Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Where was I ever gatekeeping the opinion that you couldn't believe the silence was not deafening? I pretty clearly said I was fine with disagreeing with that opinion (if that happened to be your opinion) and leaving it at that. I'm still saying it now. I have no problem if you don't think the silence was deafening.

Every post you've made that is ranting about me indicates that is a lie. If you have no problem with me disagreeing then why are you still trying to claim that it is is not my opinion? If you can leave it at that why haven't you left it?

[Koriani]

What is a level of growth that would be impressive to a reasonable person? Nothing? Not even 1,000%? It always requires data?
%?

To keep this as simple as possible: Yes.

Any ONE piece of data (or any ONE statistic) ALWAYS requires more data/information before one should responsibly commit to knowing/believing what is 'good' or 'bad' in the information given.

[Triceron]

Every post you've made that is ranting about me indicates that is a lie. If you have no problem with me disagreeing then why are you still trying to claim that it is is not my opinion? If you can leave it at that why haven't you left it?

I've never had any problem with opposing opinions, especially ones that were never being presented in the first place. Like I said, even if you were saying you personally don't think the silence was deafening, I said that's fine and you're okay to have that opinion. What more did you want?

I've been clear that my purpose here to expose your assholery at any chance I get.

Why would I stray away from a chance to show how Rhorle is willingly shitposting and arguing for the sake of it?


I wouldn't be able to expose your gaslighting if put you on ignore, would I? Do you want to address this perhaps? Maybe defend yourself a little against the poor gaslighting attempt you did? You seem to be backpedalling without addressing this at all. Maybe because you know you were caught red-handed and have nothing left to argue except try to accuse me of gatekeeping?

Even though you clearly said this:

Right. We are discussing your comment. It still shows that the silence isn't deafening because they've addressed stuff a little bit after the show finale.

The topic has been about your comment that Amazon's silence is deafening from the start.

Yes, we were discussing my comment. So how the fuck does my opinion gatekeep you? LOL


Well, I can't edit your posts, so surely I'm not the one forcing you to gaslight me, rofl. You're doing your best to pretend it never happened. I'm very much enjoying this Keep on replying, keep digging that hole. Don't let me stop you from choosing to weaponize your own ignorance.

[rhorle]

To keep this as simple as possible: Yes. Any ONE piece of data (or any ONE statistic) ALWAYS requires more data/information before one should responsibly commit to knowing/believing what is 'good' or 'bad' in the information given.

Why is 70% growth for the year not enough data? Why is 85% engagement from all of Amazon's subscribers not impressive for a secondary service? Why does it matter if a person uses it for 1 second or the entire year? They are all active users. This same type of argument is used to discredit things like MAU in Blizzard games for example. It shows the bias of the people involved rather then an innate requirement for data. If it supports their view on the subject "more data" will rarely be invoked.

[Koriani]

Why is 70% growth for the year not enough data? Why is 85% engagement from all of Amazon's subscribers not impressive for a secondary service? Why does it matter if a person uses it for 1 second or the entire year? They are all active users. This same type of argument is used to discredit things like MAU in Blizzard games for example. It shows the bias of the people involved rather then an innate requirement for data. If it supports their view on the subject "more data" will rarely be invoked.

I'm not here to argue with you about this. Its clear you don't understand stats and, if you truly want answers to your questions, I encourage you to go take a Stats 101 course.

I just provided a simple, straight forward, answer to the general question.

You can believe whatever you want. But all your arguing, and all this post continues to indicate, is that you don't understand how stats work. The fact you aren't even aware of any "innate requirement for more data" before one should trust ANY statistic, blows my mind. But again this all seems to fall under "Tell me you don't understand statistics without telling me you don't understand statistics."

FYI - I've given no stance of any "bias" in any of this. I'm sure you may think you have an idea of how I feel about Amazon, or even this series - but that has not at all been mentioned by me in the now, two posts, I've made about the subject. And you probably won't believe me when I say I don't tend to quote stats on things I even LIKE because I know they can be highly manipulated - but I don't. You will never see me, in these forums, post about RT or IMDB or nielsons numbers or anything else. Because stats can be spun, same as media headlines. I may HATE that math is not reliable and straightforward - but when it comes to statistics - its true.

