I don't read the situation the same way. It sounds like they had an ambitious, high tech program that they thought would reap huge benefits down the line. Then they lost a chunk of their funding (a common thing in British government lately), and had to scale back the plan and only go after the lowest-hanging fruit.
Reading the story, it seems that the problem was that they *did* fire the idiots. Or at least, the British people did what they were supposed to do when they're dissatisfied with things.
G-Cloud was a Labour initiative. When the Conservatives got hold of the government, and decided to implement their (disastrous) austerity program, they started cutting budgets left and right. Which is a shame, because they're cutting off funding for a program that might have brought huge efficiencies down the line.
My recollection is that lighter, faster ones hold more energy. The energy stored goes up proportional to the weight of the flywheel, but proportional to the square of the velocity.
You're right. The government would never spread false-but-juicy tidbits to demoralize bin Laden's followers. I mean, they could have said much worse. Like he used his own wife as a human shield during the attack, or something.
Honestly, if you have $50K to invest in lowering your carbon footprint, there are more effective ways to do it. Move closer to work. Buy a bus pass, a nice bike, and some bad weather gear. Solar hot water heater. Energy efficient appliances and lighting.
I like solar, I really do. But too many people talk about it like it's the be-all and end-all of green living. Energy efficiency is a much better return on investment right now.
Once you've made all those investments, you'll need a much smaller solar array anyhow.
Thatcher? The union-busting, Pinochet-coddling, unpopular politician? The one who went to war over an island with three people and twenty goats, just to juice her poll numbers? The one who sold the assets of her countrymen to the superwealthy at firesale prices?
I'm okay with crediting Mr. Colbert with equal or better understanding.
But it's not as hopeless as you suggest. After all, all the complexity you see when you zoom in disappears when you back out to the 50,000 foot view and say, "How much CO2 is being emitted each year," and the even more crucial question: "How much CO2 has accumulated?" That's the only number that a model really needs to concern itself with, and if you're not sure what that number will be in ten or twenty years, you just run it under all the reasonable assumptions.
No, even if we went to zero emissions this very day, AGW predicts that temperatures would keep rising for a while. The Sun still takes a few years to pump enough energy into our oceans to get the Earth back into thermodynamic equilibrium (radiating as much energy as the system takes in). So even under those impossible circumstances, the climate scientist on the other side of the bet has a better than 50% chance of winning.
Nothing politically feasible is going to come close to zero emissions over the next decade. This has to be seen as a long-term, multi-decade project.
The alternative is to wait a hundred years and see if we've still got a remotely habitable planet. Meantime, why not pump thousands of gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere? I mean, it's not as though you just said that we have "limited understanding" of the consequences of going down that path.
We can't wait for all the data necessary to satisfy even the most stubborn skeptic. We have to set out with the best estimates we have today. The vast majority of people who are working in the field agree that unchecked CO2 emissions pose grave consequences in the future. They can't say exactly how grave, because there is indeed uncertainty. It could be better than we'd hoped, or it could be worse than we'd feared. But the median estimate is "really bad" and the worst case estimate is "absolute catastrophe."
We have a relatively brief amount of time left to seriously mitigate future risks. We can take the relatively small and cheap steps now, or we can put it off and make much more drastic and expensive steps thirty years from now. Presented in those terms, what is the "conservative" way to handle the situation? To buy insurance and mitigate future risk? Or blow the insurance money on toys now, in the hopes that the skeptics are right and nothing bad will happen?
We're talking about 1 or 2% of worldwide GDP each year. It's really chump change.
Is he wrong to say that wealthy countries used up most of the allowable CO2 emissions? Only if the preponderance of scientific opinion and research is wrong.
Is he wrong to say that most of the CO2 locked up in our coal reserves must stay there? Again, only if the preponderance of scientific opinion and research is wrong.
Is he wrong to say that keeping all that coal locked up amounts to a transfer of wealth away from coal-rich countries? Of course not.
Is he wrong to say that, in a world where there was a per-capita cap on emissions, and wealthy countries had to pay poorer countries for using more than their per-capita share, Africa would receive a lot of money? No. It's perfectly accurate. Would that really be such a bad thing, given that the developed nations send about one half of 1% GDP as development aid? Would even an order of magnitude increase in that number pose a serious risk to our cushy lifestyles?
