Podcasts about Jurassic Park

Josh's car smell / Kardashian update: Courtney update / Colcord halloween / BU football schedule correction / Jamie costa's Robin Williams YouTube video / Richard schiff Jurassic Park 2 Appearance / Squid Game / Muppet Halloween Special / The Ginsburg Couric Edits / A Halloween Quiz / Taylor requests a return to cancel culture again. In this conversation we make key discoveries about our postures toward cancel culture and who its role in in our larger social ecosystem. Special thanks to episode sponsor @thebearmountain

Solana has topics... Hoch and Crowder have takes... forced to choose between Pulp Fiction, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Eggs. Large ones. MEGA, you could say. One could argue that pre-orders are now open. Exclusive. Limited. MEGA. Ariana Richards played Lex Murphy in 1993's Jurassic Park and Keira Knightley played Lex Murphy in 2005's Jurassic Park IV. A new desert island awaits season 4 of Camp Cretaceous. Asees loves Aftermath, Chris does not. Asees has played part 2, Chris has not. We have gamecodes to giveaway for both parts. Enter to win now. Music: Caleb Burnett Use JURASSICOUTPOST10 at VICE-PRESS to receive 10% discount on all prints in the Jurassic Park collection: https://vice-press.com/collections/jurassic-park-collection Use OUTPOST20 at Zavvi to receive 20% discount on all Jurassic Park and Jurassic World products! FESTIVAL COLLECTION: http://tidd.ly/f696ef9c PRIMAL COLLECTION: https://tidd.ly/2Bb2yYK The Jurassic Outpost STORE is NOW OPEN! https://www.jurassicoutpost.com/store  Get your KIRBY PAINT AND TILE PLUS merch here: https://www.jurassicoutpost.com/store Podcast: https://www.jurassicoutpost.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jurassicoutpost Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jurassicoutpost Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jurassic_outpost Vault: https://www.jurassicvault.com Wiki: https://www.jurassicwiki.com

Only one dinosaur movie from 1993 had the audacity to tell truths that the big Hollywood studios were afraid to tackle. Sure, Jurassic Park hints at man's folly, but only this Roger Cormon produced classic dares to float the hypothesis that maybe people are so terrible that all women should be killed by a virus that forces them to birth dinosaurs, dooming humans to extinction. Fans of nihilistic dinosaur puppets are in for the ride of their lives...probably in some sort of tractor trailer truck hauling live chickens.

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Don't go in the Jurassic Park ride at night. Written and Narrated by ► Mr. Freaky **SUBSCRIBE & HIT THAT NOTIFICATION BELL!** ►► https://tinyurl.com/y6fe78al​​​ Mr.Freaky Discord server ► https://discord.gg/26EAEYjmmq Music: ► Kevin MacLeod ~ Unseen Horrors -This Creepypasta is fictional and for entertainment purposes only- © 2021 Freaky Attractions. All rights reserved.

MATCHES, MATCHES, WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' MATCHES. Join me and my guest filmmaker David Au (Eat With Me) as we discuss The Wedding Banquet and Late Spring, what we're calling matchmaking Asian style. “She'll make lots of babies”. Nag, nag, nag. That's all parents do. Clean your room. Get married. Get good grades. Get married. Don't stay out late. Get married. …Sounds like it's time for Episode 66 of Pop Art, the podcast where my guest chooses a movie from popular culture, and I'll select a film from the more art/classic/indie side of cinema with a connection to it. For this episode, I am happy to welcome as my guest, filmmaker David Au, who has chosen as his selection Ang Lee's breakthrough film, the farcical The Wedding Banquet, while I have chosen Yasujirō Ozu's classic shōshimin-eiga drama, Late Spring, both films about parents trying to get their children married. And in this episode, we answer such questions as: What is a post-gay film? What is a shōshimin-eiga film? What did Emma Thompson say about Ang Lee? What censorship problems did Late Spring face? Where was the lead for The Wedding Banquet discovered (hint: it wasn't Schwabbs)? What happened in 1947 and 1948 in regard to marriages in Japan? In what way was The Wedding Banquet a more successful film financially than Jurassic Park? Where does Late Spring land on the Sight and Sound poll? What was unusual about Ang Lee winning an Academy Award for best director? Check out David's film Eat With Me on Amazon. Check out my blog at https://howardcasner.wordpress.com/ My books, More Rantings and Ravings of a Screenplay Reader, The Starving Artists and Other Stories and The Five Corporations and One True Religion can be found at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=howard+casner&ref=nb_sb_noss --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/howard-casner/support

Happy Season Three of Books with Brookes! To kick off the new season, several members of the Books with Brookes book club join to discuss iconic books that became movies and debate which one is better; the book or the movie? Duos include: The Shining, The Hunger Games and Jurassic Park. For sponsorship plans and more information, please email: admin@pressplaypodcasts.com | www.pressplaypodcasts.com

We start E37 off with Lauren's not-so-vague review of Muppet's Haunted Mansion and where it lies on the Muppet Movie scale of greatness. Your favorite horror hosts call the Negronomicon (8:20) off the shelf to recap their Art Meets Life appearance, gush over the newest news about Scream  (11:11), and have a quick Whatcha' Watching?! moment before throwing on their wetsuits to go 3000 leagues under 1999's Deep Blue Sea (19:45). Follow Us Online & don't forget to leave us a 5 star review!www.scarycritpodcast.com | twitter.com/scarycritpod | instagram.com/scarycritpodWant to watch our Art Meets Life episode? Check it out here: https://youtu.be/7155eEr3nnUGems from Episode 37Muppets Haunted Mansion (2021)The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)The Muppets' Wizard of Oz (2005)Halloween Kills (2021)The Evil Dead (1981)Scream (2022)Charmed (1998)Sex Education (2019)Only Murders in the Building (2021)Squid Game (2021)Alice in Borderland (2020)As the Gods Will (2014)The Italian Job (2003)Army of the Dead (2021)Ocean's Eleven (2001)The Sopranos (1999)Deep Blue Sea (1999)The Haunting (1999)Jaws (1975)The Meg (2018)Scream (1996)Psycho (1960)Braveheart (1995)Pulp Fiction (1994)Mo Better Blues (1990)Goodfellas (1990)Jungle Fever (1991)Juice (1992)Menace II Society (1993)Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)Jurassic Park (1993)Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)Eve's Bayou (1997)Frankenfish (2004)Grey's Anatomy (2005)Alien (1979)The Mummy (1999)Panic Room (2002)Silence of the Lambs (1991)North by Northwest (1959)Sealab 2021 (2000)Brooklyn Nine-Nine (2013)Poseidon (2006)Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)Jurassic World (2015)Power (2015)Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004)Thirteen Ghosts (2001)Underwater (2020)It (2007)True Blood (2008)

We are back with run-downs of Jeff and Zach's Gencon Trip, Adrian's Costa Rica Excursion, and Adrian's Geekway adventures.   00:00:36 - Engagement Period: While we were away and beer 00:04:12 - Gencon Catch-up: Furnace, Dinosaur World, Jurassic Park, Tyrants of the Underdark, Raccoon Tycoon, Too Many Bones, German Beer Hall, Au Cheval, Deckscape 01:12:53 - Banter Break! Featuring: Horizon Zero Dawn, Costa Rica, Luchadors, New World 01:42:23 - Geekway Catchup: Pan Am, Spirit Island, the Night Cage, Hallertau, Captains of the Gulf, Panamax, Hues and Cues 02:22:20 - Paulo's Youtube Corner! 02:23:20 - Emails!   MHGG Twitch Slack Channel  Patreon Guild

Follow @foobarshowEpisode 248 - Podding From Oahu, Hawaii(1:28)The Foos discuss their Hawaii trip so far.-The Foo's wedding.-Jurassic Park filming sites.(24:54)Geeking Out:-What If… The Watcher Broke His Oath?(35:28)Foobar Sports:-Jon Gruden, head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders resigns over racist allegations.-The MLB Playoffs.Give us a 5-star positive review on Apple Podcasts!Get your Foobar Show merch at foobarshow.comSUPPORT OUR SPONSORS-ALF Live Events for all of your live audio/visual needs at alflei.com-Get 30% off on Grassdoor by clicking through our banner on our website.-Check out The Fallen Electric at thefallenelectric.com & @thefallenelectric for music, news, and merch!

