It seemed like an interesting show from the title.
I had no expectations going in, and just found it to be unimpressive.
The part that really confuses me is trying to determine if the writers/producers are based, or creating drama for the sake of drama, or just stupid.
Plot - disease wipes out people, and targets men more than women (apparently)
Somehow NYC goes from 8million to 80,000 - with no men - within a few weeks.
However, the politicians gathered at some govt bunker lose all the men, but still a large percent of women remain unaffected.
Whatever - artistic license bio weapon. I can accept that for the drama part.
Here is the based/stupid part - the world goes to shit from day 1.
LMAO - do the writers understand that without men the fucking world would crumble? Or was that just their "drama"? No electricity, no actual mention of lack of water, but that would happen with no electricity, all supplies looted without replenishment, no actual leadership other than to collect everyone in camps...
Just hilariously stupid.
The scene where the only nuclear scientist/operator (very different things, fucking kikes) is begged to restore power is fucking hilarious. as if one fucking cunt can restore power to the country through her presence.
I might have to suffer through it (at 2x speed, because there is no fucking way I can handle it at normal speed) to figure out what they think the bioweapon is and how it works LOL.
Background:
Universities got the name because they taught "universal" knowledge to each student - science, maths, law, history, classic literature, the Bible, etc. Everyone learned the entire catalog of human knowledge.
As the amount of knowledge advanced, the "univeralists" were replaced by specialists. This started around the rise in mathematics, with Newton, Pascal, Fermat, and so on.
It's hard to pinpoint the last of the "universalists" but a good starting point is the early 1700s. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers were the last of the breed of "universalists" and used all of this knowledge to create the United States.
The 1700s gave rise to new areas of mathematics, as well as sciences and the introduction of engineering. All way more information than one person could possible learn.
Jump forward to today:
It could be argued that there is more knowledge created in one day than the "universalists" learned in university.
How is it possible for any person to learn an entire area of study well enough to become an "expert" on something?
As an example, those two California clinic doctors that deal with patients and spoke out against lockdowns and the whole covid bullshit - these would be "practical experts" or "clinical experts", while someone who do research in a lab using tissue samples would be a "theoretical expert".
Both of these groups could be correct in a statement, or both could be totally wrong as well.
In order to be an "expert" a person should understand the entirety of the field of study, as well as practice it - and that doesn't seem possible anymore.
The point of this post is to encourage people to not think of anyone as an expert - especially a doctor or anyone else with "advanced credentials" that try to use their knowledge as a means to end a discussion.
A doctor is a regular person, and after graduating medical school (with whatever minimum grade is now allowed) only has to do x number of credits per year to keep current. The credit requirement is designed to force them to stay up to date on research and advances, etc - but as stated before, there is more knowledge created in a day than anyone could hope to learn in years. The doctor goes home after seeing patients all day and does not typically spend hours learning like they would in a classroom. Much of the current information will bypass these "experts" because they want to have a life as well.
A "layperson" could do more targeted research on a subject and become more knowledgeable than an "expert" over the internet. Probably not on the practical side, but enough to understand the essence of the research and have a better understanding than any doctor that hasn't taken the time to learn it.
Does a general with experience from the Vietnam era understand fighting in Iraq? Does a police chief from bumfuck Vermont know how to police Los Angeles? etc
All "experts" should be challenged on their credentials and forced to prove they actually know everything about the topic they are using to force people to do shit.