I see no conspiracy here, and I see no cause for alarm. He's just describing the most sensible climate policy we can think of in terms of its economic impact on different countries.
Why is it that only people from the right wing can see how terrible the light quality from CFLs is? Is there some special time-traveling store conservatives go to to buy their CFLs from the distant past? The ones that give off the green light for a couple of months before exploding and scattering pounds of mercury onto their pets, killing them instantly and causing the EPA to swoop in and declare their living room a Superfund site?
>> I've found that cheap (less than £5 each) CFLs typically last a couple of months. Until I bought high-quality Philips ones (about £11 each) I was constantly replacing them.
I bought a bunch of cheapies at Home Depot when I moved into my apartment nearly two years ago. Haven't replaced a one. Same thing happened for the two years I lived in my previous place.
>> It's impossible to read in this dim flickery light.
"Flickery" can only possibly apply to CFLs with mechanical ballasts. I'd be surprised if anybody makes those anymore. Modern CFLs have electronic ballasts, which "flicker" at the rate of several thousand times per second. Are you Superman? Then no, you're not seeing a flicker. You're imagining a flicker to justify your a priori belief that CFLs are crappy.
>> Since it takes five minutes to "warm up", they have to be left on constantly.
No they don't "have to." You could just live with the warmup time, which I timed at about thirty seconds, rather than the five minutes you're claiming. The bulbs start serving up adequate light for most activities the moment they're turned on. You can even read; at the very worst, you might have to hold the book a bit closer to your eyes for a handful of seconds. To avoid such trivial inconvenience, you'll pass up all the environmental benefits? That's bordering on sociopathy.
>> Oh, and since they're physically much larger than the equivalent incandescent lamp, they don't fit any light fittings.
One more bit of evidence that you must be buying your bulbs from time travelers or antique collectors. Every bulb I've seen lately has been smaller than the incandescent it was intended to replace.
Okay, you might just be one of those people who think CFLs are dim, and try to replace a 60W incandescent with a 100W-equivalent CFL.
>> They're not suitable for a lot of fittings because they overheat.
They say that, but I've never seen this happen in real life, even with enclosures that actually enclose. As long as it has a little breathing room, it should be fine.
>> CFLs have a long way to go before they replace incandescents.
See above.
>> They use ecologically nasty chemicals,
Yes, but when you include the amount of mercury put out by the power plant in order to keep that incandescent lit, CFLs actually prevent mercury from entering the environment.
>> and they use more electricity than incandescents (their power factor is awful; lots of energy is wasted at the substation correcting for this)
Define "lots". Even by the most naive calculation (the one that says a.5 power factor means the utility has to provide twice as much power), you're still somewhat ahead using CFLs. But the naive way isn't accurate. Power that doesn't get used gets used up by another device, or gets stored in the overall capacitance of the system, or in the worst case gets sent back to the producer, incurring only the transmission losses (which are significant, but not nearly so much as you seem to think).
In other words, your 13 watt bulb isn't using anywhere near 26 watts, which would still be way better than 60 watts, and anyhow the utility is only charging you for the 13, so what's the big deal?
>> and they generate massive amounts of RF interference.
Which has affected my life in what way? My remote works, wireless connection seems fine, as are my cordless and cell phones. I never listen to the radio, but I'd probably have to hold it right next to the bulb to
Climate scientists haven't said anything remotely like what you're claiming.
Find one climate scientist who said "we'd all cook" -- by any definition of "cook" -- before 2011. I doubt you can. If you can, there was probably a line of his peers begging him to knock it the hell off.
Find one climate scientist who said "we'd never see snow again" by 2011 or any prior date. You can't. If you can find one who said that about the year 2100, I'd be surprised.
As for scientists saying we haven't waited long enough, that's preposterous because the trendline is already stark. There would be no need for them to say "wait and see" because they could just as easily say, "look at this right now."
They have certainly said that we need to act now. Time to listen.
Fair points. On the other hand, once you've got the testing infrastructure in place, and you have to go in and revamp an area of the code anyways, one recommended way to refamiliarize yourself with that code is to write tests for it. It's a good approach, because it forces you to more rigorously understand the functionality of the code, gives your exploration some guidance and direction, and leaves behind some path markers for the next person. It's a little closer to the "test every damned thing" mindset, but not so much that it will destroy your productivity.