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Chris evaluates the pros and cons between using Sidekiq or Active Job with Sidekiq. He sees exceptions everywhere. Steph talks about an SSL error that she encountered recently. It's officially spooky season, y'all! sidekiq-symbols (https://github.com/aprescott/sidekiq-symbols) Transcript: CHRIS: Additional radiation just makes Spider-Man more powerful. STEPH: [laughs] Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Steph Viccari. CHRIS: And I'm Chris Toomey. STEPH: And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. Hey, Chris, what's new in your world? CHRIS: Fall is in the air. It's one of those, like, came out of nowhere. I knew it was coming. I knew it was going to happen. But now it's time for pumpkin beer and pumpkin spice lattes, and exclusively watching the movie Hocus Pocus for the next month or so or some variation of those themes. But unrelated to that, I did a thing that I do once, let's call it every year or so, where I had to make the evaluation between Sidekiq or Active Job with Sidekiq, as the actual implementation as the background job engine that is running. And I just keep running through this same cycle. To highlight it, Active Job is the background job system within Rails. It is a nice abstraction that allows you to connect to any of a number of them, so I think Delayed Job is one. Sidekiq is one. Resque is probably another. I'm sure there's a bunch of others. But historically, I've almost always used Sidekiq. Every project I've worked on has used Sidekiq. But the question is do you use Active Job with the adapter set to Sidekiq and then you're sort of living in both worlds, or do you lean in entirely and you use Sidekiq? And so that would mean that your jobs are defined to include Sidekiq::Worker because that's the actual thing that provides the magic as opposed to inheriting from Application Job. And then do you accept all of the trade-offs therein? And every time I go back and forth. And I'm like, well, but I want this feature, but I don't want that feature. But I want these things. So I've made a decision, but I want to talk ever so briefly through the decision points that were part of it. Have you done this back and forth? Are you familiar with the annoying choice that exists here? STEPH: It's been a while since I've had the opportunity to make that choice. I'm usually joining projects where that decision has already been made. So I can't think of a recent time that I've thought through it. And my current project is using that combination of where we are using Active Job and Sidekiq. CHRIS: So I think there's even a middle ground there where that was the configuration that I'd set up on the project that I'm working on. But you can exist in both worlds. And you can selectively opt for certain background jobs to be fully Sidekiq. And if you do that, then instead of saying, "Performlater," You say, "Performasync." And there are a couple of other configurations. It gives you access to the full Sidekiq API. And you can do things like hey, Sidekiq, here's the maximum number of retries or a handful of other things. But then you have to trade away a bunch of the niceties that Active Job gives. So as an example, one thing that Active Job provides that's really nice is the use of GlobalID. So GlobalID is a feature that they added to Rails a while back. And it's a way to uniquely identify a given record within your system such that when you say performlater, you can say, InvitationMailer.performlater and then pass it a user record so like an instance of a user model. And what will happen in the background is that gets serialized, but instead of serializing the whole user object because we don't actually want that, it will do the GlobalID magic. And so it'll turn into, I think it's GID:// so almost like a URL. But then it'll be, I think, your application name/model name down the road. And the Perform method actually gets invoked via the background system. Then you will just get handed that user record back, but it's not the same instance of the user record. It sort of freezes and thaws it. It's really nice. It's a wonderful little feature. Sidekiq wants nothing to do with that. STEPH: I'm so glad that you highlighted that feature because that was on my mind; I think this week where I was reviewing...somebody had made the comment where they were concerned about passing a record to a job and saying how that wouldn't play nicely with Sidekiq. And in the back of my mind, I'm like, yeah, that's right. But then I was also I'm pretty sure this got addressed, though. And I couldn't recall specifically if it was a Sidekiq enhancement or if it was a Rails enhancement. So you just cleared something up for me that I had not had time to confirm myself. So thanks. CHRIS: Well, to be clear, this works if you are using Active Job with Sidekiq as the adapter, but not if you are using a true Sidekiq worker. So if you opt-out of the Active Job flow, then you have to say, "Perform_async," and if you pass it a record, that's not going to work out particularly nicely. The other similar thing is that Sidekiq does not allow the use of keyword args, which, I'm going, to be honest, I really like keyword arguments, especially for background jobs or shuttling data through your system. And there's almost a lazy evaluation. I want some nicety to make sure that when I am putting something into a background job that I'm actually using the correct call signature, essentially passing the correct data in the correct shape. Am I passing a record, or am I passing the ID? Am I passing a list of options or a single option? Those sort of trade-offs that are really easy to subtly get wrong. I came around on this one because I realized although Active Job does support keyword arguments, the way it does that is it just has a JSON serialization format for them. So a keyword argument turns into a positional array with an associated hash that allows for the lookup or whatever. Basically, again, they handle the details. You get to use keyword args, which is great, with the exception that when you're actually calling performlater, that method performlater is a method missing type magic method. So it does not actually check the keyword arguments at that point. You're basically just passing an options hash as opposed to true keyword arguments that would error because they don't match up. And so when I figured that out, I was like, oh, never mind. This doesn't actually do the thing that I care about. It's a little bit nicer in terms of the signature of the method when you're defining your background job itself, but it doesn't actually do any logical checking. It doesn't give me any safety or robustness within my system. So I don't care about that. I did find a project called sidekiq-symbols, which does some things under the hood to how Sidekiq serializes and deserializes jobs, which I think gives largely the same behavior as Active Job. So I can now define my Sidekiq jobs with keyword arguments. Things will work. I can't use GlobalID. That's still out. But that's fine. I can do a little helper method that basically does the same thing as GlobalID or at least close approximation. But sidekiq-symbols lets me have keyword arg-like signatures in my methods; basically, it is. But again, it doesn't actually do any check-in when I'm enqueueing a job, and I am sad about that. STEPH: Yeah, that's another interesting distinction. And I'm unsurprisingly with you that I would favor having keyword args and having that additional safety in place. Okay, so I've been keeping track. And so far, it sounds like we have two points because I'm doing a little scorecard here between Active Job and Sidekiq. And we have two points in favor of Active Job because they offer a GlobalID, which then allows us to pass in a record, and then it takes care of the serialization for us. And then also, keyword args, which I agree with you that's a really nice feature to have in place as well. So I'm curious, so it sounded like you're leaning towards Active Job, but I don't want to spoil the ending. CHRIS: Yes, I could see why that's what you would be taking away from the conversation thus far. So again, just to reiterate, Active Job and Sidekiq with this sidekiq-symbols extension they both support keyword args, kind of. They support defining your job with keyword args and then enqueueing a job passing something that looks like keyword args. But it ends up...nobody's actually checking anything, so it's mostly like a syntactic nicety as opposed to any sort of correctness, which is still nicer, but it's not the thing that I actually want. Either way, nobody supports it, so it is not available to me. Therefore, it is not a consideration point. The GlobalID thing is nice, but it is really, again, it's a nicety more than anything. I have gone, and I'm leaning in the direction of full Sidekiq and Sidekiq everywhere as opposed to Active Job in most cases, but then Sidekiq when we need it. And that's because Sidekiq just has a lot more power and a lot more functionality. So, in particular, Sidekiq has a feature which allows you to say...it's a block that you put at the top of your Sidekiq job that says retries exhausted or something. I think Sidekiq retries exhausted is the actual full name of that at that point, which is really unfortunate in my mind, but anyway, I'll deal. At that point, you know that Sidekiq has exhausted all of the retries, and you can treat it as failed. I'm going, to be honest, I went on a quest to find a way to say, hey, I'm going to put some work into the background. It's really important for me to know if this work succeeds or if it fails. It's very easy to know if it succeeds because that just happens in-line in the method. But we can have an exception raised at basically any point; Sidekiq does a great job of catching those, of retrying, of having fundamental mechanisms there. But this is the best that I can get for this job failed. And so Active Job, as far as I can tell, does not have anything for this in order to say, yep, we are done. We are not going to keep working on this. This work has failed. It is dead. Dead is; actually, I think the more correct term for where we're at because failed is a temporary state, and then you retry after a failure. Whereas dead is, this has gone through all of its retries, and it will never be run again. Therefore, we should treat this as not having run. And in my case, the thing that I want to do is inform the user that this operation that we were trying to do on their behalf has not succeeded, will not succeed. And please reach out or otherwise deal with the fact that we were unable to do the thing that they asked us to do. That feels like a really important thing for me to be able to do, to be able to communicate back to my users. This is one of those situations where I'm looking at the available options, and I'm like, I feel like I can't be the only one who wants to know when something goes wrong. This feels like a thing that's important. But this is the best example that I've found, the Sidekiq retries exhausted block. And unfortunately, when I'm using it, it gets yielded the Sidekiq JSON blob deserialized, so it's like Ruby hash. But it's still like this blob of data. It's not the same data that gets passed into perform. And so, as a result, when I want to look up the record that was associated with it, I have to do this nested dig into the available hash of data. And it just feels like this is not a well-paved path. This is not something that is a deeply thought about or recommended use case. But again, I don't feel like I'm doing something weird here. Am I doing something weird, Steph, wanting to tell my users when I was unable to do the thing they asked me to do? [chuckles] STEPH: That feels like a very rhetorical question. [laughs] CHRIS: It does. I apologize. I'm leading the witness. But in your sincere heart of hearts, what do you think? STEPH: No, that certainly doesn't sound weird. I'm actually thinking back to some of the jobs that cause me stress in regards to knowing when they failed and then having that communication of knowing that we've exhausted all the retries. And, of course, knowing when those retries are exhausted is incredibly helpful. I am intrigued, though,, because you're highlighting that Active Job doesn't have the same option around setting the retry. And I'm trying to recall exactly how it's set. But I feel like I have set the retry count for Active Job. And maybe, as you mentioned before, that's because it's an abstraction, or I'm not sure if Active Job actually has that native support. So I feel a little confused there where I think my default instinct would have been Active Job does have that retry capability. But it sounds like you've discovered otherwise. CHRIS: I'm not actually sure what Active Jobs core retry logic or option looks like. So fundamentally, as far as I understand it, Active Job is an abstraction. And under the hood, you're always connecting an adapter. So it's either going to be Sidekiq, or Resque, or Delayed Job, or other. And each of those systems, whichever system you have as the adapter, is the one that's actually going to be managing retries. And so I know Sidekiq happens to have as a default 25 retries. And that spans, I think it's a two-week exponential back off. And Sidekiq has some very robust logic that they have implemented as the way retries exist within Sidekiq. I'm not sure what that would look like if you're trying to express it abstractly because it is slightly different. I know there was some good work that was done on Sidekiq to allow the Sidekiq options that's a method at the top level of the job, even if it's an Active Job job to express the retries. So that may be what you've seen, or there may be truly an abstraction that exists within Active Job, and then each adapter needs to know how to handle retries. But frankly, the what can Sidekiq do that Active Job can't? There's a whole bunch of stuff around limiting when you would retry limiting, enqueuing a job if there already exists one, when and how do those records get locked. There's a whole bunch of stuff. Sidekiq has a lot of power under the hood. And so if we want to be leaning into that, that's why I'm leaning towards let's just be Sidekiq all the time. Let's become Sidekiq experts. Let's accept that as a deep architectural decision within the app as opposed to just relying on the abstraction. Because fundamentally, if we're just using Active Job, we're not going to have access to the full power of Sidekiq or whatever the underlying system is, so sort of that decision that I'm making, but I don't know specifically around the retries. STEPH: Okay, thanks. That's really helpful. It's been a while since I've had to make this decision. I'm really enjoying you sharing your adventure because I'm trying to think what's the risk? If you don't use Active Job, what are the trade-offs? And you'd mentioned some of them around the GlobalID and keyword args, which are some niceties. But overall, if you don't go with the abstraction, if you lean into Sidekiq, the risk is then you want to migrate to a different enqueuing service. And something that we talk about is mitigating that risk, so then you can swap it out. That's also something I have never done or encountered where we've had to make that change. And it feels like a very low risk in my mind. CHRIS: Sidekiq feels like the thing you would migrate to, not a thing you would migrate from. It feels like it is the most powerful. And if anything, I expect at some point we'll be upgrading to Sidekiq pro or enterprise or whatever the higher versions that you pay for, but you get more features there. So in that sense, that is the calculation. That's the risk trade-off in my mind is that we're leaning into this technology and coupling ourselves more closely to it. But I don't see that as one that will reassess in the same way that people talk about Active Record and it being an ORM. And it's like, oh, we're abstracting the database underneath, and I'm like, no, I'm not. I'm always using Postgres. Please do not take Postgres. I'm not going to switch over to MySQL next week. That's totally fine if you start on MySQL. It's unlikely you're going to port over to Postgres. We may port to an entirely…like it's a Cassandra column store with a Kafka queue, I don't know, something weird down the road. But it's not going to be swapping out Postgres for MySQL or vice versa. Like you said, that's probably not a change that's going to happen. But that I think is the consideration. The other consideration I have in my mind is Active Job is the abstraction that exists within Rails. And so I can treat it as the lowest common denominator, and folks joining the project, it's nice to have that familiarity. So perform_later is the method on the Active Job jobs, and it has a certain shape to it. People may be familiar with that. Mailers will automatically use Active Job just implicitly under the hood. And so there's a familiarity, a discoverability. It's just kind of up the middle choice. And so if I can stick with that, I think there's a nicety there. But in this case, I think I'm choosing I would like the power and consistency on the Sidekiq side, and so I'm leaning into that. STEPH: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. And I liked the other example you provided around things that were not likely to swap out and Postgres, MySQL, your database being one of them. And in favor of an example that I do have for something that...I do enjoy wrapping. It's not something that I adhere to strictly, but I do enjoy it when I have the space to make this choice. So I do enjoy wrapping HTTPClients, not just because then I can swap it out for a different HTTPClient, which frankly, that's also rare that I do that. Once I choose an HTTPClient, I'm probably pretty happy, and I don't need to swap it out. But I really like being able to extend to the API specifically if they don't handle error responses in a way that I would like to or if they raise, and then I want to change the API to have a more thoughtful interface and where I don't have to rescue those errors. But instead, I can interact with this object that then represents an error state. So that was just one example that came to mind for things that I do enjoy having an abstraction around and not just so I can swap it out because that feels like a very low risk, but more frankly, so I can extend the API. CHRIS: I definitely share the I almost always wrap APIs, or I try and hide whatever the implementation detail whether it be HTTPParty, or Faraday or whatever it is that I'm using and trying to hide that deeply within the system. And then I have whatever API client that we define. And that's what we're interacting with. It's interesting that you bring up errors and exceptions there because that's the one other thing that has caused me this...what I'm describing now seems perhaps like, oh, here's just a list of pros and cons, a simple decision was made, and there we are. This represents some real soul searching on my part, if we will. And one of the last things that I ran into that was just so frustrating is that Sidekiq is explicitly built around the idea of exceptions; Sidekiq retries if there is an exception raised in the job, otherwise, it treats it as success, and that's it. That is the entirety of it. That is the story. But if you raise an exception in a job, then you can't test that job because now it's raising an exception. You can't test retries or this retry exhausted block that I'm trying to lean into. I'm like, I want to put that in a feature spec and say, oh, this job goes in the background, but it's in a failure state, and therefore, the user sees the failure message. Sorry, I can't do that because the only way to actually fail a job is via an exception. And I've actually gone to some links in this application to try to introduce more structured data flow. I've talked a bunch about the command objects and the dry-monads and all those things. And I've really loved them where I've gotten to use them. But then I run into one of these edge cases where Sidekiq is like, no, no, no, you can't do that. And so now I have parts of my system that very purposefully return data as opposed to raising an exception. And I just have to turn around and directly raise that failure as an exception, and it just feels less expressive. I actually just ran into the identical thing with Pundit. They have a little bit better control over it; I can choose whether or not I want the raising version or not. But I see exceptions everywhere, and I want a little more discrete data flow. [chuckles] That is my dream. So anyway, I chose Sidekiq is the summary here. And slowly, we're going to migrate entirely to Sidekiq. And I'm going to be totally fine with it. And I'm done griping now. STEPH: This is your own little October Halloween movie, that I see exceptions everywhere. CHRIS: They're so spooky. STEPH: [laughs] That's cool about Pundit. I'm not sure I knew that, that you get to essentially turn on or off that exception flow behavior. On one hand, I'm like, that's nice. You get the option. On the other hand, I'm like, well, let's just not do it. Let's just never raise on people. But at least they give people options; that seems really cool. CHRIS: They do give the option. I think you can choose different strategies there. And also, if we're being honest, I'm newer to Pundit. And I used a different thing, which was to get the Policy Object and ask it a question. I wanted to ask, is this enabled or not? Can a user do this or not? That should not raise an exception. I'm just asking a question. We're just being real chill about this. I just want to know some information. Let's flow some data through our system. We don't need exceptions for that. STEPH: Why are you yelling at me? I just have a question. [laughs] CHRIS: Yeah. I figured out how to be easy on that front. Sidekiq apparently has no be easy mode, but that's fine. You know what? We're going to make it work, and it's going to be fine. But it is interesting deciding which of these facets of the system that I'm building do I really care about? Which are the ones where I'm like, whatever, just pick something, and we'll move forward, it's not a big deal? Versus, we're actually going to be doing a lot of work in the background. This is the thing that I care about deeply. I want to know about failure and success. I want to really understand that and have a robust answer to what our architecture looks like there. Similarly, Pundit for authorization. I believe that authorization will be a critical aspect of our system. It's typically a pretty important thing. But for us, I think we're going to have different types of users who can log in and see different subsets of data and having a consistent and concrete way that we have chosen to implement that we are able to test, that we're able to verify. I think that's another core competency within the app. But you only get to have so many of those. You can only be really good at a couple of things. And so I'm in that place where I'm like, which are our top five when I say are the things that I care a lot about? And then which are the things where I'm like, I don't know, whatever, just run with it? STEPH: Just a little bit ago, I came so close to singing because you said the I want to know phrase again. And that, I'm realizing, [laughs] is a trigger for me and a song where I want to sing. I held it back this time. CHRIS: It's smart. You got to learn anytime you sing on mic that is part of the permanent record. STEPH: Edward Loveall at thoughtbot, since I sang in a recent episode, did the delightful thing where then he grabbed that clip of where you talk a little bit, and then I sing and then encouraged everyone to go listen to it. And in which I responded, like, I would highly recommend that you save your ears and don't listen to it. But yes, singing on the mic is a thing. I do it from time to time. I can't hold it back. CHRIS: We all do. But since it doesn't seem that you're going to sing in this moment, I think I can probably wrap up my Odyssey of choosing between Sidekiq and Active Job. I hope those details were useful to anyone other than me. It was an adventure, so I figured I'd share it. But yeah, that about wraps it up on my side. Mid-roll Ad And now a quick break to hear from today's sponsor, Scout APM. Scout APM is leading-edge application performance monitoring that's designed to help Rails developers quickly find and fix performance issues without having to deal with the headache or overhead of enterprise platform feature bloat. With a developer-centric UI and tracing logic that ties bottlenecks to source code, you can quickly pinpoint and resolve those performance abnormalities like N+1 queries, slow database queries, memory bloat, and much more. Scout's real-time alerting and weekly digest emails let you rest easy knowing Scout's on watch and resolving performance issues before your customers ever see them. Scout has also launched its new error monitoring feature add-on for Python applications. Now you can connect your error reporting and application monitoring data on one platform. See for yourself why developers call Scout their best friend and try our error monitoring and APM free for 14 days; no credit card needed. And as an added-on bonus for Bike Shed listeners, Scout will donate $5 to the open-source project of your choice when you deploy. Learn more at scoutapm.com/bikeshed. That's scoutapm.com/bikeshed. STEPH: So, I would love to talk about an SSL error that I encountered recently. So one of the important processes in our application is sending data to another system. And while sending data to that other system, we started seeing the following error that the read "Certificate verify failed." And then in parens, it states, "Unable to get local issuer certificate." So upon seeing that error, I initially thought, okay, something is wrong with their SSL certificate or their SSL configuration. And that's not something that I have control over and can fix. So we should reach out and let them know to take a look at their SSL config. But it turns out that their team already knew about the issue. They had recently updated or renewed their SSL cert, and they saw our messages were no longer being processed, and they were reaching out to us for help. So at that point, I'm still pretty sure that it's related to something on their end, and it's not something that I can really fix on our end. But we can help them troubleshoot. Maybe there's a workaround that we can add to still get messages processing while they're looking into their SSL config. It seemed like they still just needed help. So it was something that was still worth diving into. So going back to the first error, I want to talk a little bit about it because I realized that I understand SSL just enough, just the surface to get by as a developer. But then, every time that I run into a specific error with it, then I really have to refresh my understanding as to what could be wrong, so then I can troubleshoot more effectively. So for anyone that could use a refresher on that certificate verification process, when your browser or your server is connecting to a site that uses SSL, then your browser server, whichever one you're using, is going to download that site certificate and verify a couple of things. So it's going to check does the certificate contain the domain name of the website? So essentially, you gave us a certificate. Is this your certificate? Does it match the site that we're connecting to? Is this cert issued by a trusted certificate authority? So did someone that we trust give you this certificate? And is the cert still valid, or has it expired? So that part is pretty straightforward. The second part, "Unable to get local issuer certificate," so that's the part I was less certain about. And I took this to mean that they had passed two of those three checks that their cert included the site's name, and it had not expired. But for some reason, we aren't able to determine if their cert was issued by someone that we should trust. So following that journey, my next question was, so what are they giving us? So this is a tool that I don't get to use very often, but I reached for OpenSSL and, specifically, the s_client command, which connects to a specified domain and prints all certificates in the certificate chain. You may already know this, but the certificate chain is basically a fancy way of saying, show me all the certificates necessary to prove your site certificate was authorized by a trusted certificate authority. CHRIS: I did not know that. STEPH: Okay, I honestly didn't either. [laughs] CHRIS: I liked that you thought I would, though. So thank you, but no. [chuckles] STEPH: Yeah, it's one of those areas of SSL where I know just enough. But that was something that was new to me. I thought there was a site certificate, and I didn't realize that there is this chain of certificates that has to be honored. So going back and looking through that output of the certificate chain, that's what highlighted to me that their server was giving us their certificate and saying, hey, you should trust our site certificate. It's legit because it was authorized by, let's say, XYZ certificate. And so if it were a proper certificate chain, then they would give us that XYZ cert. And essentially, we can use this chain of certificates to get back to a trusted authority that then everybody knows that we can trust. However, they weren't actually giving us a reference certificate; they were giving us something else. So essentially, they were saying, "Hey, look at our certificate and look at this very trustworthy reference that we have." But they're actually failing to give us that reference. So to bring it all home, we can download that intermediate certificate that they reference; that is something that is publicly accessible. That's why we're able to then verify each certificate that's provided in that chain. We could go and download that intermediate certificate from that certificate authority. We could combine that with their site-specific certificate, include that in our request to their system, and then complete the certificate chain. And boom, we're back in business. But it was quite a journey. CHRIS: That is quite the journey. And yeah, I definitely knew very little of that, although everything you're saying makes sense. And I have a bunch of cubbyholes in my brain for SSL knowledge. And the words you said all fit into the spaces that I have in my brain, but I didn't know a bunch of those pieces. So thank you for sharing that. SSL and cryptography, more generally or password hashing or things like that, occupy this special place in my brain where I'm both really interested in them. And I will occasionally research them. If I see a blog article, I'll be like, oh yeah, I want to read more about this password hashing. And what's a Salt? And what's a Pepper? And what are we doing there? And what is BCrypt versus SCrypt? What are all these things? This is cool. And almost the arms race on the two sides of how do we demonstrate trust in a secure manner on the internet? But at the same time, I am not allowed to do anything with this information. I outsource this as much as humanly possible because it's one of those things that you just should not do yourself and SSL perhaps even more so. So I have configured aspects of my password hashing. But I 100% just lean on the fact that Let's Encrypt exists in the world. And prior to that, it was a little more work. But frankly, earlier on in my career, I wasn't dealing with the SSL parts of things. But I'm so grateful to Let's Encrypt as a project that exists. And now, on almost every platform that I work with, there's just a checkbox for please do the SSL work for me, make it good, make it work, and then I will be happy. And I'm so glad that that organization exists and really pushed the envelope also. I forget what it was, but it was only like three years ago where SSL was not actually nearly as common as it is now. And now it is pervasive and everywhere. And all of the sites have it, and so that is a wonderful thing. But I don't actually know much. I know that I should have it. I must have it. I should force it. That's true. So I push that out… STEPH: Hello. CHRIS: Are you trying to get me to sing? [chuckles] STEPH: [laughs] No, but I did want to know if you get the reference, the Salt-N-Pepa. CHRIS: Push It Real Good the song? Yeah, okay. STEPH: Yeah, you got it. [chuckles] CHRIS: I will just say the lyrics. I shall not sing the lyrics. I would say that, though, that yes, yes, they do that. STEPH: Thank you for acknowledging my very terrible reference. Circling back just a little bit too in regards to...I'm with you; this is a world that is not one that I am very deeply technical in and something that I learned a fair amount while troubleshooting this particular SSL error. And it was very interesting. But there's also that concern where it's like, that was interesting. And we worked around the issue, but this also feels very fragile. So we still haven't fixed it on their end where they are sending the wrong certificate. So then that's why we had to do more investigative work, and then download the certificate that they meant to send us, and then send back a complete certificate chain so that we don't have this error anymore. But should they change anything about their certificate, should they renew anything like that, then suddenly, we're going to break again. And then, the next developer is going to have to go through the same journey. And this wasn't a light journey. This was a good half-day journey to figure out what was going on and to spend the time, and then to also get that fix out to production. So it's a meaningful task that I don't want anyone else to have to go through. But we are relying on someone else updating their configuration. So, on one hand, we're in a good spot until they are able to update. But on the other hand, I wrote a heck of a commit message for the next person just describing like, friend, just grab some coffee if we're going to chat. It's a very small code change, but you need to know the scoop. So should you need to replicate this because they've changed something, or if this happens…because we work with a number of systems that we send data to. So if someone else should run into a similar issue, they will understand some of the troubleshooting techniques that I used and be able to look up that chain and find out if there's a missing cert or something else they need to provide. So it feels like a win, but I'm also nervous for future selves, future developers. So there's another approach that I haven't mentioned yet, but it was often a top recommendation for when dealing with SSL errors. And specifically, it was turning off SSL verification. And I saw that, and I was like, well, that won't work. I'm definitely sending sensitive, important data. And I need to verify that who I'm sending this to is really the person that I want to send this data to. So that was not an option for me. But it made me very nervous how often that was an approach that people would recommend and be like, oh, it's okay, just turn off SSL. You'll be fine. Like, don't worry about it. CHRIS: I feel like this so perfectly fits into the...some of our work is finding the information and connecting the pieces together and making it work. But some of it is that heuristic sense, that voice in the back of your head that is like, wait, I'm sorry, what? You want me to just turn off the security perimeter and hope that the velociraptors won't come in? That doesn't seem like it's going to end well. I get that that's an easy option that we have available to us right now and will solve the immediate problem but then let's play this out. There are four or five Jurassic Park movies now that tell the story of that. So let's be careful. STEPH: It always ends super well, though, right? Like, it's totally fine. [laughs] CHRIS: [laughs] Exclusively. Although it's funny that you mentioned OpenSSL no verify because just this past week, I used that very same configuration. I think it was okay in my case; I'm pretty sure. But it is interesting because when I saw it, I was like, oh no, can't do that. Certainly not that. Don't turn off the security feature. That's the wrong way to deal with the issue. But in the particular case that I'm working with, I'm using Redis, Heroku Redis, in particular, in a Heroku configuration. And the nature of how Heroku configures the Redis instances and the connectivity to our app into our dyno...I forget why. I read an article. They wrote it; Heroku wrote it. I trust them; they're good. I've outsourced my trust to people that I do trust. The trust chain actually maps really well to the certificate trust chain. I trust that Heroku has taken security deeply seriously. And for some reason, their configuration of Redis requires that I turn on OpenSSL no verify mode. So I'm using this now both in Sidekiq, and then we're using our Redis instance for our Rails cache as well. So in both cases, I said, "It's fine. Don't worry about it." I used the Don't worry about it configuration. And I didn't love it but I think it's okay. And partly, I'm trying to say this into the internet radio right now just in case anyone's listening who's like, no, no, no, you can't do that. That's bad. So I'm willing to be deeply wrong on the internet in favor of someone telling me and then I get to get out in front of it. But I think it's fine. Pretty sure it's fine. It should be fine. STEPH: I love love love that you gave a very visual example of velociraptors, and then you're like, oh, but I turned it off. [laughs] So I'm going to start sending you a velociraptor gif each day. CHRIS: I hope you do. I hope the internet holds you accountable to that. STEPH: [laughs] CHRIS: And I really look forward to [laughs] moving forward because that's a great way to start the day. Well, it doesn't need to start the day, but I look forward to them. STEPH: [laughs] I am really intrigued because I'm with you. Like you said, there are certain entities that are in our trust chain where it's like, hey, you are running this for us, and so I do have faith and trust in you that you wouldn't steer me wrong and provide a bad recommendation. Someone on Stack Overflow telling me to turn off SSL verify uh; that's not my trust chain. Heroku or someone else telling me I'm going to take it a little more seriously. And so I'm also interested in hearing from...what'd you say? You're speaking into the internet phone. [laughs] What'd you say? CHRIS: I think I said internet radio. But yeah, in a way. I mean, we're recording over Skype right now. So in a manner of speaking, we're on the internet phone to make our internet radio show. STEPH: [laughs] Oh goodness, the internet radio. I'm also intrigued to hear if other people are like, oh, no, no, no. Yeah, that sounds like an interesting scenario. Because I would think you'd still want your connection to...you said it's for Redis. So you still want that connection to be verified. But then if Redis itself can't have a specific...yeah, we're testing the boundaries of my SSL knowledge here as to how the heck you would even establish that SSL connection or the verification process. CHRIS: Me too. And it also exists in an interesting space where Heroku is rather clear in their documentation about this. And it was a surprising claim when I saw it. And so, I don't expect them to be flippant about a thing that is important. Like, if they're like, "No, no, no, it is okay. You can turn off the security thing, don't worry." I trust that they're not just like, oh, we didn't think about it too much. But we figured why not? It's not a big deal. I'm sure that they have thought about it deeply because it is an important thing. And so in a weird way, my trust of them and the severity of what this thing represents, I'm like, oh yeah, I super trust that because you're not going to get a major thing wrong. You might get a minor, small, subtle thing wrong. But this is a pretty major configuration change. As I say it, I'm now getting more worried. I'm now like, I feel fine about this. This doesn't seem like a problem at all. But then I keep saying stuff, and I'm like, oh no. That's why I love having a podcast; I find out things about myself as I talk into a microphone to you. STEPH: We come here to share our deep, dark developer secrets. Chris: Spooky developer therapy. STEPH: But just to clarify, even though you've turned off the SSL verify, you're still connecting over SSL. CHRIS: Yes, I believe that's the case. And if I'm remembering, I think the nature of how this works is they're using a self-signed certificate because of shared infrastructure or something, something that made sense when I read it. But it was the idea that they are doing a self-signed certificate. Therefore, to what you were talking about earlier, there isn't the certificate authority in the chain of those because it's self-signed. And so, they are not a trusted certificate authority. Therefore, that certificate that they have generated would not be trusted. But it does still allow for the SSL handshake and then communication to happen over SSL. It's just that fundamental question of trust. I'm saying, in this case, for reasons, it's okay. Trust me that I trust them. We're good. Which, again, I don't feel great about, but I think yes, it is still SSL, but it is a self-signed certificate. So we have to make this configuration change. STEPH: Yeah, all of that makes sense. And it certainly sounds like you have been very thoughtful about that change and put in some investigative work. So on that note, I have a very unrelated bad joke for you. CHRIS: I'm very excited. STEPH: All right, here we go. All right, so what do you call an alligator wearing a vest? CHRIS: I don't know. What do you call an alligator wearing a vest? STEPH: An investigator. [laughter] On that note, shall we wrap up? CHRIS: Oh, let's wrap up. We should also include a link in the show notes to the episode where you told the joke about the elephant hiding in the trees because that's one of my favorite jokes. You slayed me with that one. [laughs] But on that note, yes, let us wrap up. The show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. STEPH: This show is produced and edited by Mandy Moore. CHRIS: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes,,as it really helps other folks find the show. STEPH: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us at @_bikeshed or reach me on Twitter @SViccari. CHRIS: And I'm @christoomey STEPH: Or you can reach us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. CHRIS: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. All: Byeeeeeeeeee!!! Announcer: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success.

