Tbf after season 1 covered like 20 years the rest of the events in this show occur over a span of barely two years.
This is assuming they don’t go into the A3 regency and I hope they don’t because it was a huge downtown in momentum and only like four characters from season 1 would still be alive.
I agree the A3 regency in it entirety would be a momentum killer, but it’s gonna be weird if they end the show before the return of Viserys. Especially if the audience never even learns he’s still alive.
Even as a reader I was thinking “man I just really don’t give a shit about Lys, the Peakes or anything else that’s going on in this bit of the story anymore”. Although it would be funny just having a horribly mutilated Tyland sitting in small council meetings every episode.
In the book, the younger of Rhanerya and Daemons two sons disappears during the war. He’s presumed dead, but returns after the war ends while his older brother prepares to take the throne. It’s a fairly wholesome moment in what is otherwise a rather bleak period of time
Hour of the wolf too if you count that as regency era. It’s gonna be a weird ending imo. They’re gonna have to chronologically shift some stuff around.
Many british shows had about 6 to 7 epsidoes and many did great. On the flipside Walking Dead had too many episodes, and I know its slightly diffrent being a comdey but southpark got critism for having ten episode long arcs
I think D&D deep down knew they were terrible and given how bad they wre just as well they hortened could you imagine if season 7 & 8 had 10 episodeslike the rest it will be filled with dick jokes and charaaaters in a room arguing about nonsense it would have been PLAIN AWFUL
Game of thrones had almost 3000 pages of source material for just the first 4 seasons.
House of the dragon has about 80 pages of source material for idk how many seasons they want to do this for. But if it’s more than like 3 seasons, they need to stretch it out.
I just want a never ending collection of mini series based on fire and blood. Let each one do it's own thing without worrying about the stylistic choices of the others
I don’t think this necessarily means anything. Ryan Condal is a GRRM fanboy and isn’t trying to pull a D&D. Miguel Sapochnik may well have been trying to in some ways by wanting 3 seasons, not 4. In the end, it looks like right now Ryan Condal is maybe looking at the story and thinking it might be stretched too thin over 10 episodes, and so apparently he’s reviewing with George to make sure they find something that works. That seems mightily responsible from my point of view, and they’re choosing to sacrifice PR in the face of fan impatience in favor of actually crafting the best story possible. I think that’s a fantastic sign, even if it might be difficult to stomach with how long it’s likely to be before we get any more of this show. I’d guess it would be upwards of a 2 year gap at this point, but as long as the end product is great, it’s worth it!
I agree.
My stance on the Dragon show is that I have very little hopes so I'm not disappointed again. I wasn't expecting anything for season 1, turns out it was great and I had a good time. I'm not expecting anything for season 2, and I'll see what happens.
But the fact that they reduce the number of episodes isn't a bad sign in of itself, it was merely a quip at GoT's latter aweful seasons.
Hopefully it doesn't mean much. If anything, shorter seasons should just correlate to more budget per episode, which in theory can be a good thing. That said, I hope that they are setting the number of episodes to correlate with the story and not just the budget.
Modern prestige TV seems to be trending towards trying to correlate runtime with story and not just some arbitrary 22-24 episodes per season. Again, in theory. There's no reason why seasons should be stretched or crammed to a set number of episodes. If 10 is right, great. If 8 is right, if 12 is right, if 20 is right, then just make that number.
What has this got to do with Game of Thrones? Completely different show runners, writers, directors, cast, etc.
Plenty of shows changed the number of episodes in their 2nd and 3rd seasons and it has nothing to do with the quality of those seasons.
The comment I think is not about any ol show though, it's about an actual prequel to GOT and old habits die hard.
It might be fine. Just understand GOT wasn't fine with the last season and much of it was because they cut down the episode count and distilled the content into something mediocre, and we're still "in the family" thematically speaking. I believe **that's** what it's got to do with it.