"If tests could find bugs, products would never be released with them."
That presumes that every bug would have a test written for it. Presumably by magical, test-writing fairies.
It's the programmer's job to think of the ways that a given piece of code might break. Sure, a perfect programmer would know every possible test that could be written. But then, the perfect programmer would write the perfect code, and wouldn't need to write tests.
That is, unless he was working with imperfect programmers.
That's the point of testing. It's a reality check for a programmer's own arrogance. You can be confident in your own work. But if you can sincerely say, "I understand this large, complex project well enough to guarantee that this set of changes will not introduce any bugs," then you are either among the elite 0.5% of programmers, the changeset in question is trivial, or you're just overconfident.
Each test you write is basically a statement that says, "Dear code. You are expected to behave thusly. I will catch you if you start doing something else."
"You are on a fixed salary, you idiot!"
Not sure what you're saying here. Perhaps because I'm an idiot. But "fixed salary" generally implies a couple of things. First, it implies that under normal circumstances your work should be completable within a standard forty hour work week. Second, it implies that you have a lot of leeway in what work you do and how it gets done. If you're regularly working fifty or sixty hour work weeks because you have a very well-defined set of work that must be done, then by law you shouldn't be salaried; you should be getting overtime.
Salary is not -- as you seem to be suggesting -- an excuse for employers to dump eighty hours of work on you and then expect you to do it. In this instance, if his employer is expecting him to complete his regular forty hour workset and then to also make the up-front investments in a test suite that he feels he needs "to do his job properly," that's simply not a reasonable expectation on the employer's part.
Clearly, in this case there is something his boss can do. Give him permission to start building a test suite, or exploring the various commercial and open source testing harnesses that might suit his needs. "Salaried" doesn't mean that your bosses have no say in how you spend your time, or that you don't need to communicate with them or get buy-in from them before you make major changes to the system (especially when those changes require coordination with dozens of other people doing the same job you are).
One developer stomping on the changes another developer makes to a very large project is "extraordinarily idiotic?" I don't see why you think so, especially given that you're railing against one proven technique for keeping such extraordinary idiocy from happening. Commenting code will not prevent it. Well managed source control will not prevent it. Good communication will the rest of the team will not prevent it. A test suite will not prevent it. But between the four of them, you have a decent shot.
"People have to spent fixed (and significant) amount of time switching between unrelated projects, so effectiveness of developers working on multiple projects depends not as much on how much time they have to spend on projects but on how often they have to switch."
Exactly! Which is why you don't want to have to be constantly context-switching back into a legacy project to fix the bugs that would be prevented by a test suite.
Define "renaissance." Cheap audio gear gave us... lemme see... 87,000 podcasts listed on Podcast Alley alone. They can't all suck, and in my experience, many of them don't. Excluding those that are just reprints of radio shows, practically none of them would be possible without the proliferation of cheap audio gear.
"Creative people create despite the cost and obstacles." No, they don't. That is to say, there is absolutely no guarantee that having a good idea is going to give you the time or the access to the equipment needed to implement it. Creativity and drive/ambition/work ethic are not synonymous. If anything, I think there is a small negative correlation there.
Yes, YouTube creates boatloads of mediocrity. That's unavoidable when a technology goes from being extremely costly -- and therefore only available to those who become well-versed in the craft -- to extremely cheap and ubiquitous. Say that you were in a film school back in the 1970s, where there were only a handful of cameras. You probably wouldn't even touch a camera your first year. Now imagine the same school forty years later, where every student has a hi-def camera their first day. Is this better for the students? Absolutely. Is more quality film going to be produced? Certainly. Does the average quality of the film go down? Dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't read the situation the same way. It sounds like they had an ambitious, high tech program that they thought would reap huge benefits down the line. Then they lost a chunk of their funding (a common thing in British government lately), and had to scale back the plan and only go after the lowest-hanging fruit.
Reading the story, it seems that the problem was that they *did* fire the idiots. Or at least, the British people did what they were supposed to do when they're dissatisfied with things.
G-Cloud was a Labour initiative. When the Conservatives got hold of the government, and decided to implement their (disastrous) austerity program, they started cutting budgets left and right. Which is a shame, because they're cutting off funding for a program that might have brought huge efficiencies down the line.