Dr. Michael Archer is a Professor of Paleobiology in the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of New South Wales in Australia. Mike is a paleontologist who is fascinated with understanding the continuity of life over billions of years. He spends his free time watching Sci-Fi movies, including classics like Jurassic Park (one of his all-time favorites). Mike received his undergraduate education from Princeton University in Geology and Biology. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to study in Australia and remained there to earn his PhD in Zoology from the University of Western Australia. Mike has since worked at the Western Australian, Queensland, and Australian Museums, and he joined the faculty at the University of New South Wales in 1978. Mike has received many awards and honors, including being named one of the Top 100 Most Influential People in Sydney in 2008, receipt of the Riversleigh Society Medal, the TH Huxley Award from the Australian Museum, and the Australian Centennial Medal from the Federal Government of Australia. He is a Member of the Australia Institute of Biology, as well as a Fellow of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, the World Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Australian College of Educators, The Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Society of New South Wales, and Australia 21. In this interview, Mike tells us more about his journey through life and science.

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Find us online at www.jurassicparkpodcast.comWelcome to The Jurassic Park Podcast! In episode 294, we present another installment of Dino DNA with Conor O'Keeffe! Conor is joined by James Ronan this week to discuss the Ceratopsians of the series. Sit back, relax and ENJOY this episode of The Jurassic Park Podcast!A BIG thanks to Frontier for giving us the opportunity to play Jurassic World Evolution 2 early to experience the Chaos Theory Mode. Be sure to find all our content on Chaos Theory Mode HERE, along with our bonus podcast featuring Tom Jurassic, BestInSlot and TheGamingBeaver. Don't forget to give our voicemail line a call at 732-825-7763!Email us: jurassicparkpod@gmail.comBook Club Email: jurassicparkbookclub@gmail.comThanks for listening, stay safe and enjoy!

It's taken over 2 years to get here, but we've finally done it. Today we're discussing the very last Darkwing Duck episode to ever air. In "Extinct Possibility", Darkwing, Gosalyn and Launchpad go back in time to solve a mystery worthy of Jurassic Park. We also meet the Technosaurs, hear some recognizable guest voices and get one final new villain - Johnny T-Rex! Apart from the episode, we discuss how the St Canard Files got started, we thank all our guests and friends we've made along the way, and we give you a small preview of what we have in store for the future! Enjoy! Links- https://linktr.ee/StCanardFiles DW #DarkwingDuck #Ducktales #DisneyAfternoon This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

This week we're Crackin' Open vacation!!!! This past week we went to Universal Studios Orlando and made sure to try all of their exclusive beers. Spoiler...there's a lot of them. From the NBC Sports Bar & Grill to Volcano Bay water park, even as far reaching as Jurassic Park and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Universal has a ton of proprietary brews that you just can't get anywhere else. They also have the holy grail of beers for fans of TV & Film. Duff! Mmmm.....delicious cold Duff......*drools uncontrollably*

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Hold onto your butts because All The Right Movies are on Isla Nublar to talk dinosaurs, cautionary tales, and Spielberg. We were so preoccupied with whether we could, we didn't stop to think if we should. To support what we do, access our archive and listen to exclusive episodes, become an ATRM patron. Twitter: @ATRightMovies  Instagram: @allthe_rightmovies  YouTube: Subscribe to our channel Facebook: Join our movie group TikTok: @alltherightmovies

Episode 188 - Origins Recap Introduction: Jack J.  Scott C. News/Crowdfunding:   Clever Girl - 5 days, $20 Quests and Cannons - 7 days, $60 Keep the Heroes Out - 9 days, $50 Games Played:  Four Gardens Here Kitty Kitty Detective Charlie Origins Recap:  Crowd size Booths/exhibitors Price Demos Compare to previous Origins Compare to this year's GenCon Closing:

Before we dive into the thrilling conclusion of Jurassic Park, we have to get something off of our chest. Is this a safe space? Can we be honest about one of the darkest habits of society? That's right. Zoos. Are memories of innocent animals restricted in cages the highlight of your childhood? Well, we're not judging, but let's be real about where menageries and zoos started and why so many people are turning away from them. Shout out to Bubbles. Then it's on to part two of Jurassic Park by Michael Chrichton. Where we ended last week, the chaos was only beginning. Now the dinos are getting their Sha'Carri on all over the park, with no one able to stop them. Who will survive when the dust settles, and where did the movie diverge from the book? LET'S GET LIT! ______________________________________ A brief look at Ming the Tiger, who lived in a Harlem apartment building: https://youtu.be/V_bhpR85mD4. _______________________________________ This week's LIT Indie: Pilsen Community Books 1102 W 18th St, Chicago, IL 60608 (312) 478-9434   Find Alexis and Kari online:  Instagram — www.instagram.com/litsocietypod;  Twitter — www.twitter.com/litsocietypod;  Facebook — www.facebook.com/LitSocietyPod;  Website — www.LitSocietyPod.com

Eric Quakenbush made his name working at two of the most important companies of all time; Apple and Sega. Part two of this exclusive interview tracks Eric's life at SEGA. Eric worked on some huge SEGA titles in the 90s such as Jurassic Park, Garfield and Virtua Fighter. However, he is probably best known for working on some amazing unreleased games! Enjoy Eric's stories looking at Virtua Hamster and Shadow of Atlantis and lots more unforgettable tales of working at SEGA. Like what we do? Please consider supporting us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/arcadeattack Fancy discussing this podcast? Fancy suggesting a topic of conversation? Please tweet us @arcadeattackUK or catch us on facebook.com/arcadeattackUK All copyrighted material contained within this podcast is the property of their respective rights owners and their use here is protected under ‘fair use' for the purposes of comment or critique.