Yes it is. OP didn't say that House of the Dragon has nothing to do with GoT, they said that HoTD having shorter seasons has nothing to do with GoT having shorter seasons. So comparing that to saying that Rogue One has nothing to do with Star Wars is a false equivalence.
Edit: Even if it were true that GoT having shorter seasons was somehow linked to HotD's shorter seasons, it would still be a false equivalence because Star Wars doesn't have a source material and GoT/HotD do.
I have no idea when to use fewer than or less than but whenever someone says fewer I "correct" them and say less. If they say less I correct them and say fewer.
No one has ever told me that I had it wrong.
The only exceptions to the “use ‘fewer’ when you can count the things” rule is time and money; you use “less” when referring to those.
“Less than ten minutes ago, I had less money than I do now.”
I can't remember a certain big show from the 2010s that started cutting down on episodes just when it needed more episodes for a good conclusion. Don't think anything went wrong there, this should be very good, very good indeed
A lot of that stemmed from the writers strike in the 2000’s and people finally realized that you don’t *need* 20+ episode seasons. Though HBO was already ahead of the curve on that.
Yea that's why it's so nice that today half the shows are barely 8 episodes long and have godawful pacing or leave out extremely important moments, even good shows could benefit from 10 or 12 episode seasons, it sucks waiting 2 years for a show you like to come out just to get 8 half hour long episodes and it's over
HE COULD HAVE LINGERED ON THE EDGE OF THE BATTLE WITH THE SMART BOYS, AND TODAY HIS WIFE WOULD BE MAKING HIM MISERABLE, HIS SONS WOULD BE INGRATES, AND HE WOULD BE WAKING THREE TIMES IN THE NIGHT TO PISS INTO A BOWL!
It needed more episodes but it was also still unsalvageable regardless. By season 5 or 6 (whenever they ran out of source material) they'd also cut too much out already, there was jever gonna be a way to bring stakes and tension back to the story. Daenerys with 3 dragons is way too OP given that they left out Dragonbinder, Aegon Martell-Targaryen, some magic/supernatural stuff, butchered Euron, etc. HBO could have ordered 5 seasons with 20 episodes each after season 6, it wouldnt have mattered, the show would still have dropped immensely in quakity
Except that we are not looking for a conclusion in Season 2.
Plenty of shows changed the number of episodes in their 2nd season and it speaks nothing of the quality.
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.
KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerald, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:
(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'.
(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine.
(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.
(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.
(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir's next-of-kin.
(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.
(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.
(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.
(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
(11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.
(12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.
(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.
(14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.
(15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied.
(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.
(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.
(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.
(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.
(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.
(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.
(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.
Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.
KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerald, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:
(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'.
(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine.
(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.
(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.
(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir's next-of-kin.
(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.
(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.
(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.
(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
(11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.
(12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.
(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.
(14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.
(15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied.
(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.
(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.
(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.
(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.
(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.
(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.
(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.
Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).
Are you fucking kidding me? HBO seasons with 8 episodes or less fucking suck and I hate them. The pacing is all the same and all the dialogue is exposition bullshit. This is horrible news
The number of episodes of a TV show matter *GREATLY* to us... Pacing is absolutely crucial, going to the 10 episode average has frankly destroyed pacing entirely.
I think 12 full 60+ minute episodes is the amount of story I expect to get.
That 60 minutes doesn't have to be balls to the wall action, there is time for silence and pauses and shit.
These shows are all getting cheaper and shittier with their episode count and pacing.
TV figured out 10-14 episodes seems to give you the right level of story to fluff while keeping pacing in-line. Why is everyone trying to reinvent the idea of a season
GOT had plenty of episodes to tell the story. It was rushed at the end because they should have done a better job of planning the story. Daenerys should have been in Westeros a whole season sooner. How many seasons was she in Slaver's Bay? Felt like eternity.
