. Anything to push this along.
Trumpian claims of a 2020 election ‘steal’ are so weird! Most of the places where it supposedly happened were in Red States where Republicans controlled the offices with real power over elections – governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General. So what's the rationale, again?
The scenario is that somehow Democrat Mayors of those states’ large cities concocted a cabal that cheated on a massive scale, fooling all the State-controlled employees and veteran senior citizen volunteer poll workers. Moreover they did so perfectly! In a coordinated putsch that left zero real evidence. (Again, those red attorney generals would have pounced, if there were any. Any at all.)
Okay so, we're to believe a whole passel of pathetic mayors did this - far better than any operation by any spy agency in human history - without a single participant being motivated by patriotism – or huge whistleblower rewards offered by Fox etc. -- to denounce with evidence and collect those big prizes? Wow, that's some scenario!
Throw in vote-flipping voting machines. Dig it, that indeed used to happen... in red states that used notorious machines without paper ballots or receipts that might allow a hand audit. That travesty quietly ended during the Obama Administration and today almost all places in the U.S. use paper that's then read by the voting machine. This, in turn, allows post-election hand audits of suspicious (or random) precincts. You might recall when Arizona Republicans tried to do just that, with the "cyber ninjas" in Maricopa County. Much to their embarrassment when Biden's net total went UP by a very small amount?
Which is weirder? That this illogic keeps recurring? Or that democrat politicians are too polemically dim to make the point as clearly as I just did?
== Weirder ==
What’s the weirdest aspect? That millions of flat-out imbeciles across our highly educated country clutch these KariLake / MikeLindell yammers desperately, like religious catechisms, without ever, ever, ever having the maturity to get fed up with promises of evidence “next week.” See “Kari Lake carries election denier banner across Iowa amid divided GOP.”
No surprise to those of us who spent 2+ years demanding to see the 'proof' Lindell and others raved that they had and would release 'next week.' Like Trump's "great US health care plan to replace Obamacare!!!" that he literally said "you'll see next week!" scores of times.
Or "You'll do your taxes on a card!"
Or "I'll show you all the financials!"
Or "Putin is smart, so very smart!"
Oh and here's a slam dunk I have never seen applied to this mess. Where are those 'love letters" Trump exchanged with Kim Jong Un?
They are property of the U.S. archives and the people of the US. It is the most explicit case of a state document - openly touted BY Trump - that was never handed over. Stolen, in fact. Have any of you even heard a peep about that?
Probably some advisers took one look at the letters and cried 'burn them!'
Um, okay. Here's another 'why does no dem say it?' Why, after putting us through years of "Obamacare is terrible!" do we hear nothing about it or even the O-word, from McCarthy & McConnell and them all? Could it be because Obamacare works and is now hugely popular? Or because folks might ask: "Where is that Trump-care plan we were promised 'next week'?"
Heck after 3 years, will you go ahead and indict Hunter Biden already? You have 60% of state attorneys general and had J Durham, Trump/Barr's Special Prosecutor.
Maybe Hunter WILL get indicted for something. Fine. Meanwhile, though, grand Juries across America have indicted almost a hundred times as many GOP factotums as Democrats. Demand your uncle BET $$$ on that. He will flee.
Heckfire, let's compare - transparently - HB's entire life to any randomly chosen month of Donald Trump Junior. Seriously, let’s start a bi-partisan campaign to get BOTH Trump and Biden to order utter transparency from their sons. And while we’re at it, let’s compare war hero and great guy Beau Biden to Eric?
“By his fruits you shall know him.”
Oh, one lie that’s circulating: … that disgraced former counter-intelligence FBI lead in New York had been opposed to Donald Trump. In fact McGonigal’s paymaster in Moscow was the same one who recruited as Russian agents Michael Flynn and Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort and Rudy Giuliani and a dozen others.
Only in a twist, it appears that the New York Times may have been complicit… along with Putin pal Jill Stein… in helping Trump achieve his surprise ‘victory’ in 2016. See the Washington Post on: Why Biden's document case is different than Trump's.
Enough ranting from Brin for now. Hang on just a bit.