Happy 5th Anniversary to us! That's right ... LMSU has been around for 5 years now and with 275+ episodes, we cannot frickin' believe it! Back in 2016, we were just two sisters with a dream talking about Jurassic Park, so we only thought it would be fitting to celebrate our 5 year with a re-watch and re-record of the dino blockbuster.  Will we talk about the same things we did 5 years ago or will 5 years of wisdom and maturity bring us new insight? Come and find out! As the great Samuel L. Jackson aka Mr. Arnold says ... Hold onto your butts! 

Dario continues the stories of his adventures in Florida. This time he focuses on his visit to Universal Studios & Islands Of Adventure.

Before Simon Masrani came Richard Tanner. Before Evolution came Trespasser. Before Jurassic Park came... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World? Who knows. Creator of Jurassic Time and music man who comes from far away, Derrick Davis knows. And he joins the show to discuss video games, Jurassic World: Dominion, Mattel's Ray Arnold Jurassic Park set, and much, MUCH more. He even takes your questions! Pretty impressive, we know. Harry Potter. Music: Caleb Burnett Rick Carter's Jurassic Park: http://jurassictime.trescom.org/  Use JURASSICOUTPOST10 at VICE-PRESS to receive 10% discount on all prints in the Jurassic Park collection: https://vice-press.com/collections/jurassic-park-collection Use OUTPOST20 at Zavvi to receive 20% discount on all Jurassic Park and Jurassic World products! FESTIVAL COLLECTION: http://tidd.ly/f696ef9c PRIMAL COLLECTION: https://tidd.ly/2Bb2yYK The Jurassic Outpost STORE is NOW OPEN! https://www.jurassicoutpost.com/store  Get your KIRBY PAINT AND TILE PLUS merch here: https://www.jurassicoutpost.com/store Podcast: https://www.jurassicoutpost.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jurassicoutpost Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jurassicoutpost Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jurassic_outpost Vault: https://www.jurassicvault.com Wiki: https://www.jurassicwiki.com