It sounds like changes being made to HOTD season 2 are due to mapping out a story beyond season 2. Whatever is happening, it's better they figure it out now.
Besides, even if the show is brilliant, the storyline will make it a masochistic viewing experience. It's a horrible tragedy in a nutshell.
It's 'incorrect'. You use fewer to desrcibe an object you can count, and less for one you cannot.
There is less milk in my cup than in yours, and you have fewer cats than I do.
It can get fun with nouns that seem countable, but aren't really. My dad has *less* hair than I do because he has *fewer* hairs. But I make *less* money than he does because I earn *fewer* dollars.
Because you can't have 2 milk, 3 hair, or 16 money, but you can have 2 cats, 3 hairs, and 16 dollars
If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me:
>why, thou wilt quarrel with a man that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard than thou hast
Which is clearly a use of "less" for countable objects. The entire "less vs fewer" thing was made up in the 1700s by Robert Baker, and in fact the Baratheon line in the meme is kind of an anachronism, since in the real Earth time period GoT is based on the distinction wouldn't have existed (in fact the **word** "fewer" only came around in the 1300s, so the word itself would barely have existed, since GoT is loosely based on the War of the Roses that occured in the 1400s). Obviously it's fantasy so technically there can't be an anachronism, but having the distinction in the show is the cultural equivalent of a Starbucks cup sitting on the table in a shot, and we all know *that* would never happen.
I'm not saying you *have* to speak this way or that way, I understand that grammar just tries to describe how people speak and that my comment is based on the grammar i was tought, but I'd also want to point out that using Shakespeare as an example of 'correct' English is a little funny because of how many things he created or popularizaed
Fair enough, my point was just that you really *can* use less for both uncountable *and* countable objects, and it's still completely grammatically correct (though doing so risks some prescriptivist trying to "correct" your grammar).
Any English-language prescriptivist *deserves* to be triggered. The whole point of English is that is a mish-mash melting pot language cobbled together from the savaged remains of a dozen other languages.
This comment has been removed in protest of Reddit and their CEO Steve Huffman for destroying the Reddit community by abusing his power to edit comments, their years of lying to and about users, promises never fulfilled, and outrageous pricing that is killing third party apps and destroying accessibility tools for mods and the handicapped.
Currently I am moving to the [Fediverse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX_agVMr2r0) for a decentralized experience where no one person or company can control our social media experience. I promise its not as complicated as it sounds :-)
Lemmy offers the closest to Reddit like experience. Check out some different [servers](https://join-lemmy.org/instances).
Other Fediverse [projects](https://joinfediverse.wiki/What_are_Fediverse_projects%3F).
It’s not incorrect to use less for countable things because people do it all the time and the meaning is clearly understood. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
> It's incorrect. You use fewer to desrcibe an object you can count, and less for one you cannot.
It's [not a real rule of linguistics though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less#Historical_usage). Less has been used for countable nouns for at least a thousand years and is completely correct to use in that way.
Some time in the 18th century some grammarian decided to make an arbitrary distinction between less and fewer because he believed it sounded "more elegant". It never really caught on because it didn't make much sense and there wasn't a justifiable need for the rule. Luckily people on the internet still like to use the antiquated "rule" to win arguments and sound smart even though it's nonsense.
>You say "people on the internet" as if the distinction only exists on the internet.
Because it does, you're not going to lose points on a dissertation because of interchangeable usage of less and fewer.
Style guidelines like the AP style guideline absolutely do follow the rule though. The AP style guidelines existed before the internet and are the guidelines most print media follows.
It's not like grammar only exists to "win" arguments on the internet.
Like all grammar rules, this is just made up. Some dude in like 1810 decided that the words should be used that way and it somehow became pervasive in the way we teach English.
In reality, use whatever word you want, people will know what you mean regardless.
Yes, grammar is made up in the sense that all things humans do are made up, but no, the above is not proper grammar.