But no worries - its my last one on the 'stats' subject. Because no, I'm not here to debate this.

(If anything it blows my mind that people pay more often for the Amazon Prim sub for the 2 day shipping than for the streaming content. I've never needed anything that OFTEN that FAST and shipping is free on everything if you don't need it in two days. =D Now living outside the US, that savings on shipping might make more sense. And this is REALLY off subject... )

Carry on!

[rhorle]

I'm not here to argue with you about this. Its clear you don't understand stats and, if you truly want answers to your questions, I encourage you to go take a Stats 101 course.

And yet you are here arguing. Don't lie just because you refuse to answer questions. Not everything requires full data to make a judgement on if it is good or bad. There is a reason why summary statements exist. Why do you need data on growth to know if 70% is good or bad? Why do you need to know what each individual user does on a platform to know if high engagement is good or bad?

Is a high percentage of users engaging in a service good or bad? Is low growth bad? Is low engagement bad? These things don't change based on data. Low engagement doesn't become a good thing just because you have access to data. It can be justified with an analysis of the data but it won't change from low engagement. Just as 70% growth won't change with an analysis of the data. It will just be explained. That 70% still remains. It will still be impressive or not. Good or bad. Or whatever other quality descriptor is assigned to it.

When you go shopping can you spot a good deal? Or do you ask the store for their full price, margin, etc data first? Is 80% off a good deal? What you are saying is that it is impossible to call it a good deal with out a full set of data to analyze first. Yet we know that 80% off normal price is a good deal.

[Triceron]

I'm not here to argue with you about this. Its clear you don't understand stats and, if you truly want answers to your questions, I encourage you to go take a Stats 101 course.

Yeah, I know you're trying your best to be nice, but he's only here to argue. Kudos to you for trying though!

- - - Updated - - -

Is 80% off a good deal? What you are saying is that it is impossible to call it a good deal with out a full set of data to analyze first.

Like what the fuck dude?

80% off a normal price is not a statistic. It's a set value. Words can't even describe how stupid this comparison is. I mean, best thing you coulda done was kept quiet, but there you go weaponizing that ignorance.

[rhorle]

80% off a normal price is not a statistic. It's a set value. Words can't even describe how stupid this comparison is. I mean, best thing you coulda done was kept quiet, but there you go weaponizing that ignorance.

Growth is a set value then. Engagement numbers is a set value then. The percentage of growth won't change after analyzing the data. The percentage of engagement won't change after analyzing the data. All that happens after analyzing the full data is if you can find something to justify why you think it isn't good or that it isn't bad. Their values don't actually change unless they are lies.

[Triceron]

Growth is a set value then.

Growth is a rate. It's not static like comparing to a shop manually setting price values at a 80% discount. You don't sound like you actually know what you're talking about.

Ignorant as fuck.

- - - Updated - - -

it says that I haven’t checked the media forum since yesterday and your post to other people don’t show up in my notifications, though I see your self important enough to think that they should.

But feel free to link your addressing and rhole being dishonest and I’ll happily say your not the only dishonest poster in the thread.

Feel free to include yourself in that

Pretty sure judging a conversation without bothering to check the replies and context of said conversation is also quite bad faith. But I get it, there was a bandwagon and you had the opportunity to jump on for an easy jab.

[TirielWoW]

So I finally finished the series. Yes, I put it off for several weeks due to IRL. I guess I'll break down things I liked.