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Longtime listener and friend of the show, Gio Lodi, released a book y'all should check out and Chris and Steph ruminate on a listener question about tension around marketing in open-source. Say No To More Process, Say Yes To Trust by German Velasco (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/say-no-to-more-process-say-yes-to-trust) Test-Driven Development in Swift with SwiftUI and Combine by Gio Lodi (https://tddinswift.com/) Transcript: CHRIS: Our golden roads. STEPH: All right. I am also golden. CHRIS: [vocalization] STEPH: Oh, I haven't listened to that episode where I just broke out in song in the middle. Oh, you're about to add the [vocalization] [chuckles]. CHRIS: I don't know why, though. Oh, golden roads, Golden Arches. STEPH: Golden Arches, yeah. CHRIS: Man, I did not know that my brain was doing that, but my brain definitely connected those without telling me about it. STEPH: [laughs] CHRIS: It's weird. People talk often about the theory that phones are listening, and then you get targeted ads based on what you said. But I'm almost certain it's actually the algorithms have figured out how to do the same intuitive leaps that your brain does. And so you'll smell something and not make the nine steps in between, but your brain will start singing a song from your childhood. And you're like, what is going on? Oh, right, because when I was watching Jurassic Park that one time, we were eating this type of chicken, and therefore when I smell paprika, Jurassic Park theme song. I got it, of course. STEPH: [laughs] CHRIS: And I think that's actually what's happening with the phones. That's my guess is that you went to a site, and the phones are like, cool, I got it, adjacent to that is this other thing, totally. Because I don't think the phones are listening. Occasionally, I think the phones are listening, but mostly, I don't think the phones are listening. STEPH: I definitely think the phones are listening. CHRIS: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Chris Toomey. STEPH: And I'm Steph Viccari. CHRIS: And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. So, Steph, what's new in your world? STEPH: Hey. So we have a bit of exciting news where we received an email from Gio Lodi, who is a listener of The Bike Shed. And Gio sent an email sharing with us some really exciting news that they have published a book on Test-Driven Development in Swift. And they acknowledge us in the acknowledgments of the book. Specifically, the acknowledgment says, "I also want to thank Chris Toomey and Steph Viccari, who keep sharing ideas on testing week after week on The Bike Shed Podcast." And that's just incredible. I'm so blown away, and I feel officially very famous. CHRIS: This is how you know you're famous when you're in the acknowledgments of a book. But yeah, Gio is a longtime listener and friend of the show. He's written in many times and given us great tips, and pointers, and questions, and things. And I've so appreciated Gio's voice in the community. And it's so wonderful, frankly, to hear that he has gotten value out of the show and us talking about testing. Because I always feel like I'm just regurgitating things that I've heard other people saying about testing and maybe one or two hard-learned truths that I've found. But it's really wonderful. And thank you so much, Gio. And best of luck for anyone out there who is doing Swift development and cares about testing or test-driven development, which I really think everybody should. Go check out that book. STEPH: I must admit my Swift skills are incredibly rusty, really non-existent at this point. It's been so long since I've been in that world. But I went ahead and purchased a copy just because I think it's really cool. And I suspect there are a lot of testing conversations that, regardless of the specific code examples, still translate. At least, that's the goal that you and I have when we're having these testing conversations. Even if they're not specific to a language, we can still talk about testing paradigms and strategies. So I purchased a copy. I'm really looking forward to reading it. And just to change things up a bit, we're going to start off with a listener question today. So this listener question comes from someone very close to the show. It comes from Thom Obarski. Hi, Thom. And Thom wrote in, "So I heard on a recent podcast I was editing some tension around marketing and open source. Specifically, a little perturbed at ReactJS that not only were people still dependent on a handful of big companies for their frameworks, but they also seem to be implying that the cachet of Facebook and having developer mindshare was not allowing smaller but potentially better solutions to shine through. In your opinion, how much does marketing play in the success of an open-source project framework rather than actually being the best tool for the job?" So a really thoughtful question. Thanks, Thom. Chris, I'm going to kick it over to you. What are your thoughts about this question? CHRIS: Yeah, this is a super interesting one. And thank you so much, Thom, although I'm not sure that you're listening at this point. But we'll send you a note that we are replying to your question. And when I saw this one come through, it was interesting. I really love the kernel of the discussion here, but it is, again, very difficult to tease apart the bits. I think that the way the question was framed is like, oh, there's this bad thing that it's this big company that has this big name, and they're getting by on that. But really, there are these other great frameworks that exist, and they should get more of the mindshare. And honestly, I'm not sure. I think marketing is a critically important aspect of the work that we do both in open source and, frankly, everywhere. And I'm going to clarify what I mean by that because I think it can take different shapes. But in terms of open-source, Facebook has poured a ton of energy and effort and, frankly, work into React as a framework. And they're also battle testing it on facebook.com, a giant website that gets tons of traffic, that sees various use cases, that has all permissions in there. They're really putting it through the wringer in that way. And so there is a ton of value just in terms of this large organization working on and using this framework in the same way that GitHub and using Rails is a thing that is deeply valuable to us as a community. So I think having a large organization associated with something can actually be deeply valuable in terms of what it produces as an outcome for us as consumers of that open-source framework. I think the other idea of sort of the meritocracy of the better framework should win out is, I don't know, it's like a Field of Dreams. Like, if you build it, they will come. It turns out I don't believe that that's actually true. And I think selling is a critical part of everything. And so if I think back to DHH's original video from so many years ago of like, I'm going to make a blog in 15 minutes; look at how much I'm not doing. That was a fantastic sales pitch for this new framework. And he was able to gain a ton of attention by virtue of making this really great sales pitch that sold on the merits of it. But that was marketing. He did the work of marketing there. And I actually think about it in terms of a pull request. So I'm in a small organization. We're in a private repo. There's still marketing. There's still sales to be done there. I have to communicate to someone else the changes that I'm making, why it's valuable to the system, why they should support this change, this code coming into the codebase. And so I think that sort of communication is as critical to the whole conversation. And so the same thing happens at the level of open source. I would love for the best framework to always win, but we also need large communities with Stack Overflow answers and community-supported plugins and things like that. And so it's a really difficult thing to treat marketing as just other, this different, separate thing when, in fact, I think they're all intertwined. And marketing is critically important, and having a giant organization behind something can actually have negative aspects. But I think overall; it really is useful in a lot of cases. Those are some initial thoughts. What do you think, Steph? STEPH: Yeah, those are some great initial thoughts. I really agree with what you said. And I also like how you brought in the comparison of pull requests and how sales is still part of our job as developers, maybe not in the more traditional sense but in the way that we are marketing and communicating with the team. And circling back to what you were saying earlier about a bit how this is phrased, I think I typically agree that there's nothing nefarious that's afoot in regards to just because a larger company is sponsoring an open-source project or they are the ones responsible for it, I don't think there's anything necessarily bad about that. And I agree with the other points that you made where it is helpful that these teams have essentially cultivated a framework or a project that is working for their team, that is helping their company, and then they have decided to open source it. And then, they have the time and energy that they can continue to invest in that project. And it is battle-tested because they are using it for their own projects as well. So it seems pretty natural that a lot of us then would gravitate towards these larger, more heavily supported projects and frameworks. Because then that's going to make our job easier and also give us more trust that we can turn to them when we do need help or have issues. Or, like you mentioned, when we need to look up documentation, we know that that's going to be there versus some of the other smaller projects. They may also be wonderful projects. But if they are someone that's doing this in their spare time just on the weekends and yet I'm looking for something that I need to be incredibly reliable, then it probably makes sense for me to go with something that is supported by a team that's getting essentially paid to work on that project, at least that they're backed by a larger company. Versus if I'm going with a smaller project where someone is doing some wonderful work, but realistically, they're also doing it more on the weekends or in their spare time. So boiling it down, it's similar to what you just said where marketing plays a very big part in open source, and the projects and frameworks that we adopt, and the things that we use. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. CHRIS: Yeah. I think, if anything, it's possibly a double-edged sword. Part of the question was around does React get to benefit just by the cachet of Facebook? But Facebook, as a larger organization sometimes that's a positive thing. Sometimes there's ire that is directed at Facebook as an organization. And as a similar example, my experience with Google and Microsoft as large organizations, particularly backing open-source efforts, has almost sort of swapped over time, where originally, Microsoft there was almost nothing of Microsoft's open-source efforts that I was using. And I saw them as this very different shape of a company that I probably wouldn't be that interested in. And then they have deeply invested in things like GitHub, and VS Code, and TypeScript, and tons of projects that suddenly I'm like, oh, actually, a lot of what I use in the world is coming from Microsoft. That's really interesting. And at the same time, Google has kind of gone in the opposite direction for me. And I've seen some of their movements switch from like, oh Google the underdog to now they're such a large company. And so the idea that the cachet, as the question phrase, of a company is just this uniformly positive thing and that it's perhaps an unfair benefit I don't see that as actually true. But actually, as a more pointed example of this, I recently chose Svelte over React, and that was a conscious choice. And I went back and forth on it a few times, if we're being honest, because Svelte is a much smaller community. It does not have the large organizational backing that React or other frameworks do. And there was a certain marketing effort that was necessary to raise it into my visibility and then for me to be convinced that there is enough there, that there is a team that will maintain it, and that there are reasons to choose that and continue with it. And I've been very happy with it as a choice. But I was very conscious in that choice that I'm choosing something that doesn't have that large organizational backing. Because there's a nicety there of like, I trust that Facebook will probably keep investing in React because it is the fundamental technology of the front end of their platform. So yeah, it's not going to go anywhere. But I made the choice of going with Svelte. So it's an example of where the large organization didn't win out in my particular case. So I think marketing is a part of the work, a part of the conversation. It's part of communication. And so I am less negative on it, I think, than the question perhaps was framed, but as always, it depends. STEPH: Yeah, I'm trying to think of a scenario where I would be concerned about the fact that I'm using open source that's backed by a specific large company or corporation. And the main scenario I can think of is what happens when you conflict or if you have values that conflict with a company that is sponsoring that project? So if you are using an open-source project, but then the main community or the company that then works on that project does something that you really disagree with, then what do you do? How do you feel about that situation? Do you continue to use that open-source project? Do you try to use a different open-source project? And I had that conversation frankly with myself recently, thinking through what to do in that situation and how to view it. And I realize this may not be how everybody views it, and it's not appropriate for all situations. But I do typically look at open-source projects as more than who they are backed by, but the community that's actively working on that project and who it benefits. So even if there is one particular group that is doing something that I don't agree with, that doesn't necessarily mean that wholesale I no longer want to be a part of this community. It just means that I still want to be a part, but I still want to share my concerns that I think a part of our community is going in a direction that I don't agree with or I don't think is a good direction. That's, I guess, how I reason with myself; even if an open-source project is backed by someone that I don't agree with, either one, you can walk away. That seems very complicated, depending on your dependencies. Or two, you find ways to then push back on those values if you feel that the community is headed in a direction that you don't agree with. And that all depends on how comfortable you are and how much power you feel like you have in that situation to express your opinion. So it's a complicated space. CHRIS: Yeah, that is a super subtle edge case of all of this. And I think I aligned with what you said of trying to view an open-source project as more generally the community that's behind it as opposed to even if there's a strong, singular organization behind it. But that said, that's definitely a part of it. And again, it's a double-edged sword. It's not just, oh, giant company; this is great. That giant company now has to consider this. And I think in the case of Facebook and React, that is a wonderful hiring channel for them. Now all the people that use React anywhere are like, "Oh man, I could go work at Facebook on React? That's exciting." That's a thing that's a marketing tool from a hiring perspective for them. But it cuts both ways because suddenly, if the mindshare moves in a different direction, or if Facebook as an organization does something complicated, then React as a community can start to shift away. Maybe you don't move the current project off of it, but perhaps you don't start the next one with it. And so, there are trade-offs and considerations in all directions. And again, it depends. STEPH: Yeah. I think overall, the thing that doesn't depend is marketing matters. It is a real part of the ecosystem, and it will influence our decisions. And so, just circling back to Thom's question, I think it does play a vital role in the choices that we make. CHRIS: Way to stick the landing. STEPH: Thanks. Mid-roll Ad And now a quick break to hear from today's sponsor, Scout APM. Scout APM is leading-edge application performance monitoring that's designed to help Rails developers quickly find and fix performance issues without having to deal with the headache or overhead of enterprise platform feature bloat. With a developer-centric UI and tracing logic that ties bottlenecks to source code, you can quickly pinpoint and resolve those performance abnormalities like N+1 queries, slow database queries, memory bloat, and much more. Scout's real-time alerting and weekly digest emails let you rest easy knowing Scout's on watch and resolving performance issues before your customers ever see them. Scout has also launched its new error monitoring feature add-on for Python applications. Now you can connect your error reporting and application monitoring data on one platform. See for yourself why developers call Scout their best friend and try our error monitoring and APM free for 14 days; no credit card needed. And as an added-on bonus for Bike Shed listeners, Scout will donate $5 to the open-source project of your choice when you deploy. Learn more at scoutapm.com/bikeshed. That's scoutapm.com/bikeshed. STEPH: Changing topics just a bit, what's new in your world? CHRIS: Well, we had what I would call a mini perfect storm this week. We broke the build but in a pretty solid way. And it was a little bit difficult to get it back under control. And it has pushed me ever so slightly forward in my desire to have a fully optimized CI and deploy pipeline. Mostly, I mean that in terms of ratcheting. I'm not actually going to do anything beyond a very small set of configurations. But to describe the context, we use pull requests because that's the way that we communicate. We do code reviews, all that fun stuff. And so there was a particular branch that had a good amount of changes, and then something got merged. And this other pull request was approved. And that person then clicked the rebase and merge button, which I have configured the repository, so that merge commits are not allowed because I'm not interested in that malarkey in our history. But merge commits or rebase and merge. I like that that makes sense. In this particular case, we ran into the very small, subtle edge case of if you click the rebase and merge button, GitHub is now producing a new commit that did not exist before, a new version of the code. So they're taking your changes, and they are rebasing them onto the current main branch. And then they're attempting to merge that in. And A, that was allowed. B, the CI configuration did not require that to be in a passing state. And so basically, in doing that rebase and merge, it produced an artifact in the build that made it fail. And then attempting to unwind that was very complicated. So basically, the rebase produced...there were duplicate changes within a given file. So Git didn't see it as a conflict because the change was made in two different parts of the file, but those were conflicting changes. So Git was like, this seems like it's fine. I can merge this, no problem. But it turns out from a functional perspective; it did not work. The build failed. And so now our main branch was failing and then trying to unwind that it just was surprisingly difficult to unwind that. And it really highlighted the importance of keeping the main branch green, keeping the build always passing. And so, I configured a few things in response to this. There is a branch protection rule that you can enable. And let me actually pull up the specific configuration that I set up. So I now have enabled require status checks to pass before merging, which, if we're being honest, I thought that was the default. It turns out it was not the default. So we are now requiring status checks to pass before merging. I'm fully aware of the awkward, painful like, oh no, the build is failing but also, we have a bug. We need to deploy this. We must get something merged in. So hopefully, if and when that situation presents itself, I will turn this off or somehow otherwise work around it. But for now, I would prefer to have this as a yeah; this is definitely a configuration we want. So require status checks to pass before merging and then require branches to be up to date before merging. So the button that does the rebase and merge, I don't want that to actually do a rebase on GitHub. I want the branch to already be up to date. Basically, I only ever want fast-forward merges on our main branch. So all code should be ahead of main, and we are simply updating what main points at. We are not creating new code. That code has run on CI, that version of the code specifically. We are fully rebased and up to date on top of main, and that's how we're going. STEPH: All of that is super interesting. I have a question about the workflow. I want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly. So let's say that I have issued a PR, and then someone else has merged into the main branch. So now my PR is behind me, and I don't have that latest commit. With the new configuration, can I still use the rebase and merge, or will I need to rebase locally and then push up my branch before I can merge into main but at least using the GitHub UI? CHRIS: I believe that you would be forced to rebase locally, force push, and then CI would rebuild, and that's what it is. So I think that's what require branches to be up to date before merging means. So that's my hope. That is the intention here. I do realize that's complicated. So this requirement, which I like, because again, I really want the idea that no, no, no, we, the developers, are in charge of that final state. That final state should always run as part of a build of CI on our pull request/branch before going into main. So no code should be new. There should be no new commits that have never been tested before going into main. That's my strong belief. I want that world. I realize that's...I don't know. Maybe I'm getting pedantic, or I'm a micromanager of the Git history or whatever. I'm fine with any of those insults that people want to lob at me. That's fine. But that's what I feel. That said, this is a nuisance. I'm fully aware of that. And so imagine the situation where we got a couple of different things that have been in flight. People have been working on different...say there are three pull requests that are all coming to completion at the same time. Then you start to go to merge something, and you realize, oh no, somebody else just merged. So you rebase, and then you wait for CI to build. And just as the CI is completing, somebody else merges something, and you're like, ah, come on. And so then you have to one more time rebase, push, wait for the build to be green. So I get that that is not an ideal situation. Right now, our team is three developers. So there are a few enough of us that I feel like this is okay. We can manage this via human intervention and just deal with the occasional weight. But in the back of my mind, of course, I want to find a better solution to this. So what I've been exploring…there's a handful of different utilities that I'm looking at, but they are basically merged queues as an idea. So there are three that I'm looking at, or maybe just two, but there's mergify.io, which is a hosted solution that does this sort of thing. And then Shopify has a merge queue implementation that they're running. So the idea with this is when you as a developer are ready to merge something, you add a label to it. And when you add that label, there's some GitHub Action or otherwise some workflow in the background that sees that this has happened and now adds it to a merge queue. So it knows all of the different things that might want to be merged. And this is especially important as the team grows so that you don't get that contention. You can just say, "Yes, I would like my changes to go out into production." And so, when you label it, it then goes into this merge queue. And the background system is now going to take care of any necessary rebases. It's going to sequence them, so it's not just constantly churning all of the branches. It's waiting because it knows the order that they're ideally going to go out in. If CI fails for any of them because rebasing suddenly, you're in an inconsistent state; if your build fails, then it will kick you out of the merge queue. It will let you know. So it will send you a notification in some manner and say, "Hey, hey, hey, you got to come look at this again. You've been kicked out of the merge queue. You're not going to production." But ideally, it adds that layer of automation to, frankly, this nuisance of having to keep things up to date and always wanting code to be run on CI and on a pull request before it gets into main. Then the ideal version is when it does actually merge your code, it pings you in Slack or something like that to say, "Hey, your changes just went out to production." Because the other thing I'm hoping for is a continuous deployment. STEPH: The idea of a merge queue sounds really interesting. I've never worked with a process like that. And one of the benefits I can see is if I know I'm ready for something to go like if I'm waiting on a green build and I'm like, hey, as soon as this is green, I'd really like for it to get merged. Then currently, I'm checking in on it, so I will restart the build. And then, every so often, I'm going back to say, "Okay, are you green? Are you green? Can I emerge?" But if I have a merge queue, I can say, "Hey, merge queue, when this is green, please go and merge it for me." If I'm understanding the behavior correctly, that sounds really nifty. CHRIS: I think that's a distinct but useful aspect of this is the idea that when you as a developer decide this PR is ready to go, you don't need to wait for either the current build or any subsequent builds. If there are rebases that need to happen, you basically say, "I think this code's good to go. We've gotten the necessary approvals. We've got the buy-in and the teams into this code." So cool, I now market as good. And you can walk away from it, and you will be notified either if it fails to get merged or if it successfully gets merged and deployed. So yes, that dream of like, you don't have to sit there watching the pot boil anymore. STEPH: Yeah, that sounds nice. I do have to ask you a question. And this is related to one of the blog posts that you and I love deeply and reference fairly frequently. And it's the one that's written by German Velasco about Say No to More Process, and Say Yes to Trust. And I'm wondering, based on the pain that you felt from this new commit, going into main and breaking the main build, how do you feel about that balance of we spent time investigating this issue, and it may or may not happen again, and we're also looking into these new processes to avoid this from happening? I'm curious what your thought process is there because it seems like it's a fair amount of work to invest in the new process, but maybe that's justified based on the pain that you felt from having to fix the build previously. CHRIS: Oh, I love the question. I love the subtle pushback here. I love this frame of mind. I really love that blog post. German writes incredible blog posts. And this is one that I just keep coming back to. In this particular case, when this situation occurred, we had a very brief...well, it wasn't even that brief because actually unwinding the situation was surprisingly painful, and we had some changes that we really wanted to get out, but now the build was broken. And so that churn and slowdown of our build pipeline and of our ability to actually get changes out to production was enough pain that we're like, okay, cool. And then the other thing is we actually all were in agreement that this is the way we want things to work anyway, that idea that things should be rebased and tested on CI as part of a pull request. And then we're essentially only doing fast-forward merges on the main branch, or we're fast forward merging main into this new change. That's the workflow that we wanted. So this configuration was really just adding a little bit of software control to the thing that we wanted. So it was an existing process in our minds. This is the thing we were trying to do. It's just kind of hard to keep up with, frankly. But it turns out GitHub can manage it for us and enforce the process that we wanted. So it wasn't a new process per se. It was new automation to help us hold ourselves to the process that we had chosen. And again, it's minimally painful for the team given the size that we're at now, but I am looking out to the future. And to be clear, this is one of the many things that fall on the list of; man, I would love to have some time to do this, but this is obviously not a priority right now. So I'm not allowed to do this. This is explicitly on the not allowed to touch list, but someday. I'm very excited about this because this does fundamentally introduce some additional work in the pipeline, and I don't want that. Like you said, is this process worth it for the very small set of times that it's going to have a bad outcome? But in my mind, the better version, that down the road version where we have a merge queue, is actually a better version overall, even with just a tiny team of three developers that are maybe never even conflicting in our merges, except for this one standout time that happens once every three months or whatever. This is still nicer. I want to just be able to label a pull request and walk away and have it do the thing that we have decided as a team that we want. So that's the dream. STEPH: Oh, I love that phrasing, to label a pull request and be able to walk away. Going back to our marketing, that really sells that merge queue to me. [laughs] Mid-roll Ad And now we're going to take a quick break to tell you about today's sponsor, Orbit. Orbit is mission control for community builders. Orbit offers data analytics, reporting, and insights across all the places your community exists in a single location. Orbit's origins are in the open-source and developer relations communities. And that continues today with an active open-source culture in an accessible and documented API. With thousands of communities currently relying on Orbit, they are rapidly growing their engineering team. The company is entirely remote-first with team members around the world. You can work from home, from an Orbit outpost in San Francisco or Paris, or find yourself a coworking spot in your city. The tech stack of the main orbit app is Ruby on Rails with JavaScript on the front end. If you're looking for your next role with an empathetic product-driven team that prides itself on work-life balance, professional development, and giving back to the larger community, then consider checking out the Orbit careers page for more information. Bonus points if working in a Ruby codebase with a Ruby-oriented team gives you a lot of joy. Find out more at orbit.love/weloveruby. CHRIS: To be clear, and this is to borrow on some of Charity Majors' comments around continuous deployment and whatnot, is a developer should stay very close to the code if they are merging it. Because if we're doing continuous deployment, that's going to go out to production. If anything's going to happen, I want that individual to be aware. So ideally, there's another set of optimizations that I need to make on top of this. So we've got the merge queue, and that'll be great. Really excited about that. But if we're going to lean into this, I want to optimize our CI pipeline and our deployment pipeline as much as possible such that even in the worst case where there's three different builds that are fighting for contention and trying to get out, the longest any developer might go between labeling a pull request and saying, "This is good to go," and it getting out to production, again, even if they're contending with other PRs, is say 10, 15 minutes, something like that. I want Slack to notify them and them to then re-engage and keep an eye on things, see if any errors pop up, anything like that that they might need to respond to. Because they're the one that's got the context on the code at that point, and that context is decaying. The minute you've just merged a pull request and you're walking away from that code, the next day, you're like, what did I work on? I don't remember that at all. That code doesn't exist anymore in my brain. And so,,, staying close to that context is incredibly important. So there's a handful of optimizations that I've looked at in terms of the CircleCI build. I've talked about my not rebuilding when it actually gets fast-forward merged because we've already done that build on the pull request. I'm being somewhat pointed in saying this has to build on a pull request. So if it did just build on a pull request, let's not rebuild it on main because it's identically the same commit. CircleCI, I'm looking at you. Give me a config button for that, please. I would really love that config button. But there are a couple of other things that I've looked at. There's RSpec::Retry from NoRedInk, which will allow for some retry semantics. Because it will be really frustrating if your build breaks and you fall out of the merge queue. So let's try a little bit of retry logic on there, particularly around feature specs, because that's where this might happen. There's Knapsack Pro which is a really interesting thing that I've looked at, which does parallelization of your RSpec test suite. But it does it in a different way than say Circle does. It actually runs a build queue, and each test gets sent over, and they have build agents on their side. And it's an interesting approach. I'm intrigued. I think it could use some nice speed-ups. There's esbuild on the Heroku side so that our assets build so much more quickly. There are lots of things. I want to make it very fast. But again, this is on the not allowed to do it list. [laughs] STEPH: I love how most of the world has a to-do list, and you have this not-allowed to-do list that you're adding items to. And I'm really curious what all is on the not allowed to touch lists or not allowed to-do list. [laughs] CHRIS: I think this might be inherent to being a developer is like when I see a problem, I want to fix it. I want to optimize it. I want to tweak it. I want to make it so that that never happens again. But plenty of things...coming back to German's post of Say No to More Process, some things shouldn't be fixed, or the cost of fixing is so much higher than the cost of just letting it happen again and dealing with it manually at that moment. And so I think my inherent nature as a developer there's a voice in my head that is like, fix everything that's broken. And I'm like, sorry. Sorry, brain, I do not have that kind of time. And so I have to be really choosy about where the time goes. And this extends to the team as well. We need to be intentional around what we're building. Actually, there's a feeling that I've been feeling more acutely than ever, but it's the idea of this trade-off or optimization between speed and getting features out into the world and laying the right fundamentals. We're still very early on in this project, and I want to make sure we're thinking about things intentionally. I've been on so many projects where it's many years after it started and when I ask someone, "Hey, why do your background jobs work that way? That's a little weird." And they're like, "Yeah, that was just a thing that happened, and then it never changed. And then, we copied it and duplicated, and that pattern just got reinforced deeply within the app. And at this point, it would cost too much to change." I've seen that thing play out so many times at so many different organizations that I'm overwhelmed with that knowledge in the back of my head. And I'm like, okay, I got to get it just right. But I can't take the time that is necessary to get it, quote, unquote, "Just right." I do not have that kind of time. I got to ship some features. And this tension is sort of the name of the game. It's the thing I've been doing for my entire career. But now, given the role that I have with a very early-stage startup, I've never felt it more acutely. I've never had to be equally as concerned with both sides of that. Both matter all the more now than they ever have before, and so I'm kind of existing in that space. STEPH: I really like that phrasing of that space because that deeply resonates with me as well. And that not allowed to-do list I have a similar list. For me, it's just called a wishlist. And so it's a wishlist that I will revisit every so often, but honestly, most things on there don't get done. And then I'll clear it out every so often when I feel it's not likely that I'm going to get to it. And then I'll just start fresh. So I also have a similar this is what I would like to do if I had the time. And I agree that there's this inclination to automate as well. As soon as we have to do something that felt painful once, then we feel like, oh, we should automate it. And that's a conversation that I often have with myself is at what point is the cost of automation worthwhile versus should we just do this manually until we get to that point? So I love those nuanced conversations around when is the right time to invest further in this, and what is the impact? And what is the cost of it? And what are the trade-offs? And making that decision isn't always clear. And so I think that's why I really enjoy these conversations because it's not a clear rubric as to like, this is when you invest, and this is when you don't. But I do feel like being a consultant has helped me hone those skills because I am jumping around to different teams, and I'm recognizing they didn't do this thing. Maybe they didn't address this or invest in it, and it's working for them. There are some oddities. Like you said, maybe I'll ask, "Why is this? It seems a little funky. What's the history?" And they'll be like, "Yeah, it was built in a hurry, but it works. And so there hasn't been any churn. We don't have any issues with it, so we have just left it." And that has helped reinforce the idea that just because something could be improved doesn't mean it's worthwhile to improve it. Circling back to your original quest where you are looking to improve the process for merging and ensuring that CI stays green, I do like that you highlighted the fact that we do need to just be able to override settings. So that's something that has happened recently this week for me and my client work where we have had PRs that didn't have a green build because we have some flaky tests that we are actively working on. But we recognize that they're flaky, and we don't want that to block us. I'm still shipping work. So I really appreciate the consideration where we want to optimize so that everyone has an easy merging experience. We know things are green. It's trustworthy. But then we also have the ability to still say, "No, I am confident that I know what I'm doing here, and I want to merge it anyways, but thank you for the warning." CHRIS: And the constant pendulum swing of over-correcting in various directions I've experienced that. And as you said, in the back of my mind, I'm like, oh, I know that this setting I'm going to need a way to turn this setting off. So I want to make sure that, most importantly, I'm not the only one on the team who can turn that off because the day that I am away on vacation and the build is broken, and we have a critical bug that we need to fix, somebody else needs to be able to do that. So that's sort of the story in my head. At the same time, though, I've worked on so many teams where they're like, oh yeah, the build has been broken for seven weeks. We have a ticket in the backlog to fix that. And it's like, no, the build has to not be broken for that long. And so I agree with what you were saying of consulting has so usefully helped me hone where I fall on these various spectrums. But I do worry that I'm just constantly over-correcting in one direction or the other. I'm never actually at an optimum. I am just constantly whatever the most recent thing was, which is really impacting my thinking on this. And I try to not do that, but it's hard. STEPH: Oh yeah. I'm totally biased towards my most recent experiences, and whatever has caused me the most pain or success recently. I'm definitely skewed in that direction. CHRIS: Yeah, I definitely have the recency bias, and I try to have a holistic view of all of the things I've seen. There's actually a particular one that I don't want to pat myself on the back for because it's not a good thing. But currently, our test suite, when it runs, there's just a bunch of noise. There's a bunch of other stuff that gets printed out, like a bunch of it. And I'm reminded of a tweet from Kevin Newton, a friend of the show, and I just pulled it up here. "Oh, the lengths I will go to avoid warnings in my terminal, especially in the middle of my green dots. Don't touch my dots." It's a beautiful beauty. He actually has a handful about the green dots. And I feel this feel. When I run my test suite, I just want a sea of green dots. That's all I want to see. But right now, our test suite is just noise. It's so much noise. And I am very proud of...I feel like this is a growth moment for me where I've been like, you know what? That is not the thing to fix today. We can deal with some noise amongst the green dots for now. Someday, I'm just going to lose it, and I'm going to fix it, and it's going to come back to green dots. [chuckles] STEPH: That sounds like such a wonderful children's book or Dr. Seuss. Oh, the importance of green dots or, oh, the places green dots will take you. CHRIS: Don't touch my dots. [laughter] STEPH: Okay. Maybe a slightly aggressive Dr. Seuss, but I still really like it. CHRIS: A little more, yeah. STEPH: On that note of our love of green dots, shall we wrap up? CHRIS: Let's wrap up. The show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. STEPH: This show is produced and edited by Mandy Moore. CHRIS: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes, as it really helps other folks find the show. STEPH: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us at @_bikeshed or reach me on Twitter @SViccari. CHRIS: And I'm @christoomey STEPH: Or you can reach us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. CHRIS: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. All: Byeeeeeee!!! Announcer: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success.