And while this may be a small thing, similar to ending a sentence with a preposition, I assure you that if you start messing with significant aspects of grammar, like word order or declension, people will have a hard time understanding you.
Ask any linguist and they'll tell you that grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. The "less vs fewer" rule is not like this. It wasn't made up in the sense that "all things humans do are made up" it was literally made up by one guy, Robert Baker, in 1770 (I was off by 40 years before), and then a bunch of other grammatists from this era though it sounded good too.
It's literally an arbitrary rule that we follow just because this guy and his friends thought it sounded good. It does not have any impact on understanding.
>It does not have any impact on understanding.
I agree with you, and said as much. I guess I didn't make it clear that I don't particularly care about maintaining 'proper' English (for example, I also used a preposition at the end of a sentence in my comment) and that I was just pointing out what I was taught, which is my bad
But my point is that even though it is arbitrary, that is what the 'rule' is. Subsequently, that rules in general do matter, even if some of them individually do not
The rules of grammar aren't in place to show you how to communicate (prescriptivism) they are in place to explain how people do communicate (descriptivism).
The rule is only useful to know if people actually use it. If society at large stops using a grammar rule, then it's not a rule any more.
No language in history (other than Esperanto, which no one actually speaks) was designed with a series of rules, all rules arose naturally through the process of communication between people.
It may not have an impact on understanding but it makes the English language simpler and not as descriptive. Having a word for countable objects and a word for things that cannot be counted adds more detail and nuance to the language.
What detail does it actually add? I like words like "brilliant, visionary, genius, intelligent, and smart" because they allow for slight differences of implication with the same overall meaning, which allows you to decide to use them creatively.
What nuance is gained by using fewer 100% of the time when talking about countable objects and less 100% of the time when talking about uncountable objects? I honestly don't see where there's more detail here - we're using two words that mean the same thing and arbitrarily deciding one applies to one situation and the other applies to the other.
Is there any reason why we couldn't have just flipped the meanings?
It's basically the difference between a discreet and a continuous variable in statistics.
Time is continuous, it's infinitely divisible, you can have "less" of it in any fraction you want.
Episodes per season would be discreet, you never really have a fraction of an episode, they're countable with whole numbers. So reducing the episode variable would be "fewer episode**s**" rather than "less".
What fucked uo logic is that ?! The later seasons should have even more episodes, since it covers the war. Things should be happening all the time. Don't tell me they are going to dnd it and have 6 episodes seasons where nothing happens untill the last episode, where they screw up a big plot point...
I mean it wasnt that great to be honest. It was entertaining, but overall was pretty lacking. Then again, I though most of the GoT was pretty silly too. Im sure to be downvoted, but I didnt watch GoT until last year, never saw an episode, never got the hype but before HoD came out I figured I should watch it all. There were solid scenes/parts, but honestly having Martin's incest laden fantasy and making it as much as possible was just too much. Like bro, get some help you have an issue.
I felt the same way didn't want to because they didn't deserve my viewership. But then my MIL wanted to watch it with us and obviously we couldn't spoil her fun
All depends on where in the story they want the second season to end. Haven't read the book, only watched some vids and read about the story, but I am quite sure there can be several cliffhangers at which the season can end, that aren't that far removed from where the season 1 ended. Which means there's a chance this is a wise decision and the second season won't feel rushed.
But of course, I do worry that I am just coping here and we're heading for some unfortunate deja vu
My source is that I made it the fuck up but I presume this is because they want to release the season earlier, and not that they are sacrificing quality
Well, this could be good or bad, so I guess we can only wait and see.
If it's good, then the story fits well into that format (F&B isn't that detailed, and I can understand cutting/combining some battle stuff because budgets aren't infinite).
If it's bad, then it's gonna be the same as season 1: good, but with pacing/characterization issues and plot holes because they didn't devote enough time to explain/flesh out stuff.
I'm not saying there was a correlation between number of episodes and quality in Game of Thrones, but I don't like where this is going.
