'Traditional british tv' has produced some of the best shows to be ever made. The writing, acting and production quality of the 70s-80s classic british shows surpasses anything being produced these days in 4k. Spent so many delectable hours watching old shows from that era, some of them quite obscure. Modern shows feel like mass-produced in an assembly line, devoid of what one would call 'class'.
It's also produced some of the worst. Other channels and services have also produced some of the best and some of the worst. Because it's fairly subjective and there's no accounting for taste.
It feels a bit disingenous to compare a limited number of already very well known classic programs that have survived the test of time against the entire breadth of newer programs (of which there are vastly more in number, so the likelihood of even being seen is much lower).
this kind of take is usually the preserve of nostalgic old men who've just discovered YouTube comments, so I'm surprised to see it rephrased so many times here. if you aren't finding high quality modern British-made TV shows it's because you're not looking or you're unwilling to try new things. Wolf Hall, Line of Duty, Slow Horses, Rivals, Fleabag, Adolescence, Inside no 9, Veep, etc etc etc etc. I could name 10 more. TV is more stratified and yes there are a lot of worthless filler game shows and talk shows, but just as it was in the 70s and 80s, there are plenty of stand-out shows that will last the test of time
you're nitpicking. it's a high class, well-produced, well-acted, British-made TV show, by the BBC, of a very high quality that would be well-regarded in any era (if you ignore the weird racial thing they did in S2)
>Line of Duty
your opinion is absolutely in the minority, which isn't to say it's wrong, but it's a very well regarded, high class show that's widely seen as well above "decent procedural"
>Adolescence
whether it's liberal or paid for by Netflix is irrelevant to whether it's a high quality British-made tv show
>you haven't watched the others
then you're going to struggle to give a useful opinion on this matter, aren't you?
>Hardly in the class of historical Beeb
every historical BBC show you can name will have myriad minor subjective criticisms of the like you've just produced
>let alone contemporary US brilliance.
if you think US TV is even remotely comparable with UK TV, you're not paying attention. the US is long since out of its golden era, which pretty much died with Game of Thrones. US media has an order of magnitude more financial means than that of the UK, and yet what have they created of any real quality in the last few years besides White Lotus? they repeatedly fail to even remotely approach the class and quality of our TV. on the rare occasions they do get close, it's on the back of British actors or British production
> and yet what have they created of any real quality in the last few years besides White Lotus?
Now you’re just acting like the OP. There’s plenty of highly regarded us shows from the last few years. Just go look the highest rated current TV shows on rotten tomatoes.
well you're right. admittedly I haven't watched much recently besides White Lotus. on the other hand, it is true that most very highly regarded American shows have British actors in key roles, or creatives in production
I tried watching wolf hall because I love historical novels/shows, but I really struggled with it. Though I also struggled with the actual book so maybe it's something more fundamental.
Everyone dislikes some things. Not everyone likes classics such as Monty Python or Only Fools and Horses either. You're confusing "I don't like it" with "it's bad".
i think you'd find lots of people disagree. Were there some great BBC shows in the 70s and 80s? Sure.
I think you'd find lots pf people who find some relatively recent streaming shows to be amazing. You may not like them but there are many fans of shows like Stranger Things, The Crown, The Handmaid's Tale, The Queen's Gambit, Silo, Severance, Succession, ....
But humans have already been tinkering (tinkering is not the word to describe large scale disturbances) with delicate systems we barely understand since the industrial revolution. But when it comes to technological solutions like this, somehow people think that's too risky.
>Anyhow species that were first photographed outside of iNaturalist would not be eligible...
To clarify, it would be eligible if the photograph has not been published (i.e. made available publicly outside of iNat) and you own the license.
If you had taken the first-known pics of an animal a few decades ago, and posted them on Facebook earlier, you can still add them to this project, as they fulfill all the technical requirements.
It's sad that most of the commenters here did not care to read the "About" section of the project:
>This project is designed to showcase the first known photographs of living specimens of any species. Note that by 'first known' I'm referring to the first known photographs of a species anywhere, not just the first photographs to be submitted to iNaturalist.
>Two types of observation will be included:
1) First photographic records of undescribed species...
2) First photographic records of already described (but obviously relatively uncommon or cryptic) species...
>If the male and female of a species are sexually dimorphic, then both are valid to be added to the project. So too if a species has distinct life stages (eg caterpillar/chrysalis/butterfly), they are all valid to be separately added to the project (assuming the other rules apply).
>If you see an observation currently in the project that you know is not the first photograph of that species, and you can show the earlier photograph, please do not hesitate to message me and I'll remove it.
It clearly states the photograph has to be the first photograph someone ever taken of the species which they have published(journal/news/book etc.) or publicly shared. Also, historical pictures are welcome, as long as you took the picture. I have seen scanned images uploaded to the project dating back to the 1960s.
We don't need more PhDs. People foolish enough to have sought a PhD will benefit as they are now limited to a master's degree, with which their career will be much better.
> In his 2011 analysis of the Burma campaign, the historian Frank McLynn challenged this interpretation, saying,
> Most of all, there is a single zoological problem. If 'thousands of crocodiles' were involved in the massacre, as in the urban (jungle) myth, how had these ravening monsters survived before and how were they to survive later? The ecosystem of a mangrove swamp, with an exiguous mammal life, simply would not have permitted the existence of so many saurians before the coming of the Japanese (animals are not exempt from the laws of overpopulation and starvation).
> In 1974, a journalist, George Frazier, reported having asked the Japanese War Office about the crocodile attack and being told that they could not confirm that it had happened. In 2016, Sam Willis, a historian, reported that he had found documents indicating that the Japanese soldiers mostly drowned and/or were shot and that crocodiles scavenged on their corpses afterwards.
> In 2000, a herpetologist, Steven Platt, visited Ramree Island, where he interviewed residents who had been alive during the war and who had been forced into slave labour by the Japanese; they "unanimously discounted any suggestion that large numbers of Japanese fell prey to crocodiles".
Oh thats easy, the population is constantly starving and maxing out, cannibalising on the young. Reptiles are great on surviving from very little. Once the abandunt food source enters that "starved" ecosystem , all those hungry husks get revived and inflated to full life.