My recollection is that lighter, faster ones hold more energy. The energy stored goes up proportional to the weight of the flywheel, but proportional to the square of the velocity.
This is Slashdot. Strong opinions are their own justification.
You're right. The government would never spread false-but-juicy tidbits to demoralize bin Laden's followers. I mean, they could have said much worse. Like he used his own wife as a human shield during the attack, or something.
Aw, hell. Give me all that, and maybe I'll pay them for some of their content. Sweeten the pot a little.
Honestly, if you have $50K to invest in lowering your carbon footprint, there are more effective ways to do it. Move closer to work. Buy a bus pass, a nice bike, and some bad weather gear. Solar hot water heater. Energy efficient appliances and lighting.
I like solar, I really do. But too many people talk about it like it's the be-all and end-all of green living. Energy efficiency is a much better return on investment right now.
Once you've made all those investments, you'll need a much smaller solar array anyhow.
One thing to remember: They wanted to respect Islamic custom regarding the burial of the body. Which means that it has to be done within 24 hours.
Actually Twitter uses multiple languages, including Rails for the UI, and Scala for the message queues.
Thatcher? The union-busting, Pinochet-coddling, unpopular politician? The one who went to war over an island with three people and twenty goats, just to juice her poll numbers? The one who sold the assets of her countrymen to the superwealthy at firesale prices?
I'm okay with crediting Mr. Colbert with equal or better understanding.
P.P.S.: It doesn't look like my other reply actually posted. I'm too lazy to fully recreate it. Quick summary:
Right winger: I was playing the odds. Perhaps I lost.
I have to replace my 100W bulbs with "60W" CFLs? I never said that. Use what you like, but bulbs not fitting is a rare problem in my experience.
RF thing: I'm not a radio operator. Most people aren't. Use what works for you.
CFLs use more power in my cabin: Implausible. Would need more details on your experimental design.
Hydro: Hydro is a tiny fraction of our energy generation. Coal is a huge one. You're atypical in that regard.
P.S.: Here's a clear, not-panicked explanation of the whole power factor thing: http://www.alteraeon.com/~soda/dsp/cfl-power-factor.html.
But it's not as hopeless as you suggest. After all, all the complexity you see when you zoom in disappears when you back out to the 50,000 foot view and say, "How much CO2 is being emitted each year," and the even more crucial question: "How much CO2 has accumulated?" That's the only number that a model really needs to concern itself with, and if you're not sure what that number will be in ten or twenty years, you just run it under all the reasonable assumptions.
No, even if we went to zero emissions this very day, AGW predicts that temperatures would keep rising for a while. The Sun still takes a few years to pump enough energy into our oceans to get the Earth back into thermodynamic equilibrium (radiating as much energy as the system takes in). So even under those impossible circumstances, the climate scientist on the other side of the bet has a better than 50% chance of winning.
Nothing politically feasible is going to come close to zero emissions over the next decade. This has to be seen as a long-term, multi-decade project.
The alternative is to wait a hundred years and see if we've still got a remotely habitable planet. Meantime, why not pump thousands of gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere? I mean, it's not as though you just said that we have "limited understanding" of the consequences of going down that path.
We can't wait for all the data necessary to satisfy even the most stubborn skeptic. We have to set out with the best estimates we have today. The vast majority of people who are working in the field agree that unchecked CO2 emissions pose grave consequences in the future. They can't say exactly how grave, because there is indeed uncertainty. It could be better than we'd hoped, or it could be worse than we'd feared. But the median estimate is "really bad" and the worst case estimate is "absolute catastrophe."
We have a relatively brief amount of time left to seriously mitigate future risks. We can take the relatively small and cheap steps now, or we can put it off and make much more drastic and expensive steps thirty years from now. Presented in those terms, what is the "conservative" way to handle the situation? To buy insurance and mitigate future risk? Or blow the insurance money on toys now, in the hopes that the skeptics are right and nothing bad will happen?
We're talking about 1 or 2% of worldwide GDP each year. It's really chump change.
Explain exactly where he's wrong.
Is he wrong to say that wealthy countries used up most of the allowable CO2 emissions? Only if the preponderance of scientific opinion and research is wrong.
Is he wrong to say that most of the CO2 locked up in our coal reserves must stay there? Again, only if the preponderance of scientific opinion and research is wrong.