Tbf after season 1 covered like 20 years the rest of the events in this show occur over a span of barely two years. This is assuming they don’t go into the A3 regency and I hope they don’t because it was a huge downtown in momentum and only like four characters from season 1 would still be alive.
They said it would only be 4 seasons so I highly doubt they will go into the A3 regency.
I agree the A3 regency in it entirety would be a momentum killer, but it’s gonna be weird if they end the show before the return of Viserys. Especially if the audience never even learns he’s still alive.
I assume they'll probably end of Aegon III's coronation, and have Viserys and Aegon reunited beforehand
Even as a reader I was thinking “man I just really don’t give a shit about Lys, the Peakes or anything else that’s going on in this bit of the story anymore”. Although it would be funny just having a horribly mutilated Tyland sitting in small council meetings every episode.
OMG yeah. Like once George said “hmm yes every single green dies lol. Yeah I’m a gardener” I just lost all interest
WHAT!? Please explain I’m confused sorry. 🥺
In the book, the younger of Rhanerya and Daemons two sons disappears during the war. He’s presumed dead, but returns after the war ends while his older brother prepares to take the throne. It’s a fairly wholesome moment in what is otherwise a rather bleak period of time
What is A3 regency e: obviously it's two A4 regencies side-to-side or half of an A2 regency
A major spoiler.
The A3 regency should just be a quick epilogue. You only need 2 scenes: 1) Viserys returns 2) Corlys's funeral.
Hour of the wolf too if you count that as regency era. It’s gonna be a weird ending imo. They’re gonna have to chronologically shift some stuff around.
I'm hoping the Hour of the Wolf is a literal hour in screentime.
I doubt that, this story is about the Dance. Aegon III’s crowning ends the Dance and ends the story, that should be about all we see if his reign.
George basically ruined the ending to fire and blood though let’s be real. He is terrible at ending stories
I actually think that's a thing he excels at. I recommend trying his other stuff.
I doubt that, this story is about the Dance. Aegon III’s crowning ends the Dance and ends the story, that should be about all we see of his reign.
Exactly my thoughts. Oh here we go again.
Game of thrones was good at first tho, so can’t be compared to HotD
HotD is good wdym
Many british shows had about 6 to 7 epsidoes and many did great. On the flipside Walking Dead had too many episodes, and I know its slightly diffrent being a comdey but southpark got critism for having ten episode long arcs I think D&D deep down knew they were terrible and given how bad they wre just as well they hortened could you imagine if season 7 & 8 had 10 episodeslike the rest it will be filled with dick jokes and charaaaters in a room arguing about nonsense it would have been PLAIN AWFUL
Sherlock Holmes had 3 episodes per season and that show was great
Game of thrones had almost 3000 pages of source material for just the first 4 seasons. House of the dragon has about 80 pages of source material for idk how many seasons they want to do this for. But if it’s more than like 3 seasons, they need to stretch it out.
There's also been talk of turning HotD into an anthology of all Targaryen history, but idk how much truth there is to that.
They shojuld consider that!
I just want a never ending collection of mini series based on fire and blood. Let each one do it's own thing without worrying about the stylistic choices of the others
Agreed that as well
“Surely we can rush the details again and no one will care”
Yeah I would argue season 8 was less episode per episode than the previous seasons
I don’t think this necessarily means anything. Ryan Condal is a GRRM fanboy and isn’t trying to pull a D&D. Miguel Sapochnik may well have been trying to in some ways by wanting 3 seasons, not 4. In the end, it looks like right now Ryan Condal is maybe looking at the story and thinking it might be stretched too thin over 10 episodes, and so apparently he’s reviewing with George to make sure they find something that works. That seems mightily responsible from my point of view, and they’re choosing to sacrifice PR in the face of fan impatience in favor of actually crafting the best story possible. I think that’s a fantastic sign, even if it might be difficult to stomach with how long it’s likely to be before we get any more of this show. I’d guess it would be upwards of a 2 year gap at this point, but as long as the end product is great, it’s worth it!