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Find the full show notes at www.jurassicparkpodcast.comWelcome to The Jurassic Park Podcast! In episode 293, we open up the doors to the Visitors Center and welcome in Neemz, who you'll know as The Movie Poster Guy and from his Instagram Jurassic Your World! We chat about his history, the community, the films and of course his work on Jurassic posters! Sit back, relax and ENJOY this episode of The Jurassic Park Podcast!Don't forget to give our voicemail line a call at 732-825-7763!Email us: jurassicparkpod@gmail.comBook Club Email: jurassicparkbookclub@gmail.comThanks for listening, stay safe and enjoy!

Kicsit megkésve, de itt az eheti. Múltheti. Két héttel ezelőtti. Mindegy, a lényeg, hogy itt van, és már vágás alatt a következő, valamint két patreonos adás. Előfutók: Star Wars Visions, Dune (egyéb videók itt és itt), Foundation, Matrix 4: Resurrections Itt a Doom Patrol 3., az Archer 12., a Lucifer 6. és a Titans 3. évad. Véget értek: Rick & Morty 5 és Solar Opposites 2. évadok. Előbbihez az élőszereplős videó itt. Új indítási időpontot kapott a James Webb és az Artemis, gőzerővel halad viszont a Starship fejlesztése, és jönnek új Falcon Heavy indítások. Előre szóltunk - jó és rossz értelemben is: The Green Knight, Snake Eyes. Morgi sziklát akar mászni: Jungle Cruise. Történelmi visszatekintés: The movies that made us (Forest Gump, Jurassic Park, Pretty Woman, Back To The Future) Offtopic: The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard's Dog's Shit. Ja, nem, az a következő rész. Zsenialitás a köbön: Marvel's M.O.D.O.K. Ehhez van egy képregényes összefoglalónk és egy kulisszák mögötti videónk is. Elérhetőségek: Web oldalunk Discrod ITunes TuneIn Spotify RSS Twitter Facebook Ha tetszett a műsor, ezen a linken támogathatsz minket! PATREON link Outro: Track: I'm Yours [Lofi Hip Hop/Chill Study Music Mix] Music provided by Lofi Fruits / Strange Fruits Watch: https://youtu.be/9eyqOO7i3b8

Snack on shredded jellyfish with Renée Witterstaetter as we discuss how Jerry Lewis launched her interest in comics, the way science fiction fandom led to her first job at DC Comics, the differences between the Marvel and DC offices of the '70s and '80s, what made Mark Gruenwald such an amazing editor, her emotional encounter with Steve Ditko, the inflationary info we learned about the writing of letter columns during the '70s and '80s, her work with John Byrne on She-Hulk, how Jurassic Park caused her to leave Marvel, the prank Jackie Chan asked her to help pull on Chris Tucker, and much more.

Until now, Spanish thrashers Crisix were barely a blip on our musical radar. Well that's on us. Once we investigated further we were blown away by their old school thrash. And the outfit's new Listenable release "The Pizza EP" has been getting multiple spins in the RAM offices. So we got vox Juli Bazooka on the horn to explore this unique effort. We get into the concept of the record and the band's love of pizza, American thrash and Jurassic Park! In our "News, Views, and Tunes", it's Bandcamp Friday again!! So this time we share our picks and recommendations. Check out the links below! Musically, we crank the new Crisix plus some new and used from Portrait, Criminal, Violator, Hazzerd, Regional Justice Centre, the immortal Piledriver and introduce Chicago's Bear Mace in our "Indie Spotlight". Horn Up and Stay Healthy! Digregorio - House of Gregory Chapter One - https://digregorio.bandcamp.com/ 5 Cent Freak Show - Reannimation of Annihilation - https://5centfreakshow.bandcamp.com/ Messer Chups - Hyena Safari - https://messerchupsofficial.bandcamp.com/ The Creepshow - Death at my Door - https://thecreepshow.bandcamp.com/ Carcass - Torn Arteries - https://carcass.bandcamp.com/album/torn-arteries Borris - Now World Tour "In Your Head" 2021 - https://boris.bandcamp.com/album/no-world-tour-in-your-head-2021 Scarecrow - https://bewareofthescarecrow.bandcamp.com/album/raise-the-deaths-head    Wraith - https://wraith219.bandcamp.com    Send More Paramedics - https://sendmoreparamedicsuk.bandcamp.com/album/the-final-feast-2    The Whatevermen - https://thewhatevermen.bandcamp.com/releases    100% Three Fingers comp. - https://deathpintrecords.bandcamp.com/album/100-three-fingers-in-the-air-punk-rock    This Episode is sponsored by Trve Kvlt Coffee. Summon the coffee demons to possess yourself a cup today! Follow us on Twitter and Instagram.

Love her or hate her for her work as the leader of Star Wars Lucasfilm, she has been highly respected for decades by insiders in the movie industry with her work alongside Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas. But who knew that her hard work on film sets like Jurassic Park was on a level of such heights that she risked her life to save the lives of the cast and crew? This story is on Netflix's The Movie That Made Us Season 2. We discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly regarding the industry's most polarizing figure. Also, we break down the now-legendary Marvel's What If...? episode that brought the world Zombie Avengers in the flesh. And also a look at the possibility of a live-action version that looks to be in the works! Special thanks to our panel and co-host Chris Cassidy of Geek New Now

WE USED CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE THESE ARE MASSIVE MOVIES.Season 4 of Script to Screen kicks off with a bang and two of Spielberg's greatest blockbusters. Sharks and dinosaurs, baby.

Despite what we often hear, can the movie ever be better than the book? This week, our theme is just that, and we talk in detail about movies that outshined their source material. Yes, Devil Wears Prada is on this list. Then, it's on to our book... What if dinosaurs walked the earth today? Like all questions, the subtext is about power. Who would profit, who would dominate, and who would die? In this page-turning, cliffhanger-packed novel, unbelievable ideas are presented in packages so digestible and feasible that they seem possible, and, in the end, the real monster is who we expected it to be all along. Man. (Oooo, that's deep.)   The man with a master plan? John Hammond   The book? Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton   LET'S GET LIT!     Find Alexis and Kari online:  Instagram — www.instagram.com/litsocietypod;  Twitter — www.twitter.com/litsocietypod;  Facebook — www.facebook.com/LitSocietyPod;  Website — www.LitSocietyPod.com

San Diego is home to the world's first frozen zoo—a genetic library where scientists are racing to bank the tissues and stem cells of disappearing animals. As scientists begin to clone endangered species, we revisit an episode from our archives that delves into what conservation looks like, as we head into a period that some scientists believe is our next great extinction. Want more? More information about Elizabeth Ann, the cloned black-footed ferret can be found here. National Geographic photographer Ami Vitale has covered conflict and nature. She was with Sudan when he died and she believes that the survival of creatures like the northern white rhino is intertwined with our own. Move over, Noah. Joel Sartore is building his own ark — out of photographs. He's on a decades-long mission to take portraits of more than 15,000 endangered species before it's too late.   Stuart Pimm has a lot more to say about species revival. In this editorial he makes a case against de-extinction — and explains why bringing back extinct creatures could do more harm than good.  It's been a long time since Jurassic Park hit theatres. Today, our revival technology straddles the line between science fact and science fiction — but do we want to go there?   Also explore: Read Kate Gammon's original reporting for InsideScience, which inspired this conversation here at Overheard HQ.  Want to dive further into the debate? Hear George Church's talk — and talks by some of the greatest minds in conservation — at the TedxDeExtinction conference.  The Frozen Zoo is working on a lot of exciting research that didn't make it into the episode. For example, they've already managed to turn rhino skin cells into beating heart cells. To learn more about what they're up to, check out the San Diego Zoo's Institute for Conservation Research for yourself.  Some of the most promising applications for the Frozen Zoo come from new technology that lets us turn one kind of cell into any other kind of cell. Read more about the first mouse that was created from skin cells.

