The FBI calls in its crack paranormal investigation team. The team consists of four plucky detectives and their dog. The dog is not forensically trained in any useful way, but is more of an emotional support animal for one of the team that struggles with addiction. It also talks to a limited extent.
The team investigates a haunting; revealing in a twist ending that it was the janitor in a costume all along.
This is mine too. It's a cute, fun movie. Yes completely over-the-top stupid, but that's part of the enjoyment. I think a reason I liked it when everyone else seemed to hate it was that I didn't have a Nintendo as a kid, so I wasn't saddled with an expectation of what Mario should be.
Autism as a diagnosis is relatively new, but people would have always had traits that would be thought of as nowadays as autistic. As an example, Rube Waddell was a professional baseballer in 1897 who was so fascinated by firetrucks that he would run off the field mid-game to chase them.
Mine is similar. A barrister once told me that you should be nervous before an important event like an interview or court appearance. If you aren't, all it means is that you aren't taking it seriously.
The joke is rape. Ghost rape, but rape.
Do you mean no as in yeah nah, or nah yeah?
Making a movie is a team effort and everyone that say otherwise is an asshole
Sure, but why not in other industries? I assume at some point this became an issue that was resolved by having comprehensive credits, what was the problem it was seeking to solve?
I'm not complaining, I'm wondering why no other industry feels it's necessary to do this.
The roundabout will be fine.
It's only a problem if you have a lazy assessor who just takes the similarly score and runs with it.
When I was marking essays 10 years ago, I saw Turnitin as a manual review tool. You feed an essay into the program, and it would give a percentage for similarly. It would panic students to see that the program was finding some similarly, but unless it was very high, the score was mostly useless.
The useful part is where it highlights the passages that it thought were problematic. Almost all the time those highlighted passages were properly attributed sources, so not plagiarism. If you had an excessive amount of cited material, I might give a lower mark because of less original thought, but it's still not plagiarism.
As long as I'm enjoying myself it's not a bad thing, right?
Link to article: https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/13-02-2026/its-kakapo-fuck-season