== Random musings ==
Apparently whole networks of Russian spies are being unravelled by western intelligence agencies, validating my longstanding suspicion that those agencies have long been quietly far more competent than they let on. Alas, what has not cracked yet are two far more important vipers' nests: the world of secret wealth hoards and the kompromat files used to blackmail (likely) hundred in western capitals, especially Washington DC.
== And... Jimmy... ==
Okay, some of you are old enough to recall when presidents both earned and deserved some degree of respectful deference, even from the opposition. Nixon wrecked that, as did Vietnam and hell year 1968.
Still, there was a flicker the first year of Jimmy Carter's term, when a little affectionate humor flowed... attempting to recapture some of the fun of Vaughn Meador's JFK - ribbing First Family records. I just played a little of this one. And here are some sample tracks.
Of course we know the US right was desperate for revenge for Watergate, and conspired with the Ayatollahs to extend the hostage crisis to reward Reagan for favors to come. And since then US politics were never the same, especially after Dennis 'friend to boys" Hastert's 'rule' ended all negotiation in the greatest deliberative body on Earth.
Still, with all the world suddenly rediscovering Carter - at minimum as a profoundly good human being - this little affectionate roast merits remembering.
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225Perhaps of some interest:
https://file770.com/babylon-5-the-road-home-voice-cast-named/
The list is unavoidably shorter than one might wish.
Larry,
"Have a Democratic Treasury and a Republican Treasury"
Might be better, but completely unconstitutional. Funds is funds...of course, there's no mention of parties in the Constitution at all, IIRC.
Off topic, there's a part of section 8 that shows just how worried the drafters of that document were about a standing army...funds could be used:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
I do agree that there's a cycle of Democratic administrations being used as ATMs by succeeding Republican administrations. To use Singaporean slang, watodo? Problem is that one admin can't put funds out of reach of the next, except by spending it.
Pappenheimer
Alfred, my concern is not about "certain billionaires," it is about *all* billionaires.
I'd remove them from the equation entirely. Wealth tax, ruinous tariffs, nationalization, whatever.
If they try to move their wealth away, I would be *punitive* in going after the recipient. Guns and planes. OGH wrote a story about the aftermath of such a war.
I understand that you feel that the oligarchy are required for a solid market. I know as a certainty that they are trying to kill my grandchildren, though. (Yes, all of the oligarchy, even the good ones)
There are no "good billionaires." There are only unacceptable concentrations of power. Until they are brought to heel there can be no future.
You can have THIS MUCH but not more should be a guiding principle. Each penny should be harder to earn.
History tells us very clearly what happens each damn time that a small group of individuals control anything, be it a market, a type of candy, or a game. It wrecks the market.
If your philosophy does not include a braking mechanism for runaway wealth then it is fatally flawed with planet-wide ruin as the outcome. So, what is your braking mechanism for runaway wealth? I've never heard you state one.
I am a barbarian. And I will defend my grandchildren and the place where they live.
Oligarchs beware. We know where you live.
Gregory Byshenk,
I "won't usually argue" because doing so devolves into discussions of what's appropriate. That is all about preferences meaning one rarely finds a way to label things as right or wrong. It's usually not worth the effort.
As for fantasies, I'll just point out that it wasn't long ago that most thought it fantasy that we could govern without Kings. You lack imagination if you aren't occasionally willing to engage in fantasies and then poke at them to see how much of them can be made true.
I'm not asking for you to turn on your government. I'm asking you to stop feeding the lifestyles of rich people who lend the money. Consider NOT spending by balancing the urge against the realization that rentiers live comfortable lives with reliable incomes when you do and then they use that cash to make puppets of some of our elected officials. Consider NOT participating in the cycle.
Matthew
The only good reason for having a "Billionaire" is the idea that a very rich person can take the risks and do the advances that a company with its finances in the hands of people who are "responsible" for other peoples wealth cannot
That is actually a very good argument - but very very very few of todays rich people actually "Fit" that description
About the only one is Elon Musk - and he did his most important "risk taking" back when he was a mere millionaire
Larry,
I think the Bush tax cuts taught Democrats the opposite lesson…
Then it taught you all to be just as bad. That's not something I want carved on my tombstone.