We Make Books is a podcast for writers and publishers, by writers and publishers and we want to hear from our listeners! Hit us up on our social media, linked below, and send us your questions, comments, and concerns for us to address in future episodes. We hope you enjoy We Make Books! Twitter: @WMBCast  |  @KindofKaelyn  |  @BittyBittyZap Instagram: @WMBCast  Patreon.com/WMBCast Episode Transcript (by Rekka) [Upbeat Ukulele Intro Music] Rekka: This is We Make Books, a podcast about writing publishing and everything in between. Rekka is a published Science Fiction and Fantasy author, and Kaelyn is a professional genre fiction editor. Together, they'll tackle the things you never knew you never knew about getting a book from concept to finished product, with explanations, examples, and a lot of laughter. Get your moleskin notebook ready. It's time for We Make Books. Kaelyn: I love MacGuffins. R: Or weenies. I think we should start calling them "weenies" again. K: Go back to the original name. Yeah, it's funny because like, I think MacGuffin has like a negative connotation around it and I love it as a plot device where it's just like, there's this thing. And everyone wants it. In some cases we don't even really know what it does. There's like oh, the suitcase from pulp fiction. That's a great MacGuffin. R: That was going to be my example. K: In one of the Mission: Impossible movies, the one with Phillip Seymour Hoffman, you know, they're trying to get this, this thing from this guy. And Phillip Seymour Hoffman is this like the most terrifying crime lord in the world. And he can't get this thing. We literally never find out what it does, why they need to keep it out of his hands so badly and, and have it for themselves. But yeah we kinda conceived of this episode is talking about MacGuffin versus plot devices. So, let's be clear. All MacGuffins are plot devices, not all plot devices are MacGuffins. So as I always like to do a, you know, a little bit of history here, MacGuffin the terms often chalked up as being coined by, Alfred Hitchcock and his friend and screenwriter, MacPhail, but it actually goes back quite a bit before that there was an actress in the 1920s named of Pearl White, which I can only assume as a stage name. R: Her movies brought to you by Colgate. K: I genuinely hope that's a stage name. But she was in a lot of spy movies or action movies where everyone was chasing after something. And she was in so many of them that she started calling the items in question "weenies" because it didn't matter. And the, it was almost getting a little formulaic in her movies that it could have been, you know, like a roll of film, a document, a, a key that opens a certain, you know, safe or something. It really didn't matter what they were. It was just, you know, these suspense action inspired movies, everyone trying to chase down the same object. R: The reason that it doesn't matter is because no one actually ever really uses it. You just want to have it, right? K: Yeah. Yeah. It's frequently MacGuffin-related plots are resolved by "the real treasure was the friends we made along the way," which is one of the more infuriating endings. R: I like friends. K: Friends are great. Yeah. But like, okay. So I was going to get to this, to this later and the thing that, like one of my favorite examples of a MacGuffin that becomes un-MacGuffinned and is National Treasure That film is very rare in that they actually find and maintain hold of the treasure in the end of it, think of like, you know, like the Goonies or Pirates of the Caribbean, like Treasure Planet, they all find the treasure, but they don't really actually get to keep any of it. National Treasure really upended that by, by letting those characters not only find it, but then we find out how much money they got for it. R: And Disney's Atlantis. They did have the treasure at the end, too. K: That's true. R: They didn't tell anyone they had treasure. They just suddenly were all very wealthy. K: Yes, it was very good. So yeah, MacGuffins are by definition, it's a functionally meaningless interchangeable object whose only purpose is to drive the plot. The function of a MacGuffin is that there are characters or multiple groups of characters that want it, and they're all competing or outwitting or racing to get this object. R: The method by which it drives the plot. It creates the tension between different parties. K: Yes, exactly. Or it could be, you know, something like a treasure hunt where, you know, the MacGuffin is the treasure. So we know what its function is. It's going to make somebody rich, but it really is just there as an object to be desired. One of the fun things I learned while doing, you know, putting some notes together, researching this is it's generally accepted that one of the first MacGuffin in commonly accepted MacGuffin and literature was the holy grail, which is very common plot device for Arthurian legend. And then, you know, later tales where this is also treasure. Yes. It had religious significance, but therefore making it a worthwhile pursuit for these holy and sanctified nights. But yeah, it was functionally a MacGuffin because once you get the holy grail, what do you do with it? Well, it depends. If you're in an Indiana Jones movie or not, I know. The Arthurian knights were not not planning to make themselves immortal by that. They were planning to just get it and put it somewhere to look at it and go, it's the holy grail. Yay. So MacGuffins, like I said, it's got a negative connotation around it, I believe. And I do think that is that's very unfair. It's often treated like, well, it's just something that they had to put in there to get the characters, to act, to do something. And it's like, well, yeah, but that's a book. R: Yeah. You need a plot. K: That's how plot devices work. I think where MacGuffins get a bad rep so to speak is because they're meaningless and interchangeable. There are a lot of books, movies, TV shows where the MacGuffin is interchangeable. How many, you know, heist films have you watched where it's like, we need to get this thing in order to, you know, make this next step. And then it turns out that it's like, oh no, wait, things have changed. We need get this other thing. It doesn't have to be the same MacGuffin through the course of the story. They can change based on, you know, how the plot's moving or circumstances or the needs or wants of the characters. As I mentioned before, all MacGuffin are plot devices, not all plot devices are a MacGuffin. So that was kind of, you know, we wanted to talk a little bit about what a MacGuffin is and what it isn't thereby, what is a plot device and what its function is. K: Plot devices are basically a technique and narrative use to move the plot forward. It can be anything from, you know, characters and their actions to objects, to gifts of mysterious origins that we're not quite sure about. Now. It can be relationship, plot devices cover a lot of different things. One of them is MacGuffin. So, you know, saying like, well saying this object, it's just a plot device. Well, it might not be just a plot device. It might be a MacGuffin, but plot devices can be other things. Chekov's gun is of course a plot device. The Chekov's gun rule is if you're going to have a gun on the stage in the first act of a play, somebody needs to fire it in the third act of a play because otherwise it's just, you know, a decoration at that point. I don't like that. R: I don't think it's just that it's a decoration it's that your audience is going to wonder about it and that you don't want to distract or disappoint. K: If there's a play going on and there's a gun hanging on the wall and it's set in a hunting lodge that seems fairly normal. R: But for example, if I see somebody in a movie, pick a rifle out of their nightstand and tuck it into their belt, I know that, you know, something's going to escalate. K: Yeah, exactly. Or at least we're, we should be reading into that. Character is planning for there to be some kind of a conflict or a scenario in which they may need to defend themselves. Right. But let's talk a little bit about pot devices. As I mentioned, they're things that are intended to move the plot along. There's an endless list of things that are plot devices. And as I said, these can be anything from relationships. Like a love triangle is a frequently as plot device. Definitely one of my least favorites. First of all, they're very rarely actually triangles. They're more like two lines converging on a single point in order for there to be a triangle, all three people involved need to be having— R: So is the object of the other two's interest a MacGuffin? K: Could be, I've talked endlessly about what a ridiculous character Bella from Twilight is. And I mean, she's, she's borderline a MacGuffin. Like really, you know what, God, that's a really good thought experiment. I'm going to have to like find some kind of a summary now and go, go through this and see if like Bella is actually a MacGuffin. R: If the character themself doesn't have any agency, like the damsel in distress that you don't even see until you storm the castle in the third act. K: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And we'll get to things that can be MacGuffin that you might not think would be a MacGuffin. So one of them that I actually stumbled across that I didn't think about as a plot device is the Deus ex Machina. So Deus ex Machina it's was a commonly used plot device, especially in Greek comedies and tragedies, primarily tragedies, I suppose where an improbable event is used to resolve everything and bring the story to a conclusion, usually a happy conclusion, fun fact about the Deus ex Machina, of course, you know, it's the Latin for "God in the machine." it was because that's because in a lot of great tragedies and plays, they'd have this mechanism by which an actor portraying a God was lowered into the stage, does god things, you know, changes whatever's happening, and then that's the end of the story. So God in the machine was what was coined for that. This one I will say generally is something that writers are encouraged to avoid. It's it's not great storytelling. Like if, you know, you're lining up for the big conflict and everyone's squared off and waiting to see what happens. And then an earthquake happens and kills everyone... R: Yeah. You know, the earthquake, wasn't something that had been foreshadowed or anything like that. It's kinda like the "Oh, and I woke up and it was all a dream." K: I always say like the T-Rex at the end of the first Jurassic Park movie. R: Just shows up and chomps. K: Just shows up and is like "Raptors! Mmm!" R: A lot of people were pretty satisfied by the T-Rex if, if it had been T-Rexes in the tragedies, we could've had a whole new view of the Deus ex Machina. K: Yeah. It was a, it was a very satisfying ending and it was certainly a "whoa, holy crap. Like, yeah, I forgot. There's also huge dinosaurs running around here. Right." R: And again, so like that was foreshadowed. It was Chekov's T-Rex for your T-Rex Machina. K: It is a little bit of an ex Machina because first of all, the last time we saw the T-Rex, it was very far from the visitor center. And also no one can explain to me how it got in there. So, but you know. It's fine. R: Hey, look. If you really want to nitpick Jurassic Park, let's just talk about how the Jeep fell into the T-Rex enclosure. They did not get to a fence. And yet there were brachiosaurs. Why were they in the T-Rex enclosure? K: I thought they were outside the T-Rex enclosure along a cliff. R: I didn't see a fence. K: The geography of this is, is definitely slightly slightly suspect. But also a plot device, the T-Rex in this is, you know, serving as, as a plot device, in that it is forcing the characters to act and make decisions really. We all know that if they just sat quietly in the cars, the movie would have been a lot different. R: But the MacGuffin of Jurassic Park would be the dinosaur DNA. K: Yes. in one aspect of the plot, definitely, the Nedry plot. I would argue that that is much more relevant to everything, but like, it is a weird little side plot where this chain of events gets kicked off because of yes, the dinosaur DNA, which is not meaningful for the story. Is it interchangeable? I don't know. I would say no on that, but it definitely, for that particular part of the plot serves as a MacGuffin. K: One of the examples I always use that, you know, people point to and say is a MacGuffin, but is absolutely not, is the one ring from Lord of the Rings. It's not an interchangeable object there, isn't another, you know, another thing that they could go take and throw into this volcano, the only reason they're going to throw in this ring into Mount Doom is because it has to be that specific ring. And it has to be thrown into Mount Doom. We lose the whole story of the one ring corrupting and torturing everybody that's holding it. You know, we lose the the character development that comes from the people who have to carry this ring and what it does to them. So that's one we're, you know, I see like people saying like, oh yeah, and the one ring, the MacGuffin. Like it's not, that is not a MacGuffin. It is a plot device, but it is not a MacGuffin. R: Right. It's an object that everybody wants, but it is a carefully crafted object in terms of the story that is the foundation of the story itself. K: Yeah. The one ring, I would say, even goes so far as to serve as a theme in that story, essentially. One of my favorite plot devices is a plot coupons. Rekka also loves these. R: Like you need the blue key card and then come back with the blue key card. And then, you know, you can open this blue locked door. The idea that you need this thing before the story can go any further and it has to be this thing. But that thing is not going to come around later. It's not like that key will open another door later. It will open this one door that we need to progress, but there's probably going to be another door later. K: And again, this is not a MacGuffin because it's not interchangeable. You need that specific key. The other way to sort of integrate plot coupons into your story is there's a certain number of objects you need to collect in order to get something else. My favorite one of these is Dragon Ball. You want to summon the dragon. I believe his name was Shen. You have to collect all seven dragon balls to do that. So the story is being driven by the quest to find all of these, some in the dragon and then summoning the dragon from there typically drives the plot forward even more. It's very rarely goes the way you want it to when you're collecting, collecting things for a larger thing. It's not like a carnival where you get enough tickets, you get the giant teddy bear and then you go home. That teddy bear might kill you. Yeah. Similarly to, to plot coupons is a plot voucher which is something that a character is given or, you know, picks up on a whim or just, you know, is particularly entranced by and goes, I'm going to take this object. And then it turns out to be incredibly useful or life-saving, or exactly the thing that they needed or didn't realize the value of it. Something like that. R: This is frequently a Star Trek: The Next Generation thing where Wesley is working on this school project and that school project saves the planet later when he connects it to the war coils. K: Yeah. There you go. Yeah. it's a very common thing in especially fantasy because you know, it's this there's a lot of concepts of hidden and mysterious objects where something that you have, you don't realize that's what it is the whole time you have it. And then suddenly it's magically revealed at the end. One of my favorites. I don't know if anyone listening to this or Rekka, I feel like you may have read like the, you know, the subsequent Wizard of Oz books. R: I have not read the sequels. K: Oh really? Okay. Yeah, and um R: I always meant to, but I just never got around to it. K: They're good. They're good. I got, I got really into them and I believe it's, is it in the second book? I can't remember. And one of them were Dorothy returns to Oz and they're trying to, you know, so Oz is now without a leader and she goes off on this whole quest with this boy that she finds who he's an orphan. And he doesn't have a lot of memories from when he was younger and they go in this whole thing and they're trying R: Well that sounds like a missing king. K: Better. It's a missing queen. Because they finally turn— their whole thing is they're trying to track down this witch who may know where the heir Ozma is. And they finally confront her and she tearfully breaks down and points to the boy and says, "I turned her into a boy." Dorothy's had the queen with her the whole time and didn't realize it. So yeah, that's a, you know, that's a good, I'm not sure that really fits the plot voucher, but I'm going to say that it does, because Dorothy does go out of her way to have this boy accompany her. I think the boy's name is Pip because of course it would be. You know, somebody who on a whim picks up like a bulletproof vest or has given a bullet professed and then get shot later. Or you know, there's always like the little meek character that they give like a knife or a gun to, and say here, hold this just in case. K: And then the main character is getting strangled to death and they use it. Those are plot vouchers. Another one— and then I promise I'll stop going through plot devices here, but I, I always enjoy this—is a good red herring. Very common in murder mysteries and thriller stories and even a spy novels. You know, this is trying to divert the audience of the reader's attention away from something and draw it to something else. You know, I mentioned murder mystery. So like this would be like, you know, the whole family's gathered for dinner and the grandmother suddenly dies. And the doctor of the family declare she's been poisoned, and who would have the motive for doing this? And while you, the reader trying to sort through all of this, there becomes a character who it's to you very clear has the best motives, the best opportunity and everything. But in the case of that, being a red herring, what it's doing is it's distracting you from something that's happening in the background, where there is actually a better candidate to be the murderer, but the author doesn't want you to know that yet. Red herrings are frequently used for another plot device, which is of course the plot twist, right? Very difficult to have a plot twist without a series of very well laid out red herrings. Yeah. R: And you have to be very balanced in how you use them. So you don't tip off that they are red herrings. Like they can't be so overtly obvious, although in certain genres they are tropes and people want the red herring and they want to be the smart one who figures out who the actual killer is before the detective realizes they are after the wrong person or whatever. K: Red herrings can actually be used within the book as well. Something that the you know, antagonist of the story does, to deliberately mislead our band of noble heroes and send them off on a wild goose chase so they can continue their nefarious plans undeterred, would be a red herring used within the context of the story. That's I hope kind of a good, "This is a plot device. This is a MacGuffin," but one thing I did want to touch on was things that can be MacGuffins, but don't seem like they would be MacGuffins. Because as we mentioned, MacGuffin is need to be, you know, functionally meaningless interchangeable and lacking agency. And these don't necessarily seem like things that would check off those boxes R: Just by their inherent nature. You're going to say people as your first one. So like you would see a character and you're going to think they're going to act with some agency. They're going to try to manipulate the world around them to get what they want. But sometimes... K: Sometimes they're just MacGuffins. You know, I mentioned, I am going to go back and try to figure this out. If Bella from Twilight is actually just a MacGuffin. My— I'm going to say in some books, yes. For staggeringly, large parts of the book. Baby Yoda is a MacGuffin for a really long time in the Mandalorian. Yes, it's a sentient functioning creature that in some cases does interact with and change the environment, but he really doesn't have a lot of agency. He's just sort of, kind of getting carted around by, by the Mandalorian. R: He wants to eat amphibians. K: He wants to eat amphibians and their eggs. And everybody wants him. Everyone is trying to get this child that—the viewer see some examples of his power early on, but most of the people trying to get him don't realize that. And even, you know, up to the very end, if not like at the, you know, the end of the story so far, he's suddenly become a very involved, interactive character, altering and changing the world around him. He's still, he's an object that's handed off. R: Right. Although technically by sending the Jedi signal homing signal, yes, he does get used. So therefore—. K: Yes, he becomes a plot device at that point. R: He is no longer a MacGuffin, but yeah, for most of the season, he is. K: He's kind of a Deus ex Machina there. R: Well, okay. Is he the Deus ex Machina or is Luke showing up to take him away the Deus ex Machina? K: Spoilers for Mandalorian season two, which— R: If you care, you already know. K: Yeah, Exactly. No, I would say he's the Deus ex Machina because by that point, Luke is a function of him. He only shows up for him. Okay. He's not a MacGuffin because he's not interchangeable if you know, Han Solo showed up that wouldn't have been very helpful for everyone. I mean, you know, extra gun, I guess, but Luke's the one we really needed in that situation, but yeah. And you see this you see this a lot in video games, like the escort quests, where, you know, you just have like some silly character that keeps trying to like run into dangerous situations and you have to prevent them from doing it. That's, they're serving as a MacGuffin at that point. You know, Rekka made the example of like the damsel in distress. People can be MacGuffins for a time and then change into plot devices or then even characters. R: Okay. But when you are looking over somebody or something from a story, how do you say here's where they change? And that changes them like before they weren't a plot device? K: Where, where is the crossover? R: Well, like when you're, when you're saying like, yes, that's a MacGuffin or yes, that's a plot device. Like if, as a plot device that meant that later they did something. So then were they ever a MacGuffin? K: Yes. MacGuffins do not have to stay MacGuffins. Hmm. You can graduate from MacGuffin to plot device and plot device to character. That's what typically is going to take a person from a MacGuffin to, you know, being part of the story, be it as a character or a plot device is them acting either on their own behalf or on the behalf of the people that were basically treating them as a MacGuffin at that point. Some of the common tropes with this is them suddenly gaining a power of some kind, you know, maybe this was like this you know, child princess that needed to be escorted across the galaxy. So she could go back and claim her throne. But basically we just had to keep her hidden and locked away and make sure, you know, people keep attacking the ship and trying to stop us from getting her home. K: But then she touches a crystal that she shouldn't have. And now she's going to get them all safely home she's then, you know, not a MacGuffin at that point, she is, you know, a character or maybe on some level, a plot device, usually in order for a person to be a true MacGuffin, they have to be completely helpless: babies, children that can't take care of themselves or, oh, here's a good one. Macguffins that will—like I mentioned with Ozma in, you know, the Wizard of Oz sequel books—MacGuffins that you didn't realize were with you the whole time. And they transform into something that transcends being a MacGuffin. You know, they were cursed to just be this rock. And for some reason, someone's got the rock with them the whole time and it's a MacGuffin, but then it's, you know, we broke the curse and it's actually a person. R: Or in science fiction, you might have somebody that's like in stasis, in cryo, and you don't know why you're transporting them or why everyone keeps attacking your ship to get them or something. K: Macguffins aren't static. They don't always have to stay MacGuffin. A good example of a MacGuffin that does not stay MacGuffin is an egg, anytime, you know, there's a, a precious egg or something similar that we have to, you know, be transporting and getting to wherever it needs to hatch or something. And then it hatches probably dragons are a really good example or trope here. And then it actually hatches and turns into a dragon. Well, that dragon is not a MacGuffin because it's a dragon. R: And at the very least it changes the plot by being a hungry, now-alive thing. K: Very much so, very much. So other things that can be MacGuffins. We talked about interchangeable objects a little bit, you know, the MacGuffin does not have to be the static standard object to the whole time. It can change. It can be, you know, it's whatever the character or characters desire or need at that moment. R: It could be a relay race of MacGuffins. K: Exactly. Really, honestly it could. It really could. And then the other one that I had made a note of here is a place. So, you know, we think of the MacGuffin as an object that you're trying to hold, but it can also be a place that you're trying to get to that is, you know, maybe not, we're not sure if it's real, if it's a fabled, you know, legendary location El Dorado is a good example of that. A lot of, a lot of treasure seeking-based stories have places that sort of serve as MacGuffins. And to the clear, the treasure being a MacGuffin and the place being a MacGuffin are two different things, because the treasure—like I'll go back to National Treasure—Um they very explicitly stayed in that, that it's been moved around a lot. So they're not trying to find a specific place. They are trying to find a specific thing. They just don't know where it is. R: And once they get it, they're going to remove it from that place. K: Yes. A MacGuffin that is a place is a specific spot that you've got to get to. Maybe it's a sacred temple where you could only perform this specific resurrection spell, or maybe it's a city made entirely of gold or like Treasure Planet was a good one because you had to get to that specific planet and that specific place on the planet in order to, you know, find and access all of this treasure. R: Or in the Mummy Returns, when they are trying to release the scorpion bracelet from their son's wrist, they have to go to this temple specifically to do that. K: Yeah. So places can be a little tricky. They, they verge a little bit more on, on plot devices, but there are definitely a place can serve as a MacGuffin, especially if it's like a legendary one that nobody can really prove exists. K: By the way, if there's a lot to read on a MacGuffin is out there and you know, why they're, they're really not actually a bad, a bad thing. But conflating them, you know, conflating all plot devices and saying it's a MacGuffin is not actually accurate. K: Because plot devices are a lot more dynamic than MacGuffins. And there's a lot of different types and how they can be replied. Plot devices are a writing technique. Macguffins are a component of the writing technique. So anyway, I like a good MacGuffin. I think they're a lot of fun. And I think plot devices can be really helpful for, for writing. Again, it's something that like, there are these things that I think like they just exist. They're things that we have and things we have to, you know, have in our stories, but we talk about them very dismissively for some reason. I'm never quite sure why that is. R: I think a lot of the dismissiveness comes from people who have more of a literary mind with regard to their storytelling. K: Possibly. R: So that either they are dismissive of genre fiction entirely, or they feel like it's their duty to elevate genre fiction by eliminating tropes, which would then eliminate the genre. K: Yeah. R: Um yeah, I think that that's the perception I get anyway from the discourse I see about these things, but yeah. I definitely got the impression as a, you know, emerging writer that MacGuffins, were a bad thing. But you know, as we pointed out, there's a lot of people's favorite movies, favorite stories, favorite movies, favorite plays that are just chock full of MacGuffins. K: All of the Indiana Jones, R: Pretty much, yeah. This belongs in a museum because it can just go behind glass and stay there. But in the meantime, let's fight over it. K: They Ark of the Covenant by the way, is one of my favorite MacGuffins: the Instakill MacGuffin. By the way, this is a trope is the MacGuffin that you get. And you're finally like, "Haha I have the thing." And then it kills everyone. R: The MacGuffin that you should not mess with. K: Yes. I like MacGuffins. R: Macguffins are good. And if the advice is, "I don't know what to do in the scene," "make something blow up." Like why not use a MacGuffin to keep your plot moving forward? K: Yeah. R: There's definitely a draw in like wanting an object. People can understand multiple people wanting the same object. This is the nature of humanity. So it's something we can identify quickly and relate to and understand without spending a whole bunch of time on it. K: If you just exist in your life, you're going to come across a lot of MacGuffins. My current MacGuffin is I really want a bagel. R: But it has to be a New York bagel. So it's not just a MacGuffin. K: It has to be the everything bagel with scallion cream cheese from the place around the corner from me. And the thing is, I don't have time to go get it right now, but I really want it. And for my life, it is functionally meaningless and interchangeable, because I could very easily just go get some toast out of the fridge and that will nourish and satiate me. But it's not the thing that I desire. R: But it's not. Yeah. It's not going to satisfy you. It's just going to feed you. K: Yes, exactly. Exactly. All right. Well, I think that's MacGuffins. Thank you so much, everyone for listening. R: And we'll be back with something else that we have opinions on in two weeks. K: We have a lot of opinions. R: Thanks, everyone.

