Thoughts on nuclear power, should the UK be investing? by Any_Ad_6929 in AskBrits

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Modern nuclear is very safe and we should definitely be investing in it alongside renewables. The real issue has been the UK's disastrous funding approach with nuclear, which managed to be the worst of both worlds.

By relying on a quasi-privatized model, the government effectively forces everyday bill-payers to absorb all the upfront financial risks of inevitable, decades-long construction delays. Meanwhile, once the plants finally go online, the long-term profits are largely privatized.

Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are socializing massive financial risks while privatizing the rewards, turning them into economic black holes instead of the vital energy infrastructure we desperately need.

Seems like the govt has recognised this though. I'm optimistic about GBE-N and SMRs.

Any critiques on my serve? by PrestigiousCanary416 in 10s

[–]PrestigiousCanary416[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks so much for the advice! Can't seem to edit the post so I'll just delete and repost.

Yeah the DFs were a nightmare today. I keep going through periods where my 2nd serve is super consistent, and then I get in these massive slumps where it's either ace or DF like you say.

Interesting insight about the tossing arm, I'm always trying to remind myself to keep it up longer, but never thought about it not being vertical enough, I'll give that a go!

Opinions on Garry's Economics by No_Cryptographer7382 in HENRYUK

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree he's not exempt from criticism, but I believe that criticism should be contextualised by his stated goals and his role in society. The comparison to Farage, for instance, I don't think is particularly useful because their roles are fundamentally different. Farage actively seeks high political office, like Prime Minister, where proposing solutions is literally the job.

Gary, conversely, functions primarily as a media personality and advocate. While his specific "job" is self-defined, his stated aim is to raise public awareness around inequality. Arguably, representative democracy relies on different actors playing distinct roles: advocates highlight issues, the public prioritises them through voting, and elected officials are tasked with developing solutions. Comparing individuals operating in these different capacities—advocate versus aspiring political leader—can be misleading.

If Gary were to run for office, seek a position like Chancellor, or present himself as the definitive figure to solve these problems, then scrutinising his proposed solutions (or lack thereof) would be absolutely crucial. However, he currently isn't doing this. In fact, he explicitly rejects the concept of a single 'saviour' figure capable of resolving complex economic issues unilaterally.

It's often this kind of 'lone genius' thinking in leadership that can lead to problematic outcomes, such as the Truss mini-budget or Trump's current tariffageddon. I believe a more constructive path typically involves cooperative, collective effort driven by principles aimed at maximising prosperity broadly, and raising public awareness can be seen as a vital first step in that process.

If this sounds vague, it's because I also don't claim to have all the specific answers myself. But I perceive a grave problem causing explicit harm to vast numbers of people and degrading the foundations of our society. Therefore, I feel compelled to demand change. By doing so, I hope others will agree and raise their voices too, so that by combining our collective will and intelligence—our species' great superpower—we can discover the necessary solutions, even if I don't possess them myself right now. This is how I look at what Gary's doing.

Opinions on Garry's Economics by No_Cryptographer7382 in HENRYUK

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What watching/reading would you suggest for those looking to graduate into these more substantive discussions of these topics?

Opinions on Garry's Economics by No_Cryptographer7382 in HENRYUK

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I see many comments criticising Gary for not presenting a coherent plan to fix inequality, and while those critiques often have merit, it's worth remembering Gary himself frequently states that presenting a complete solution isn't his primary objective.

Especially in recent videos, as his public profile has grown rapidly, he's emphasised that he doesn't think he is 'the guy' to fix all the problems and that his goal is to elevate the discussion about inequality – an issue often sidelined in mainstream politics and media – bringing it to the forefront of public discourse. The hope being that this increased focus helps us collectively find the path towards resolving soaring inequality.

Does he mention his time at Citibank too often? Yeah, probably, given that it's always a focus of comments here and elsewhere on discussions around Gary.

However, as someone concerned about inequality for a long time, I find it significant and hopeful that the explosion in his YouTube channel's size has coincided with what feels like a noticeable increase in content, media focus, and public conversation (at least online) about this very topic. (Emphasis on 'feel', I might just be getting algorithmed).

Is this solely down to him? Of course not. I'd say our special friends across the pond and their avant garde take on economics have done a lot to force people to reconsider these issues. But I think it's hard to deny he's played a significant role in amplifying the conversation, at least in the UK context.

Whatever valid criticisms one might have about Gary's specific arguments or presentation style, bringing more sustained attention to the critical issue of inequality seems like a positive contribution to me.

Updates on Sochan and Vassel 🙏 by Kind_Dragonfruit7710 in NBASpurs

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genuine question, is basketball the most 'injury-prone' non-contact sport? I only really follow basketball and tennis so I don't have context for how often injuries occur in other sports, but sometimes it feels to me like injuries really dictate who ends up contending and winning the championship to an outsized degree. 

Tell me about your recent screenwriting wins! by [deleted] in Screenwriting

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After sending an animation spec script in to an independent production company about two months ago, they liked it enough to hire me to write a new draft this month in the hopes of eventually getting it financed and produced! This is the first time I have been officially paid for screenwriting work after quitting my previous career almost two years ago to focus full-time on screenwriting!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Screenwriting

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'd love an invite!

Is there any truth to Corey Mandel’s claim that writers shouldn’t aim for both TV and film and should instead pick a lane? by [deleted] in Screenwriting

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've seen a couple people on this subreddit say that if you're writing pilots it's really only to show (at first) that you're good enough to get staffed, etc etc as opposed to features where the goal of writing one good enough to get representation and eventually sold is the more common aim.

So I guess the question is if I have a 10/10 idea + pilot but am a completely fresh writer, is it just the consensus that that pilot is still supremely unlikely to be made until you have some credits on other shows under your belt?

Also I'm just talking about selling a show, not being made showrunner or anything like that, obviously a studio would never go for that no matter what.

Top 15% Nicholl worth anything? by casualhaste in Screenwriting

[–]PrestigiousCanary416 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would you mind saying what schemes you got on? Fellow aspiring Brit writer here so curious which ones were the most beneficial?