The debt, like the tide, will apparently rise to its natural limit. The only question is what the money is used for.
Ugh. That's exactly the kind of surrender that makes me grind my teeth. Accept that and the rentiers have a cushy, minimal risk life and plenty of cash to create elected puppets.
Maybe it's time to forego the illusion of a joint checking account.
The version you describe is unconstitutional. One Congress cannot bind the next except through amendments to the Constitution.
However, that is kinda my point. Separate the spending so money for certain things must be raised by other entities who do NOT have coercive taxing powers. For example, the transmission grid in much of California is managed by a 'state' corporation which derives its operational income from players in the wholesale market. Many people think it is a state agency, but it isn't. Most importantly, its employees aren't civil servants or elected officials. They can't go on ridiculous spending sprees created by political pressure without the cooperation of the wholesale electricity market. They CAN change their rates, but many of the market players are actual state, county, and city entities. They CAN'T do it without consequences that COULD be imposed upon them.
Matthew,
I'd remove them from the equation entirely.
I know. You'd steal their money.
Sadly, I think that would be worse… unless you can point to a particular 'cheat' that we all (90%+) agree is immoral. You'd kill the golden goose to prevent her from pooping on things.
———
Each penny should be harder to earn.
That SOUNDS good, but when you work out how to do that without creating tyrants, please let me know.
———
If your philosophy does not include a braking mechanism for runaway wealth then it is fatally flawed…
If yours includes resorting to evil to fight evil then we are all screwed anyway. Your path is illiberal.
I AM in favor of a breaking mechanism, but not one that involves stealing. Force the rentiers out of the cushy bond market and the other riskier markets will deal with them the way they usually do. Investments should be subject to market approvals AND rejections, so I'm asking you to consider rejecting the issuance of cushy, low risk bonds by government entities that are subject to being bought by the rich lenders who fund our bad habits.
———
I am a barbarian. And I will defend my grandchildren and the place where they live.
Good. I approve. Now please consider pointing your weapons in the right direction.
Alfred Differ:
"I think the Bush tax cuts taught Democrats the opposite lesson…"
Then it taught you all to be just as bad. That's not something I want carved on my tombstone.
Then what do you suggest? I mean, the problem I described is real. If Democrats forgo our goals in order to be fiscally responsible, and then Republicans just spend the savings for their own priorities, then what does anyone (except Republicans) gain? All it does is make voters give up on Democrats because they never do anything progressive.
I mean seriously, what was the point of paying down the debt in the 90s so that Bush could cut taxes and enrich Haliburton? If the debt is going to be raised no matter what, I'd rather at least have the money spent for good instead of evil.
Your point seems to be that "the debt will be raised" anyway is learned helplessness, but I don't hear any suggestions other than "Don't be the one to raise it," implying that the national debt is a more important issue than anything else. I deny that reality.
"Maybe it's time to forego the illusion of a joint checking account."
The version you describe is unconstitutional. One Congress cannot bind the next except through amendments to the Constitution.
Is that learned helplessness I hear? "Always with you, it cannot be done."
Tax bgreaks on direct investment in productive equipment and captial work. They do everything Supply Siders promised would happen and did not, with their tax grifts for rentier lords.
Alfred Differ said...
As for fantasies, I'll just point out that it wasn't long ago that most thought it fantasy that we could govern without Kings. You lack imagination if you aren't occasionally willing to engage in fantasies and then poke at them to see how much of them can be made true.
As illustrated by what I wrote in my last comment (and really by many things I've written), I am indeed willing to engage in imagining alternatives and how they might work out. But things can become something more than mere fantasy only when someone is able and willing to propose some ideas about how that fantasy world would actually work.
The problem in this case is that we've seen how things get funded when that funding is dependent upon the wishes of the wealthy. Some good things are funded, but also many that are less good (to be charitable), and many things that would be valuable to society are not funded at all.
Your argument here seems to be that the state should stop issuing debt to fund collectively-agreed-upon priorities because that allows the wealthy to be rentiers. Instead, we as a society should simply throw ourselves on the tender mercies of the wealthy and what they choose to fund, or have other (non-state?) entities issue bonds (at higher rates!) to those wealthy rentiers. What problem is this supposed to solve?
I'm not asking for you to turn on your government. I'm asking you to stop feeding the lifestyles of rich people who lend the money. Consider NOT spending by balancing the urge against the realization that rentiers live comfortable lives with reliable incomes when you do and then they use that cash to make puppets of some of our elected officials. Consider NOT participating in the cycle.
I'm not sure who you you think you are talking to, here. Leftists would be quite happy to do this, and have other ideas for funding state spending. Moderates, for example US Democrats, have done more than just to "consider" not spending, and in fact have actually reduced borrowing - only to have the right blow gigantic holes in the budget whenever they have the opportunity (as others have already pointed out). As Larry suggests, how is your suggestion here different in practice from: "we can spend only on right-wing priorities"?
While y'all talk socio-economics, fungi appear to be talking about the weather.
I mean seriously, what was the point of paying down the debt in the 90s so that Bush could cut taxes and enrich Haliburton? If the debt is going to be raised no matter what, I'd rather at least have the money spent for good instead of evil.
The point was that the money wasn't wasted on the wrong sort, but rather ended up with those who deserved it. (Yes, sarcasm.)
A generation ago Ontario elected an NDP government, which was a bit surprise to everyone including the NDP. (For reference to Americans, the NDP are to the left of Bernie Sanders. Your political spectrum, not to mention discourse, is truncated on the left.) They naturally started doing NDP things, like raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, enforcing safety and environmental standards, spending on preventative medicine and education, building infrastructure, and so on.
The people behind the financial markets decided that this increased spending was unsustainable and irresponsible, and lowered the province's bond rating. This resulted in increased interest charges, that were actually higher than the increased spending would have been, so Ontarians ended up giving money that would have been spent on improvements for everyone (and ended up in Ontarians pockets) to mostly-foreign investment banks.
Apparently the province could afford to spend more money, as long as it was going to the right pockets.
Will Rogers had the right of it: "Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands."
Robert:
The point was that the money wasn't wasted on the wrong sort, but rather ended up with those who deserved it. (Yes, sarcasm.)
That might well have been the Republicans' point. I didn't think it was Alfred's. So I wanted him to address why he thinks Democrats are just as bad as Republicans if they learned the lesson that fiscal responsibility by one side is pointless if the other side--the one who pays the most lip service to it--won't play. "Fool me twice...we won't be fooled again."
And while we're at it...
Alfred Differ:
One Congress cannot bind the next except through amendments to the Constitution.
Then the debt ceiling--currently conceived as binding on the budget--is unconstitutional and should be ignored. There, I've run rings around ya logic'ly.
Now that ink is being spilled in describing the debt ceiling concept, it is clear that what was passed in 1917 was not meant as a limit on the treasury's ability to borrow, but just the opposite. When the US was entering WWI, the government has no idea what expenditures would be involved in the first time fighting such a war. So rather than Congress having to approve each individual was expenditure, they gave the president what effectively resembles a line of credit. "We approve a billion dollars (or whatever at that time) that you can spend without requiring permission first."
The clear implication was that if more was needed for the war effort, Congress would then have to approve an increase (and certainly would). And for at least a decade before Gingrich, congress operated under the paradigm of "deem and pass", which meant that when congress passes a budget in which spending is greater than revenue, they are deemed to have (thereby) approved the additional borrowing required. A separate requirement to explicitly raise the amount required by that budget is an attempt to repeal mathematics.
The NY Times remains clueless about the deficit...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/opinion/columnists/biden-debt-ceiling.html
Given the historical circumstances, President Biden should absolutely negotiate with Republicans over a debt reduction deal. Yes, Republicans are being reckless. But the central truth remains: We need to bring down deficits so that we have the flexibility and resources to handle the storms that lie ahead.
This is exactly how I felt in the 90s, and this is exactly what I was saying that we learned did not work after the 90s. If we bring down deficits to "have the flexibility and resources to handle the storms that lie ahead,", we don't end up having that flexibility and those resources because the next Republican congress--or a congress held hostage by Republican filibusters--gives those resources away in tax cuts and government contracts.
The common narrative is that Democrats are the ones addicted to inflationary spending, but who was it that cut taxes while fighting two wars? Or cut taxes and increased the military budget beyond what the Pentagon was even requesting?
One of the few times I managed to make a right-wing fellow airman stop and think was by noting, "so the Global War on Terror is important enough to spend vast sums of money on, but not important enough to raise taxes on?"
Similarly, conservatives obsess over deficits but refuse to admit that cancelling the Trump tax cuts, or even allowing them to expire, would make a more significant reduction in the deficit than anything in the current House budget plan. Let a thousand schoolchildren go hungry, let a thousand veterans suffer delayed care, before a single billionaire misses out on the price of a pound of jet fuel for their Lear.
Pappenheimer
By the way, my son noted that the Microsoft-funded fusion power plant discussed earlier envisions drawing electric power from plasma compression - presumably through conductive elements placed within the plasma itself.
Pappenheimer
Robert quotes Will Rogers:
But he didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands."
I've been essentially saying that for years, but I didn't know anyone more famous had said it so long ago.
gregory byshenk,
You are taking the extreme version of what I'm implying as if that was my intent. Please stop doing that. Even if it WAS my intent, there is no way it would happen anyway. Y'all wouldn't agree.
What I'm pitching is a pull back and shift. Get your preferred activities funded and operated outside government agencies as much as can reasonably be done.
As Larry suggests, how is your suggestion here different in practice from: "we can spend only on right-wing priorities"?
Larry has also voiced the opinion that is isn't worth trying BECAUSE the right blows gigantic holes in the budget later.
———
I would encourage you to look at this from the perspective of a legislator. Most of the time, when their constituents want to talk to them there are just two things that are going to happen.
1. "Please intervene in the way the Executive is handling a certain matter involving me or my relative."
2. "Please support a bill that spends money on my preferred priority."
The second one comes in an alternate negative form where one asks them to oppose spending on someone else's priority, but staffers treat them about the same way and just keep a tally.
Robert,
The people behind the financial markets decided that this increased spending was unsustainable and irresponsible, and lowered the province's bond rating.
BINGO!
They are entirely within their rights to talk to each other about default risks. Bond ratings are taken down a notch to indicate that risk. If those ratings are believed by bond buyers, no seller will transact at a better price. Bond sales are voluntary transactions, after all.
Apparently the province could afford to spend more money, as long as it was going to the right pockets.
No. The Province couldn't afford anything because they borrowed money in the first place. Their bond buyers CHOSE not to afford the risk without charging what they thought was the appropriate amount.
Larry,
"Fool me twice...we won't be fooled again."
You're a worse fool if you join them in their evil.
I could say something about two wrongs not making a right, but it sounds useless. Instead I'll suggest you learned the wrong lesson.
Shift some of the spending outside government and the next Congress would have to try to take it back.
Shift the incentives seen by rentiers buy using the Right's beloved tax cuts.
When you don't spend something on a preference, consider shutting down the department and laying people off to make it harder for the next Congress to revive it.
------
Then the debt ceiling--currently conceived as binding on the budget--is unconstitutional and should be ignored.
Heh. Congress can bind the spending of the Executive. That is one of their primary powers. The Executive can probably argue for going around that in emergencies, though, because it is a co-equal branch. Make lots of popcorn (and sell your investments) if it comes to that.
Alfred,
No time to read right now, but I want to thank you for the moral support. I don't think you can really help me any more than you already are. My condition is incurable without some miracle of science. Treatment and education help, but ultimately it's the available sunlight that decides more than anything else how well my brain will work at any given time. I can't do much in the way of work these days. If the boss tells me to do something and I come back three minutes later asking what I was supposed to be doing, a pink slip would be in my near future. I've met people who have bipolar disorder who said they get jobs easily when they are manic, because manic makes super confident, and hiring managers have been trained to think that confidence equals competence (our previous president shoots that idea down). But they lose jobs just as fast, as soon as a depressive episode takes hold.