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Today I'm talking to strongman athlete Evan Singleton. Also known by his nickname T-Rex, Evan is relatively new to strongman, having discovered the sport around three years ago. But in the short time since, he's rocketed to the top of the sport's rankings and is now among the best men's open competitors in the world. We chat about his background in pro wrestling, bodybuilding, and more. But the most fun part of the conversation for me was an in-depth discussion on his Jurassic Park fandom. Strength sports and dinosaur nerds unite, because this is the episode for you.

When we were young there were many movies that caught our imaginations. Star Wars made us all want to battle a galactic empire, Jurassic Park made us think that every bush the moved had a raptor hiding in it, Fast Times at Ridgemont High taught us about red bathing suits and The Last Starfighter made us belive that playing a video game could lead to an adventure in the stars. We review The Last Starfighter this week on GMF. A fun movie that holds up despite very primitive special effects. While the effects look dated, at the time this movie was made the effects were not only state of the art, but they were ground breaking. This movie was the first time that cgi was used to show something other than visuals on  a computer screen. Stay tuned for our question of the week based on the movie, what old movies could use a VFX upgrade? (what old movies would be made better if the effects were better) The Give Me Five Podcast is on Patreon. For just $5 you could join the fun in our patron only chat, and get early warning of our movie of the week and our top 5 list. There are other benefits too, so check it out here:  https://www.patreon.com/Givemefivepodcast Remember if you use our link (https://amzn.to/2KxR8OU) we get a little bit of money towards server costs at no extra cost to you. So go ahead and buy that Nicholas Cage Mermaid Pillow you definitely need.  Check out our website at givemefivepodcast.com We have a store! Check out our shirts, mugs, bags and phone cases here: Buy cool crap! We record using Squadcast. Squadcast is an easy to use, stable recording environment that allows you, your cohosts and any guests the ability to record out of the comfort of your own home. Just click the link and start talking with absolutely no lag. You can try it out using our link and it will help us out immensely. https://squadcast.fm/?ref=givemefive And you can always reach us at givemefivepodcast@gmail.com or at our Facebook Page : https://www.facebook.com/givemefivepodcast/  Opening Theme Opening theme: GLOW by DJ Ten (feat LeBrock and ULTRABOSS )

It's vital you listen to this catch up

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

WebsitePatreonTwitterFacebookInstagramRetro Latefee Podcast (@retrolatefeepod) • Instagram photos and videosTikTok★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Top 5: Jurassic Park Franchise - Ray Taylor Show Subscribe: InspiredDisorder.com/rts Binge Ad Free: InspiredDisorder.com/Patreon Show topic: Jurassic Park, later also referred to as Jurassic World,[1][2][3] is an American science fiction media franchise centered on a disastrous attempt to create a theme park of cloned dinosaurs. It began in 1990 when Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment bought the rights to the novel by Michael Crichton before it was published. The book was successful, as was Steven Spielberg's 1993 film adaptation. The film received a theatrical 3D re-release in 2013,[4] and was selected in 2018 for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". The 1993 movie is still considered one of the greatest films of the 1990s.Sponsored By:Patreon.com/InspiredDisorder $3 membership.*Binge full week of Ray Taylor Show (audio+Video)*Massive discount code for The Many Faces*Download raw photoshop filesInspiredDisorder.com/tmf The Many Faces - Original abstract ink portraits by Ray Taylor. Code: RTS for 25% OFF. StationHouseCoffee.com and @StationHouseCoffee on Instagram for premium small batch, single source coffee.InspiredDisorder.com/Ting $25 CREDIT! The best carrier. The best coverage.Same low rates, now with three coast-to-coast networks.Daily Podcast: Ray Taylor Show - InspiredDisorder.com/rts Daily Painting: The Many Faces - InspiredDisorder.com/tmf SUPPORT ON PATREON: Patreon.com/InspiredDisorder More links: InspiredDisorder.com/links

Today, my guest is a prolific cinematographer, accomplished photographer, and member of the American Society of Cinematographers, Dean Cundey.Dean rose to fame for extraordinary cinematography in the 1980s and 1990s. His early start was working on the set of Halloween.  Dean is credited as director of photography on five Back To The Future films and Jurassic Park.The Halloween slasher franchise consisted of eleven films and was initially released in 1978. The films primarily focus on Michael Myers, who was committed to a sanitarium as a child for the murder of his sister, Judith Myers. Fifteen years later, he escapes to stalk and kill the people of the fictional town of Haddonfield, Illinois. Michael's killings occur on the holiday of Halloween, on which all of the films primarily take place. The second film, one of which Cundey served as director of photography, was based on Marty McFly, who had only just gotten back from the past when he is once again picked up by Dr. Emmett Brown and sent through time to the future. Marty's job in the future is to pose as his son to prevent him from being thrown in prison. Unfortunately, things get worse when the future changes the present.The three Back To The Future films Dean worked on grossed $388.8, $336, and $243 million globally, becoming all-time hits on budgets of $19, $40, and $40 million.Cundey is cited as being amongst some of the best directors of photography. In addition to his lighting skills, particularly in the famous hallway scene where the hidden face of Michael Myers is slowly revealed by way of a blue light next to the mask, he was among the first cinematographers to make use of a recent invention called the Steadicam, or paraglide.Some other shows and movies he's worked on include, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Tales of the Unexpected, Romancing the Stone, Invitation To Hell, Big Trouble in Little China, etc.Who Framed Roger Rabbit; A toon-hating detective is a cartoon rabbit's only hoping to prove his innocence when he is accused of murder. Basically, 'Toon star Roger is worried that his wife Jessica is playing pattycake with someone else, so the studio hires detective Eddie Valiant to snoop on her. But the stakes are quickly raised when Marvin Acme is found dead, and Roger is the prime suspect. Groundbreaking interaction between the live and animated characters, and lots of references to classic animation.Dean grew up an avid reader of the American Cinematographer magazines he would buy after school from a local camera shop close by. That was how his inspiration to pursue filmmaking came about. He shifted his focus to theater history while still taking some architectural design classes at California State University before he ultimately enrolled at the University of California Los Angeles film school.In 1993 Jurassic Park, Dean made a minor appearance as a boat crew member (Mate) while also staffed as director of photography. The film follows a pragmatic paleontologist visiting an almost complete theme park tasked with protecting a couple of kids after a power failure causes the park's cloned dinosaurs to run loose. Huge advancements in scientific technology have enabled a mogul to create an island full of living dinosaurs. A park employee attempts to steal dinosaur embryos, critical security systems are shut down, and it now becomes a race for survival with dinosaurs roaming freely over the island.Cundey holds over one hundred and fifty cinematography & photography credits for movies, television, and short films. That is no small feat in this business. The man has stayed busy and booked since graduation from film school. That kind of consistency in Hollywood is only doable by having extreme persistence and excellence.One of the many things he did to stay prepared and on top of his craft was investing into building himself a ‘super van' or one couple call it a cinematographer's heaven that contained every equipment (cameras, editings tools, etc.) required to help him get work get and do work easily. We talk more about this in our chat.Enjoy my conversation with Dean Cundey.

Toast is popping bottles for its IPO after finding the one area of food everyone forgot about. Mailchimp just sold for $12B by pulling off something no other startup its size has ever done. And every September, Apple hosts its major product event… behold the iPhone 13. $TOST $INTU $AAPL Got a SnackFact? Tweet it @RobinhoodSnacks @JackKramer @NickOfNewYork Want a shoutout on the pod? Fill out this form: https://forms.gle/KhUAo31xmkSdeynD9 Got a SnackFact for the pod? We got a form for that too: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe64VKtvMNDPGSncHDRF07W34cPMDO3N8Y4DpmNP_kweC58tw/viewform Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices