I'll call you back later, I have to save the Earth

In about 100 minutes they managed to explain a very complicated series of rapid-fire events in an understandable, and even entertaining way. The writing was engaging. The acting was great. And so forth.

But ultimately, HBO’s “Too Big To Fail”… fails… because it punts on the whole “blame” issue.

Why with the blame? Well, put simply, so we don’t do this shit again.

Yes, yes yes. The bankers were greedy idiots: hard-headed and childish zillionaires who nearly brought down our entire economic system because they were dumb enough to believe (or to convince themselves) that “real estate only goes up”.

(I mean, really? Real Estate always goes up? Never down? Really? It still boggles my mind that this is even a question. Gah.)

“Too Big To Fail” does a decent job of casting that concept in it’s proper light: a pale illumination of disdain.

Where HBO’s “Too Big To Fail” falls short is ONLY blaming the bankers.

This is a huge, historical mistake.

TBTF completely dismisses Congress and multiple decades of terrible, terrible decisions on everything from Freddie & Fannie, to the FHA, to the CRA. Instead, the film chooses to serve up the “de-regulation” canard in whispy, vague intro scenes (are housing quotas “regulation” or “de-regulation”?).

What’s more, “TBTF” completely lets consumers (us) off the hook.

In this case it took THREE to tango: 1) The greedy, bankers 2) the maybe-well-intentioned but ultimately bumbling and hurtful bureaucrats who first incentivized, and supported those bankers, and 3) the millions of willing homeowners who were also greedy, and bumbling, and now are whining a lot.

We can argue “chicken-egg-chicken” here, but anyone who knows anything about this mess knows that, although the bankers deserve all the disdain we can muster, the other two major players deserve just as much attention.

But “Too Big To Fail” isn’t about those other 2 legs of the stool. It’s about the bankers, and their interaction w/ Paulson, and the slap-dash series of events that took place in the fall of 2008. So it’s understandable that it didn’t dive deep into, say, specific legislation, or some poor, dumb family caught trying to flip some houses.

If “Too Big To Fail” had stayed on topic, then it would be fine. But they didn’t.

Understandably, though, they did try to explain what was going on.

In one painfully obvious scene (putting the 4th wall in much peril) Paulson and his advisors “talk through” how the shit actually got into the fan.

It’s in this scene where “TBTF” willfully ignores The Government’s role in encouraging the build-up, and at the same time washes away any homeowners’ responsibility with the old “American Dream” chestnut; all in about 20 seconds of screen time. This is a damn shame, because they really didn’t have to say much here to be accurate. But instead they chose to perpetuate the fallacy that it was ALL the fault of the bankers.

(Remember kids: bankers are evil, politicians are just there to help, and we consumers can do no wrong.)

The problem here is that, it’s movies like this, about crises like this, that will actually help shape history. And it’s in this little scene that HBO’s “Too Big To Fail” essentially absolves the other 2 legs of the stool of any blame.

Unforgivable.

And what’s extra frustrating is “TBTF” came so darn close to being nonpartisan. All they had to do here, in this short little scene, was be ACCURATE.

= Accuracy FAIL.

Instead, they chose pitchforks and populism. And they just might get away with it because the Bankers are, in fact, pretty darn evil.

So, ultimately, “Too Big To Fail” ends up being a love letter to Hank Paulson. Does he deserve it? Maybe so. But along the way they missed a simple, and important opportunity to help educate the public about what really happened. And why.

It’s a near-miss. Which sucks, because it’s not a bad movie. In fact it’s a pretty darn good movie. But as a historical document, HBO’s “Too Big To Fail” will be doomed to repeats.

Yeah. I just wrote that.

I’ve waited a couple years now for this particular camera to come out, because I’ve so-loved the Lumix series from the get-go. I’ve gotten so much good use out of my old FX7, and took many fantabulous pics with that little bad boy, that, in my mind, Lumix could do no wrong.

In general, the Lumix line is very underrated, and hence a darn good value (especially compared to Canon). In fact, the FX75′s big brother, the Lumix ZS7, has become the “sleeper” hit of the year. Being generally regarded as the best, most versatile compact camera without being a full-on DSLR.

But for the FX70/75 specifically, I liked the idea of having such a wide, bright lens (a Leica @ 2.2 no less), in such a small package.

Even though Panasonic is notorious for not including even basic manual features in their ultra-compacts, I have a fancy-schmancy DSLR for the really important stuff, so a micro-snapper, albeit totally “automatic”, is a good thing to have in my workflow.

The FX75 an extremely small camera (think deck of cards), with a very sturdy build. Its pre-set “modes” are nice and varied which helps offset the lack of manual control a tiny bit. It even takes darn good “flash” pictures (for weddings, parties, etc), with a better-than-normal color/flash/exposure balance, which is something even decent DSLRs have a problem with.

The image quality of the 14-megapixel Lumix DMC-FX75 is very, very good, too. As long as you’re under IS0-800, you’re going to get a low-noise, crisp image with great, accurate color. However, the built-in “sharpening” tends to look a bit wonky on small details like leaves, or other natural elements. But, weirdly, with more man-made details (architecture, bricks, cars) that same sharpening algorithm actually helps the image. So, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. In fact, I really wish they had an option to turn this “feature” off, allowing the user to apply their own “sharpening” in post via Photoshop, Lightroom or Aperture.

But no. The FX70/75 insists on doing EVERYTHING for you.

The touch screen is a welcome feature too (even if you don’t use it to “take” pictures”, you can use it to assign focus, navigate menus, etc), and the visibility of the LCD in daylight really isn’t that big of a deal.

Because of that handy Touch Screen, there are very few physical buttons on the FX75. One of them is the “MODE” button which, when pressed, presents 4 on-screen choices: “Normal Picture” (a poor man’s “manual” mode); “Intelligent Auto” (which actually does a pretty good job of guessing your needs); “Scene Mode” (which takes you to a larger scene menu: sports, landscape, candlelight, etc, etc); and… “Cosmetic Mode” (which allows you to adjust face tones).

Wait. What? Really guys? You have 4 options and one of them is a “Cosmetic Mode”? Is this supposed to be “The Fashion Camera” or something? At the very least the user should be able to assign that 4th choice, either with a commonly-used “Scene Mode” or a user-created variation for an extra “Normal Picture” mode. But if that’s an option, I haven’t found it (because the 100 page manual is a bit intimidating, and a PDF). Nevertheless, dedicating such a prominent UI element to a “Cosmetic Mode” seems, well, strange.

That said, it’s not that big of a deal.

What IS a big deal is that this camera, as noted to some degree in all the reviews so far, is that the Lumix DMC FX75 has pretty major highlight and shadow problems, especially when shooting in the “normal picture” mode. If you’re outside, on a sunny-ish day, casually shooting pics, you are going to end up with a ton of snaps that are either blown-out, or way under-exposed. And, more often than not, you’ll have both problems in one picture. Literally white-white highlights AND black-black shadows. It’s really sad, actually.

(NOTE: these 3 images are shown in their original capture state first, and then as “adjusted”: my valiant attempt to eek-down the highlights and nudge-up shadows in post. As you can see, the progress even on these non-extreme examples was minimal, at best.)

Yes: all cameras have their pluses and minuses. But this little camera has SO much going for it that these very basic exposure issues are a huge let-down. Frankly, this is an issue that feels very “2001″ in terms of technical performance. The FX75 has all these wonderfully modern bells and whistles, but when you check out your pictures of that family picnic, you’ll find yourself shaking your head and asking “jeesh…really?”.

The FX75 does provide an “intelligent exposure” option, which helps this dilemma a bit, but if you have that option turned on it overrides your ISO preferences even in “normal picture” mode. So all of a sudden you may get stuck with an ISO-1600 picture (which is extremely noisy) taken in the daytime (which is crazy).

Overall, it’s almost as if they paid so much attention to the glitter and zaz of the FX75 that they glossed over the basics: ie., capturing a properly-exposed image.

They could’ve included an HDR or RAW option so at least you’d have some room to play on the back end. But, sadly, no. You’re stuck with more than an expectable number of badly exposed JPGs.

I don’t know if something like a “firmware upgrade” can fix this problem, but I certainly hope so. Because if they can find a way to fix this, they’ll have one of, if not THE best camera in its class. If not, I’ll probably have to try and sell this (quick, before word gets out!), and buy another mini-snapper. And that’s a real shame.

I’m sorry Lumix. I’m your biggest fan. But, as-is, the DMC FX75 (FX70) is a real heart breaker.

