don’t even know enough to care in the first place.

but ultimately it’s the user who decides to use the service, and how to use it.

So you admit they don’t have access to the knowledge needed to make better choices for their digital security. Then immediately blame them. I think your bias from the point of view of a one that is already more informed on this sort of thing. If they don’t know they need to know more, how can they be expected to do any research? There’s only so much time in a day so you can’t expect people to learn “enough” about literally everything.

The purpose of libraries has simply expanded. A lot of people do still use it for books, but this being an online forum there’s likely a selection bias at play. People learn to go to the library when that’s the main place they have access to stuff, often because purchasing or finding it digitally is out of the price-range. As a consequence, those big beautiful libraries in the nice part of town are often pretty empty but the cramped one near us poor folk is full of families and their kids every weekend.

But libraries offer so much more than books. They have digital services, often with access to computers (again, mostly used by those who can’t afford a personal computer), and research assistance. Librarians know how to research and find sources and are an invaluable help when trying to find research on a topic. My local has community events where someone comes in and gives presentations or activities for kids often. Libraries are a community project that brings people together. Unfortunately, public libraries, being not for profit, don’t have extensive funds so they don’t have the reach they used to. Public sentiment has also turned away from libraries for a variety of reasons and in different ways. The capitalist-centric world-view lends to people’s appreciation for owning things and improving your own station while shying away from improving the group condition. Libraries whole purpose is antithetical to that world-view, so they’re ignored at best, actively fought against at worst.

This is, of course, an American centric rant, since that’s where I am and can’t speak to the conditions elsewhere.

But then the premise of the post doesn’t make sense. People in the 50’s and 70’s didn’t have different accents. They used different vocabulary, but accents have not changed much in the past 70 years. Quick accent changes just don’t happen that quickly outside of extremely isolated groups. You might be thinking of the transatlantic accent from tv and radio or whatever, but that was an affectation by actors and presenters. It wasn’t real.

But wasn’t it that he saw the future showing he we embark on a jihad, and he worried that his trying to prevent that would still cause it to happen? I’d say it shows Paul as more complex and far thinking than you’d expect from a 14 year old kid. A kid sees that and says “I just won’t do that.” Paul said “I need to prevent this, but I’m not sure how, so I must be constantly vigilant of my actions to ensure it doesn’t happen.”

But, the book characters were intentionally written to be pretty emotionally flat? The Gom Jabbar scene… Jessica showing emotion doesn’t make it a bad scene, but it kind of undercuts how the Bene Gesserit work. Their whole thing is conquering their emotions and being composed and in control all the time. Jessica’s turmoil is internal while her face is stoic. That’s her whole character at that point in the book. she’s not a very good Bene Gesserit, but she’s faked it real well.

Except Duncan and Gurney. They should have had personality. That’s Their purpose in the books. To be the ones who show Paul what being a real human is like beyond the Duke (laden with responsibility and the knowledge that his entire house and the thousands of people that rely on it are teetering on a knife’s edge) and Jessica (basically a magic robot concubine who was raised from birth with the sole purpose of furthering a generations long genetic project her captors teachers were working toward). They’re meant to be a breath of fresh air that give Paul the foundation to be a real boy.

If you haven’t read the books the movie makes no sense. It’s nothing but a string of half-ass book references and pretty scenery. Even having read the books the movie was still all over the place. It was a string of individual scenes with barely anything to connect them besides having the same characters.

And since I’m finally venting about it, if they were going to just focus on visuals, they could have at least gotten the scale right. They have these giant buildings and ships alluding to a mass of people keeping it operational. Then we never see more than like, 6 people. And the one scene where they pulled out all of the people at the climax, where it makes sense to show every soldier during an all hands emergency, we see, like, 50 people. They’re supposed to have thousands of soldiers. Losing a dozen soldiers in the book would have been acceptable losses. The movie force we see, that would cripple them.

Also, it should have ended just after the attack. Use all that extra time to actual get you invested in House Atreides and Paul. In anything really. That movie was so bad. I’ve always like Lynch’s Dune for it’s insanity, but compared to the new one, it’s a legitimately good movie. At least there’s a story.

What risk? They take away the mod position you didn’t really want in the first place?