Things I Liked:
I liked Arandir. I don't care if no one else agrees with me, he was the most Elf-looking Elf in the entire series, and I actually gave a shit about him.
I loved every single scene Elrond and Durin were in. I'm still not okay with Elrond's short hair, but those two actors have so much fucking chemistry, every single scene they were in together was enjoyable.
I fucking LOVE Disa. I loved the interplay between her and Durin and Elrond. I just think she did a really good job with that role.
I liked Halbrand. I didn't at first, but with the benefit of retrospect, I do feel like the actor did a fantastic job and was playing true to form the ENTIRE time. He kept telling Galadriel that she wasn't the person he wanted, and she kept ignoring him. lol
I liked the Harfoots. Sorry, I just really did. Those scenes were fun, and I loved Nori and Poppy. Sue me.

Things I Didn't Like
I really disliked the plot about the Elves losing their spirit and having to leave Middle Earth for Valinor. Like, it just felt very forced and low-key dumb as rocks. There were so many other ways to get where they needed to go, and THIS was the one they chose?
I really disliked Galadriel. God, I WANTED to like her. I was willing to allow for her to be a problem child at the start, but the thing is, she never seemed to improve. There was no character progression. The most "humanity" we see in her is after the volcano eruption when she's talking to Theo, and EVEN THEN she's stilted and weird. And then, KNOWING that Sauron wants them to craft the rings, *she does it anyway*. Still keeping secrets, because apparently the world is about her. It's...idk. It needs fixing.
The fact that Gil-Galad kept ordering Galadriel around just hurt my head. Someone make it make sense? ._.
If the Istari is Gandalf, I will be so angry. This is SUCH an opportunity to introduce us to the Blue Wizards, who made a difference in this time period before passing into legend, and I will be so angry I swear to god.
Why is Gil-Galad plotting and scheming and LYING to Elrond about his reason to go to the Dwarves?! And Celebrimbor, too?! They literally impugned Elrond's honor because they didn't trust him enough by sending him on a mission where they had to trust in his honor anyway...I can't even.
This bullshit fanfiction "Sauron puts the moves on Galdariel" makes me want to claw my own eyes out.
Why do I care more about the Numenorian horses than I do about the Numenorians?

Anyway. There's a few things I will continue watching it for.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Feel free to include yourself in that

Pretty sure jumping into a conversation without bothering to check the replies and context of said conversation is also quite bad faith. But I get it, there was a bandwagon and you had the opportunity to jump on for an easy jab.

I checked your replies to me and had all the context of the conversation reading the whole back and forth before my initial post.

You might be butt hurt not every one religiously reads your post but it’s not at all bad faith to just not check a thread for a day while your busy especially when there’s no replies to you. If there are post you want to point me towards feel free to link them and I’ll read them and respond if needed that’s what the notification function is for, other wise I’ll catch up with the thread when I have the time.

[Triceron]

I checked your replies to me and had all the context of the conversation reading the whole back and forth before my initial post.

You might be butt hurt not every one religiously reads your post but it’s not at all bad faith to just not check a thread for a day while your busy especially when there’s no replies to you. If there are post you want to point me towards feel free to link them and I’ll read them and respond if needed that’s what the notification function is for, other wise I’ll catch up with the thread when I have the time.

Just wanted to point out how you had no reason to judge anything, and how you were willingly ignorant in having done so. I mean, it's not like I did anything to provoke you into jumping into this, when you never even bothered to regard the context of the conversation at all, am I right? Because if you did, you would see he was baiting a source in order to dismiss it. It was a thin attempt at fueling his already-bad-faith argument. It's obvious as fuck. He even did it after I said that's exactly what he would do if I did post a link. He tried to dismiss it, I pressed him on it, and he had to admit he was wrong.

I don't believe that you understood the context of the conversation at all. You jumped in cherry picking a part of it, making a judgement call, and jumping on the bandwagon cuz someone else was already calling it out, without actually considering what the conversation was about. If you knew the context, then you would know he was arguing in bad faith to begin with. If you're accusing me of dishonesty while not regarding Rhorle's arguments, all while saying you got the context of the conversation, then you are also arguing in bad faith.

You're right about one thing. I'm not the only dishonest poster in this thread. I don't blame you for taking the easy jab, I'm just calling you out for the willing ignorance being implied here when you 'considered the context'. There's a clear bias involved here, and you can't bullshit a bullshitter.