HERE ARE SOME OTHER (MORE TECHNICAL, AND GREAT) REVIEWS OF THE PANASONIC LUMIC DMC-FX75 (FX70)

Steve’s Digicams
Photography Blog
Digital Camera Review
PC World
Squidoo
Pocket Lint

The biggie being Ogilvy Paris recycling a Cannes Winning print campaign for the second time; same visual, different client, same award: a shiny Gold Lion.

Yeah, that was a bad one. Everyone in the business did a collective /facepalm and once again vowed to “never again!”

Just like the time before and the time before that.

But sometimes idea theft happens on the consumer level, too; with the boring old commercials that we make for our real clients (as opposed to the phantom clients we use for award shows).

The latest, and one of the most brazen I’ve ever seen is Subaru’s latest TV spot: “Baby Driver”:

Anyone who sees this spot in a vacuum would say that it’s a big idea, well executed.

It’s a great spot.

But those of us who have seen State Farm Insurance’s spot “, which has been running for a couple of years now, have a slightly different opinion on that:

Seriously, WTF?

Was it a coincidence? Or did they know? Or are they just clueless?

Whichever it is, I find it hard to believe that nobody on the agency or client team had never seen the State Farm spot…because it’s gotten a LOT of rotation in the last year-or-so.

Call me crazy, but I think that watching at least a little bit of TV should be required for anybody who writes TV spots for a living. And a little bit of competitive research should be required for any big agency before diving into campaign planning.

What a shame.

He’s a professor at UT, and helped clean up the Exxon Valdez Oil Spil by “populating” the beaches with these natural “oil eaters”. In his interview, he pointed out that oil is CONSTANTLY leaking into our oceans from various sources (obviously, not as fast and overwhelming as the BP situation).

But this is the first I’ve heard about something that makes a lot of sense: that, despite the impression we’ve all developed, oil is a NATURAL phenomenon and there are naturally-occuring creatures on Earth that have evolved to subsist on it.

In fact, he went further, and insisted that, despite popular conception, the Valdez Spill has been “almost completely” corrected using these little oil-hungry buggers. And he challenged anyone to “go up there, and prove otherwise”.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

By Dr. Russell Chianelli

As I am starting the Materials for Energy Blog, a BP oil well, located 50 miles off the coast of the U.S. in the Gulf of Mexico and one mile below the surface of the ocean, blows out releasing 5,000 barrels of oil per day. This brings me right back to 1989 when I was working on the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill[i]. People remember the Exxon Valdez but don’t realize that it wasn’t the biggest tanker spill in the world[ii].

So what was the biggest global oil spill? Before the Gulf War the biggest oil spill in the world was the Ixtoc Blow-Out in the Bahia de Campeche, Mexico on June 3, 1979[iii]. When PEMEX drilled a deep exploratory well, similar to the current blowout, the sea bottom gave way and in 9 months 3,500,000 barrels of oil were released; more than 10 times the amount released by the Exxon Valdez. The nearest coastline in the U.S. was in Texas, approximately 600 miles away! Out of this huge amount of oil, very little ever reached the shores of Padre Island, which was the closest point. Why? This is because of hydrocarbon degrading organisms, Hydrocarbon Degraders. These microorganisms consume the oil creating CO2 and H2O and more of themselves. Approximately, 50% of the petroleum goes to making biomass that then goes up the food chain.

After every major oil spill there is an explosion in the number of fish and other marine creatures as they consume the Hydrocarbon Degraders. Everywhere in the ocean oil seeps occur. In fact, many of the deposits in the Gulf of Mexico were discovered by observing Oil Seeps.

Thus the Hydrocarbon Degraders are everywhere waiting for their dinner! What can be done to oil spilling into the sea?

The science of Hydrocarbon Degraders and oil spills was originally investigated by Dr. Ronald Atlas, now of the University of Louisville, who studied the Amoco Cadiz oil spill which occurred on March 16, 1978[iv]. The Amoco Cadiz was the largest tanker spill ever, spilling 1,600,000 barrels of crude on the beaches of Brittany, France. Nutrients, N and P, from farms above the beach, enhanced the growth of the Hydrocarbon Degraders giving rise to the concept Nutrient Enhanced Bioremediation for dealing with oiled beaches. It was this idea that Ron Atlas and I developed for the beaches in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This was the largest successful bioremediation project. The materials used were INIPOL EAP-22[v], an oleophilic nutrient and CUSTOMBLEND, a typical agricultural fertilizer. Their application is described in reference 1. These nutrients were successfully used on the beaches in Alaska and not on oil in the open water.
For oil in open water, an EPA approved dispersant may be used such as COREXIT[vi].