Is he wrong to say that keeping all that coal locked up amounts to a transfer of wealth away from coal-rich countries? Of course not.
Is he wrong to say that, in a world where there was a per-capita cap on emissions, and wealthy countries had to pay poorer countries for using more than their per-capita share, Africa would receive a lot of money? No. It's perfectly accurate. Would that really be such a bad thing, given that the developed nations send about one half of 1% GDP as development aid? Would even an order of magnitude increase in that number pose a serious risk to our cushy lifestyles?
I see no conspiracy here, and I see no cause for alarm. He's just describing the most sensible climate policy we can think of in terms of its economic impact on different countries.
Why is it that only people from the right wing can see how terrible the light quality from CFLs is? Is there some special time-traveling store conservatives go to to buy their CFLs from the distant past? The ones that give off the green light for a couple of months before exploding and scattering pounds of mercury onto their pets, killing them instantly and causing the EPA to swoop in and declare their living room a Superfund site?
>> I've found that cheap (less than £5 each) CFLs typically last a couple of months. Until I bought high-quality Philips ones (about £11 each) I was constantly replacing them.
I bought a bunch of cheapies at Home Depot when I moved into my apartment nearly two years ago. Haven't replaced a one. Same thing happened for the two years I lived in my previous place.
>> It's impossible to read in this dim flickery light.
"Flickery" can only possibly apply to CFLs with mechanical ballasts. I'd be surprised if anybody makes those anymore. Modern CFLs have electronic ballasts, which "flicker" at the rate of several thousand times per second. Are you Superman? Then no, you're not seeing a flicker. You're imagining a flicker to justify your a priori belief that CFLs are crappy.
>> Since it takes five minutes to "warm up", they have to be left on constantly.
No they don't "have to." You could just live with the warmup time, which I timed at about thirty seconds, rather than the five minutes you're claiming. The bulbs start serving up adequate light for most activities the moment they're turned on. You can even read; at the very worst, you might have to hold the book a bit closer to your eyes for a handful of seconds. To avoid such trivial inconvenience, you'll pass up all the environmental benefits? That's bordering on sociopathy.
>> Oh, and since they're physically much larger than the equivalent incandescent lamp, they don't fit any light fittings.
One more bit of evidence that you must be buying your bulbs from time travelers or antique collectors. Every bulb I've seen lately has been smaller than the incandescent it was intended to replace.
Okay, you might just be one of those people who think CFLs are dim, and try to replace a 60W incandescent with a 100W-equivalent CFL.
>> They're not suitable for a lot of fittings because they overheat.
They say that, but I've never seen this happen in real life, even with enclosures that actually enclose. As long as it has a little breathing room, it should be fine.
>> CFLs have a long way to go before they replace incandescents.
See above.
>> They use ecologically nasty chemicals,
Yes, but when you include the amount of mercury put out by the power plant in order to keep that incandescent lit, CFLs actually prevent mercury from entering the environment.
>> and they use more electricity than incandescents (their power factor is awful; lots of energy is wasted at the substation correcting for this)
Define "lots". Even by the most naive calculation (the one that says a .5 power factor means the utility has to provide twice as much power), you're still somewhat ahead using CFLs. But the naive way isn't accurate. Power that doesn't get used gets used up by another device, or gets stored in the overall capacitance of the system, or in the worst case gets sent back to the producer, incurring only the transmission losses (which are significant, but not nearly so much as you seem to think).
In other words, your 13 watt bulb isn't using anywhere near 26 watts, which would still be way better than 60 watts, and anyhow the utility is only charging you for the 13, so what's the big deal?
>> and they generate massive amounts of RF interference.
Which has affected my life in what way? My remote works, wireless connection seems fine, as are my cordless and cell phones. I never listen to the radio, but I'd probably have to hold it right next to the bulb to
Climate scientists haven't said anything remotely like what you're claiming.
Find one climate scientist who said "we'd all cook" -- by any definition of "cook" -- before 2011. I doubt you can. If you can, there was probably a line of his peers begging him to knock it the hell off.
Find one climate scientist who said "we'd never see snow again" by 2011 or any prior date. You can't. If you can find one who said that about the year 2100, I'd be surprised.
As for scientists saying we haven't waited long enough, that's preposterous because the trendline is already stark. There would be no need for them to say "wait and see" because they could just as easily say, "look at this right now."