Making squat for money means I doubt I will ever be able to build my dream eco-house, or even take a vacation any time before I die, but there's nothing you can help me with there - unless you know where I can get a good used brain (I couldn't afford a new one). So just go on being the decent (but argumentative) hominid you are. I'll be fine, sort of.
PSB
Alfred Differ said...
What I'm pitching is a pull back and shift. Get your preferred activities funded and operated outside government agencies as much as can reasonably be done.
And what does this accomplish, practically (assuming one doesn't already buy into the silly idea that "state action is bad")?
Funding has to come from somewhere (assuming something like the current economic system), so that means either depending upon the charity of those with wealth or borrowing from those who have wealth. And borrowing outside of the state will almost invariably involving borrowing at higher rates, which in turn means more rent paid to the rentiers.
Naturally, if there is something that "the market" can deal with effectively, then there is no need for the state to act - other than to ensure the proper functioning of that market. Unfortunately, left to its own devices, "the market" decides that some people don't get health care, or education, or housing, or food, and when "the market" fails in this way, most of us believe that the state should act. (I believe that this is in fact the vast majority, even of Americans - unless someone can convince them that some group of people deserve to suffer.)
Gregory
As Larry suggests, how is your suggestion here different in practice from: "we can spend only on right-wing priorities"?
Alfred
Larry has also voiced the opinion that is isn't worth trying BECAUSE the right blows gigantic holes in the budget later.
Yes, because the actual result of doing so is that the right gets to fund their priorities while the center (lets not even talk about the "left") has to "act responsibly" and not fund their priorities. You have recent experience of this in the US.
I'm a very slow reader, yet I recently decided to re-read (re-skim really) Piers Anthony's MACROSCOPE (a very big novel). It seemed to me that a simple, unified method for SETI would be to build an 'Entropyscope', ie a device that detects local variations (dips) in entropy. I then asked chatGPT if such a device exists. It clearly understood the question, and replied that while no such device currently exists, entropy is measured through statistical means and analysis so the potential is there. I was left with the uneasy feeling that I had just given away a great idea and that OpenAI or the likes will probably announce the commercial release of the first Entropyscopy in the coming years/months/weeks.
onward
onward
OT: Newish SF TV shows
Hello Tomorrow!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello_Tomorrow!
Series Plot: Hello Tomorrow! is set in a retro-future world. It centers around a group of traveling salesmen hawking lunar timeshares
The review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 57% approval rating based on 44 reviews, with an average rating of 6.10/10. The website's critical consensus states, "Hello Tomorrow! is visually striking enough to periodically distract from its rambling story and thinly sketched characters, but overall, this first season fails to live up to its potential."[9] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 60 out of 100 based on 24 critics, indicating "Mixed or average reviews".
Mrs. Davis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Davis
Series Plot: Mrs. Davis is an exploration of faith versus technology - an epic battle of biblical and binary proportions. "Mrs. Davis" is the world's most powerful Artificial Intelligence. Simone is the nun devoted to destroying Her.
Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 90% based on 50 reviews, with an average rating of 8.1/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "Positively bonkers while undergirded by an intelligent design, Mrs. Davis makes Betty Gilpin a hero for modern times in a highly imaginative mixture of spirituality and technology."[18] Metacritic gave the first season a weighted average score of 78 out of 100 based on 22 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[7]
Silo:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silo_(TV_series)
Series Plot: In a ruined and toxic future, a community exists in a giant underground silo that plunges hundreds of stories deep. There, men and women live in a society full of regulations they believe are meant to protect them.
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 85% approval rating with an average rating of 7.4/10, based on 46 critic reviews. The website's critics consensus reads, "With deft writing, awe-inspiring production design and the inestimable star power of Rebecca Ferguson, Silo is a mystery box well worth opening."[26] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 75 out of 100 based on 20 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews ".
Slip:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_(TV_series)
Series Plot: Restless in her marriage, the series follows Mae through a surreal journey of parallel universes, married to different people, trying to find a way back to her partner, and ultimately, herself.
IMDb Rating 6.3/10
Post a Comment