I mean, the only other way I see it is, you read the back and forth, and believed Rhorle was asking a source in good faith. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't like to think you're that naive.

[rhorle]

Growth is a rate. It's not static like comparing to a shop manually setting price values at a 80% discount. You don't sound like you actually know what you're talking about.

So amazon stating growth for the year has been 70% means that isn't a set value? That growth for the past year is constantly changing? Lmao.

[Triceron]

So amazon stating growth for the year has been 70% means that isn't a set value? That growth for the past year is constantly changing? Lmao.

Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about. Like, you really don't.


Do you know how growth is actually calculated? I'll give you a hint, it's not by Jeff Bezos deciding the growth rate to be 70% and having his people set it at that, lol.

[rhorle]

Do you know how growth is actually calculated? I'll give you a hint, it's not by Jeff Bezos deciding the growth rate to be 70% and having his people set it at that, lol.

Year over year growth for the period ending Q1 2021 can not continue to grow. It is based on a set period of time that will not see new data for that period. So yes I know how it is calculated and clearly you do not. Lmao.

[Triceron]

Year over year growth for the period ending Q1 2021 can not continue to grow. It is based on a set period of time that will not see new data for that period. So yes I know how it is calculated and clearly you do not. Lmao.

You understand that the a Growth rate that has not changed is not the same as a set value, right?

So amazon stating growth for the year has been 70% means that isn't a set value?

No, not it is not a set value. It is a rate.

The whole reason why it's called a set value is because you can set it.

[rhorle]

You understand that the a Growth rate that has not changed does not make it a set value, right?

So it will never change from that value but it is not set? Values for set periods of time no longer change once the upper boundary of that time period passes. If you are measuring the number of times it rains in a year then come October 1st the number of times it rained in September will no longer increase. The same is true for the year over year growth rate for Q1 2021.

It is a set value for that period but will change for the next period. So the 70% growth for Prime Video year over year Q1 2021 is a fixed value. No amount of analyzing the data will change that value unless a mistake in calculation occurred. That value will change for a different measurement of growth because it is including different data.

[Triceron]

So it will never change from that value but it is not set? Values for set periods of time

You understand these are different terms that you're conflating as believing to be the same thing, when they are not, right?

A growth rate for a set period is not a set value. That is why your price analogy doesn't work. Your shop sale didn't reach that 80% discount by evaluating a price decrease rate over a set period. It is determined by someone setting it to be an 80% discount.

The entire context of statistics is about determining rates and variables, values that are not predetermined. When you use an analogy involving predetermined values, you undermine the very thing you're trying to talk about.

You see? I can't fix your stupidity. I'll still try anyways, because I have faith in you.

[rhorle]

A growth rate for a set period is not a set value.

If it can be used to describe a fixed period then it can be used to describe a fixed value in that period. The Growth rate for year over year 2021 will not change for that period.

[Triceron]

If it can be used to describe a fixed period then it can be used to describe a fixed value in that period. The Growth rate for year over year 2021 will not change for that period.

Yes, because you're actually talking about that growth rate as a static value. And yes, static values are fixed.

That's not the same thing as a set value, while you are saying they are the same and laughing while doing so.

As I said, a set value is predetermined, akin to your Price drop analogy. Growth rates are dynamic, and the fact you kept saying they can become set values means you didn't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

Set values aren't statistics. Your analogy had nothing to do with statistics. That's why I asked you if you really believed Jeff Bezos chose to set the growth values at 70% and his people just did it, because that's what you mean if you say the growth is a set value. Understand how stupid that sounds?

And now, let's take a quick look at your previous statements for the fucking lols!

Growth is a set value then. Engagement numbers is a set value then.

So amazon stating growth for the year has been 70% means that isn't a set value? That growth for the past year is constantly changing? Lmao.

So yes I know how it is calculated and clearly you do not. Lmao.


I mean, look at the balls on this motherfucker! LOL!