They have certainly said that we need to act now. Time to listen.
Yes, but you forget. Ken Jennings is not human.
Wouldn't it be faster to just make the numbers up?
I wish I were kidding.
Fair points. On the other hand, once you've got the testing infrastructure in place, and you have to go in and revamp an area of the code anyways, one recommended way to refamiliarize yourself with that code is to write tests for it. It's a good approach, because it forces you to more rigorously understand the functionality of the code, gives your exploration some guidance and direction, and leaves behind some path markers for the next person. It's a little closer to the "test every damned thing" mindset, but not so much that it will destroy your productivity.
"If tests could find bugs, products would never be released with them."
That presumes that every bug would have a test written for it. Presumably by magical, test-writing fairies.
It's the programmer's job to think of the ways that a given piece of code might break. Sure, a perfect programmer would know every possible test that could be written. But then, the perfect programmer would write the perfect code, and wouldn't need to write tests.
That is, unless he was working with imperfect programmers.
That's the point of testing. It's a reality check for a programmer's own arrogance. You can be confident in your own work. But if you can sincerely say, "I understand this large, complex project well enough to guarantee that this set of changes will not introduce any bugs," then you are either among the elite 0.5% of programmers, the changeset in question is trivial, or you're just overconfident.
Each test you write is basically a statement that says, "Dear code. You are expected to behave thusly. I will catch you if you start doing something else."
"You are on a fixed salary, you idiot!"
Not sure what you're saying here. Perhaps because I'm an idiot. But "fixed salary" generally implies a couple of things. First, it implies that under normal circumstances your work should be completable within a standard forty hour work week. Second, it implies that you have a lot of leeway in what work you do and how it gets done. If you're regularly working fifty or sixty hour work weeks because you have a very well-defined set of work that must be done, then by law you shouldn't be salaried; you should be getting overtime.
Salary is not -- as you seem to be suggesting -- an excuse for employers to dump eighty hours of work on you and then expect you to do it. In this instance, if his employer is expecting him to complete his regular forty hour workset and then to also make the up-front investments in a test suite that he feels he needs "to do his job properly," that's simply not a reasonable expectation on the employer's part.
Clearly, in this case there is something his boss can do. Give him permission to start building a test suite, or exploring the various commercial and open source testing harnesses that might suit his needs. "Salaried" doesn't mean that your bosses have no say in how you spend your time, or that you don't need to communicate with them or get buy-in from them before you make major changes to the system (especially when those changes require coordination with dozens of other people doing the same job you are).
One developer stomping on the changes another developer makes to a very large project is "extraordinarily idiotic?" I don't see why you think so, especially given that you're railing against one proven technique for keeping such extraordinary idiocy from happening. Commenting code will not prevent it. Well managed source control will not prevent it. Good communication will the rest of the team will not prevent it. A test suite will not prevent it. But between the four of them, you have a decent shot.
"People have to spent fixed (and significant) amount of time switching between unrelated projects, so effectiveness of developers working on multiple projects depends not as much on how much time they have to spend on projects but on how often they have to switch."
Exactly! Which is why you don't want to have to be constantly context-switching back into a legacy project to fix the bugs that would be prevented by a test suite.
Just remember whose side the media is on, and interpret accordingly.
Define "renaissance." Cheap audio gear gave us... lemme see... 87,000 podcasts listed on Podcast Alley alone. They can't all suck, and in my experience, many of them don't. Excluding those that are just reprints of radio shows, practically none of them would be possible without the proliferation of cheap audio gear.
"Creative people create despite the cost and obstacles." No, they don't. That is to say, there is absolutely no guarantee that having a good idea is going to give you the time or the access to the equipment needed to implement it. Creativity and drive/ambition/work ethic are not synonymous. If anything, I think there is a small negative correlation there.
Yes, YouTube creates boatloads of mediocrity. That's unavoidable when a technology goes from being extremely costly -- and therefore only available to those who become well-versed in the craft -- to extremely cheap and ubiquitous. Say that you were in a film school back in the 1970s, where there were only a handful of cameras. You probably wouldn't even touch a camera your first year. Now imagine the same school forty years later, where every student has a hi-def camera their first day. Is this better for the students? Absolutely. Is more quality film going to be produced? Certainly. Does the average quality of the film go down? Dramatically.
I shall get off your lawn now.