Since oil and water don’t mix the oil is only available to the Hydrocarbon Degraders at the oil/water interface slowing hydrocarbon degradation. Adding the dispersant allows the oil and water to mix accelerating the degradation of the oil and destroying the oil slick. Such a dispersant is being used on the current offshore oil spill to prevent the oil from reaching the beach[vii].

A dispersant was not used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. If it had been used the oil would not have reached the beaches after a major storm. Oil on the beach requires Nutrient Enhanced Bioremediation. In the case of the Ixtoc blow-out, natural dispersants, produced by the Hydrocarbon Degraders, allow them to access the oil. The dispersant being added accelerates the process and will likely prevent most of the oil from hitting beaches[viii].

No question about it: Kristen Wiig is a force. She’s one of the most refreshing Saturday Night Live players we’ve been blessed with in decades. She’s cute. She’s smart. She’s insanely talented. And, lucky for us, she’s a work-a-holic.

Despite the perennial claims that “SNL has gone downhill!”, Kristen (can I call you Kristen?) is one of those go-to cast members that always has at least a chance of saving a bad episode.

Did the network book another Athelete?
Reality Show Cast-Off?
Politician?

Well, have no fear. Chances are that Ms Wiig will reach into her seemingly endless bag of tricks, and save the show. Or, at the very least provide a few precious moments of levity in an otherwise excruciating 90 minutes of slow, comedic death.

I would even venture to say that Kristen Wiig is not only the best current cast member, but one of the best ever. And that’s saying something.

Is she perfect? No. As often happens for such a talented and hyper-active contributor, she’s often over-used. And it’s certainly possible to get too much of a good thing.

That doesn’t happen too much, thankfully, because the current SNL cast is pretty good overall.

But what also often happens with these freakishly prolifically creative types of personalities like Kristen’s, is that there’s just so much output that you’re bound to get some bad apples in the bunch.

It’s simply a consequence of volume.

That’s probably not her fault, either. First of all, it’s not ultimately her job to edit herself (or at least it shouldn’t be). She seems like the kind of person you wind up, let loose, and then pare-down after the dust settles. And I would venture to guess Lorne Michaels probably doesn’t want to over-use her better characters either (although it’s probably not that calculated).

So what we’re left with is a hardy bunch of fantastic characters, skits and bits… and a handful of, well, no so great characters and skits.

Not really complaining, though. Because having someone as talented as Kristen Wiig lay a rotten egg on Live TV is still pretty damn good.

So, without further hemming / hawing, I present to you:

The 10 Best (and worst) SNL Characters of Kristen Wiig:

– BEST –

“Babe” (One-of-Two A-Holes)

Yes. This reoccurring character has reoccurred, well, a lot. A whole lot. But even when we find ourselves thinking “…oh, not these guys again…” they always manage to eek a reluctant laugh out of me anyway. These are people we’ve all run into in real live, and Wiig plays the setup-gal perfectly. Twirling her hair, smacking her gum, perfectly and beautifully oblivious. The main question we have after watching this skit is “how are these people still alive?”

“Target Lady” (Over-Zealous Kitsch-Collecting Cashier)

Yes, she’s clichéd, and singular. Perhaps overly-focused, a bit too “inside”. But Target Lady still makes the GOOD list because, well, she’s likeable. She’s kinda slow upstairs. More than slightly annoying. But if you encountered her in real life, you’d probably chuckle. An incredulous “is this really happening to me?” type chuckle, but a chuckle nonetheless.

“Junice Merill” (Slightly-Off Laurwence Welk Performer)

When I first saw this skit I almost split my gut. The set-up was pretty pat, standard SNL fare, but with the first reveal of Junice –with her freakish doll hands and car-hood-for-a-forehead– you realize you’re in for a real treat. Perhaps the best moment was her jabbily enthousiastic attempt at bubble catching at the end. Absolutely classic.

“Aunt Linda” (Weekend Update Movie Reviewer)

So glad to see “Amy Poehler’s Aunt Linda” didn’t leave with Amy Poehler, because that would’ve been a real shame. Because of all the stabled Weekend Update “Contributors”, Aunt Linda is easily one of the best. Seriously… “Apoklypto !?” Comon! Everyone has a relative that would’ve said the same thing, which is why it’s so friggin awesome. And instead of “thumbs up” or “stars” as a rating scale, she has these little twisted face icons. Friggin brilliant. Don’t like Aunt Linda? I’ve got one word for you: “Gah!”

“Michelle Dison” (Bi-Curious Local Reporter)

What’s funny to me about Michelle Dison (besides the obvious), is you’ve gotta wonder… where in the Hell did this character come from? We’ve all seen newscasters do some pretty amazing things, but this is just nuts. And somehow, even after you “get” the initial joke, it stays funny as Wiig keeps ushering it along. Sure, Dison’s a one-trick, and wouldn’t be as funny if she were over-used. But she’s not. So yay us.

“Shana” (Sexy-But-So-Very-Un-Sexy Siren)

The Shana sketches are in essence an exercise in what constitutes sexy, and what constitutes “oh-my-god-i-feel-ill” in our society; and the extremes of each men are willing to put up with. Sometimes venturing into nuanced fetishism (You pooped your pants? Awesomez!), Shana shines a revealing light on both men and women’s perceptions of… oh, whatever. It’s funny! What’s also cool is that it’s actually kind of hard to tell at first that it’s actually Kristen Wiig under there. I don’t know if it’s the makeup, the acting, or the fact that I can be a bit thick sometimes, but it took me a few seconds to realize it was actually her. Which makes Shana even better, in my book.

– WORST –

“Penelope” (The Consummate One-Upper)

The term “heebie jeebies” comes to mind here. Because whenever Penelope shows up on SNL (which is way too often by half), I feel bad for Kristen, and I feel sorry for me (actually, me more). The premise is pretty simple: Penelope, who is beyond-desperate for attention, will take whatever someone says, and will “top it”. And the top that. And that. And so on. The only thing that’s vaguely interesting is “how” she one-ups each statement, but even that’s so hit-and-miss, it only serves to remind us how good Kristen can be… and how good Penelope is not.

“Judy Grimes” (Weekend Update Travel Writer)

What Judy Grimes has to do with travel, I’ll never know. But what Wiig does here is pretty amazing. That is, if you’re a student at Second City or a UCB Bunny. Judy Grimes is merely comedic histrionics. The improv equivalent of the ‘ol “Peggy Babcock” vocal exercise. The Yngwie Malmsteen-ing of one, small, lame joke. Sure, it’s impressive on a technical level (which is why the studio audience always reacts favorably), but it falls flat for the folks in TV Land.

“Gilly” (Mischevious Schoolgirl)

This relatively new invention by Wiig is all of a sudden on every other show. In fact, they named last season’s Christmas Special after her: “A Very Gilly Christmas”. Why? God only knows. The sad part is, Gilly has the DNA of a good character. There’s something intriguing there. We’ve got a faintly funny costume and hairdo, a grin and those darling darting eyes… but that alone doesn’t-a-quality-character make. The Gilly skits are plodding, and predictable… although, her little dance is kind of funny. Sort of.

“Sue” (Surprise Party Pooper)

OK. Everyone has a friend that just loooves surprises, right? And they love surprises soooo much that they end up actually blowing the surprise? Right? Right? Well…um… no. And that’s the problem with Sue. She’s not grounded in any real truth at all. None. Anywhere. And the fact that her family is always soooo surprised at her strange behavior concerning the surprise, Sue just wreaks of hack. I mean, really, this is the first time she’s exhibited bizarre behavior? Also (and this is a tell) Sue is eerily reminiscent of Penelope in that she “pops up” in the scene. And, just when you think she’s done, she “pops up” again. Derivative of another bad character, no less. Seriously, Sue. Uncle.

+++

As with all of these “best/worst” lists, much of this is obviously one-man’s opinion. So take it with a grain (or three) of salt. But the main point still stands: that even Kristen Wiig’s “worst” characters are still damn awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjwBHqa6lZI

Obviously, AT&T had to do something. Verizon’s “Maps” campaign (cue Yeah Yeah Yeahs) was the marketing equivalent of a bitch slapping. But what AT&T didn’t have to do was get an out-of-shape B+List actor to slap back.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Luke Wilson. I like his movies. In fact, I think I’d like to grab a beer with him and shoot the shit. But I’m not sure he’s the best choice to be a spokesperson. At this time. For this brand.

I’ll say what everyone else is thinking:

Seriously Luke, WTF?

He’s… doughy!

More seriously BBDO, WTFF?

I’m not one of those people who follows celebrities, indulging in their romantic escapades, and secretly reading Star on the shitter. And I don’t care who’s fat and who isn’t. In fact, I think we put too much pressure on movie stars, models and musicians to be super-skinny. I think it’s unrealistic and ultimately counterproductive for society.

That said, when a pudgy Luke Wilson first graced my screen a few weeks back, my first thought was “Oops!”

To put it kindly, it looks like either Luke really needs money, or AT&T doesn’t have a working sense of spokesperson quality control.

He just looks tired. Or maybe even hungover. But for both parties, this is a campaign FAIL.

Not that the commercials themselves are bad. They’re at least as good as the Verizon spots… on paper.

Execution? Not so much. And this is just another instance of just how important good casting is in the making of a good commercial.

Oh, and for the record: Yes, I have an iPhone. And no, I don’t hate AT&T.

I just hate this campaign.

It’s subtle, but it’s a great opening. It’s a small, but ultimately pretty funny joke at the expense of trying to make a last name that is already plural, plural.

It’s something we’ve all stumbled with, and chuckled about, at some point in our lives. And it’s exactly the same as making the last name “James”, or any other word that ends in “s” or “z” plural.

Except this last name was Hispanic.

Orbitz has quietly re-edited their spot, and removed the extra “..ez..es..es…”s, most likely at the direction of some easily offended letter writers with too much time on their hands.

But what is surprising here is the amount of outrage… not over the original version, but over this new, “cleaned up” version:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1156014

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/12/orbitz-done-joking-about-the-hernandezes.html

The original version (“..ez..es..es…”) is what we in the industry call a “truism”. A little human touch that helps endears viewers to your commercial. Some commercials and even campaigns are awash in “truism” (see: Just Do It). But most commercials out there are pretty bland, and would fade into the woodwork if it weren’t for these little gems of humanity. A look. A unique line delivery. A perfectly-cast bit player with a strange face. Or, more often, as in this case, a seemingly “throw away” line, that people like. And remember.

Orbitz’s (“..ez..es..es…”) removal of this small-but-powerful moment is a big deal. Not because it made a pleasantly decent spot bad (it did), but because it’s a symptom of a bigger, more nefarious issue: Political Correctness.

Offensive language and stereotypes are kind of like Global Warming. You won’t find anyone who will readily admit to thinking that pollution is GOOD, just like you won’t find anyone who will willingly cheer on the insulting of groups of people, religions or cultures. Especially minorities. But the problem is, with this kind of thin-skinned knee-jerk skiddishness, we’re ultimately missing the larger point. And when we focus on these little, unimportant, but still-perceived “slights” we take the focus off of larger, more harmful, and “real” racism.

The natural reaction to people or groups that are overly sensitive is to treat them like little children. And, for groups that are ironically clamoring for respect, that is the most offensive thing of all.

Yes. It’s a stupid commercial about a silly guy in a hovercraft. But it’s a glaring example of a larger, more insidious problem in our World today: PC Thuggery, the attempt to control other’s thoughts and speech, and the overall wuss-i-fi-cation of our society.

Hopefully this reverse-outrage will garner some attention, and start a proper, grown-up discussion. It’s long overdue.

My single-disk 250 finally crapped out on me. I was using it as the Time Machine for my MacBook, and the other day it started acting wonky. So today I tried to erase it, to no avail.

It is dead.

Seriously. Is there a lawyer out there who wants to make a zillion dollars on a class-action lawsuit?

The slideshow interface isn’t the best, but it does the job.

The problem is that about two months ago they stopped their 1-10 rating scale (you know, the tried and true one) and replaced it with this… um… 1-4 scale?

Honestly I can’t even tell if it’s 1-4, because every single thing gets either a 3.5 or a 4.

Maybe it’s a newfangled 3.5-4 ratings scale?

Whichever, it’s annoying.

link