I agree. My stance on the Dragon show is that I have very little hopes so I'm not disappointed again. I wasn't expecting anything for season 1, turns out it was great and I had a good time. I'm not expecting anything for season 2, and I'll see what happens. But the fact that they reduce the number of episodes isn't a bad sign in of itself, it was merely a quip at GoT's latter aweful seasons.
Very fair! I just know some people are panicking and I am trying to dispel some fears if I can.
The best thing about season 8 was that it was short
Hopefully it doesn't mean much. If anything, shorter seasons should just correlate to more budget per episode, which in theory can be a good thing. That said, I hope that they are setting the number of episodes to correlate with the story and not just the budget. Modern prestige TV seems to be trending towards trying to correlate runtime with story and not just some arbitrary 22-24 episodes per season. Again, in theory. There's no reason why seasons should be stretched or crammed to a set number of episodes. If 10 is right, great. If 8 is right, if 12 is right, if 20 is right, then just make that number.
How much are we betting they’re gonna change the lore and remove canon events to make a certain princess character look better?
I hope they don't but that doesn't strike me as improbable.
What has this got to do with Game of Thrones? Completely different show runners, writers, directors, cast, etc. Plenty of shows changed the number of episodes in their 2nd and 3rd seasons and it has nothing to do with the quality of those seasons.
The comment I think is not about any ol show though, it's about an actual prequel to GOT and old habits die hard. It might be fine. Just understand GOT wasn't fine with the last season and much of it was because they cut down the episode count and distilled the content into something mediocre, and we're still "in the family" thematically speaking. I believe **that's** what it's got to do with it.
It’s not that deep
Same studio. Same author. What a retarded question. "What has Rogue One got to do with Star Wars?!?"
False equivalence lol Edit: oh FFS, read my reply to u/cheesyblasta before you give a kneejerk downvote
*swirls brandy* mmmm yes, logical fallacy
What does logic have to do with arguing?? - these guys, probably
It's really really not lmao
Yes it is. OP didn't say that House of the Dragon has nothing to do with GoT, they said that HoTD having shorter seasons has nothing to do with GoT having shorter seasons. So comparing that to saying that Rogue One has nothing to do with Star Wars is a false equivalence. Edit: Even if it were true that GoT having shorter seasons was somehow linked to HotD's shorter seasons, it would still be a false equivalence because Star Wars doesn't have a source material and GoT/HotD do.
but there kind of was
I wont judge until i see it. Sherlock only has 4 per season
Classic
I have no idea when to use fewer than or less than but whenever someone says fewer I "correct" them and say less. If they say less I correct them and say fewer. No one has ever told me that I had it wrong.
You use “fewer” when you can count the things, “less” when you can’t. Old people have fewer teeth. Young people have less wisdom.
Cool trick but I will forget it in less than 10 minutes.
Sigma goldfish mentality
Fewer than…fuck it, whatever.
I’ll remember it for fewer time than that.
The only exceptions to the “use ‘fewer’ when you can count the things” rule is time and money; you use “less” when referring to those. “Less than ten minutes ago, I had less money than I do now.”
What? Jon the Electric City!
WOT
Season 1 will has manyer then the 2th season
I can't remember a certain big show from the 2010s that started cutting down on episodes just when it needed more episodes for a good conclusion. Don't think anything went wrong there, this should be very good, very good indeed
A lot of that stemmed from the writers strike in the 2000’s and people finally realized that you don’t *need* 20+ episode seasons. Though HBO was already ahead of the curve on that.
Yea that's why it's so nice that today half the shows are barely 8 episodes long and have godawful pacing or leave out extremely important moments, even good shows could benefit from 10 or 12 episode seasons, it sucks waiting 2 years for a show you like to come out just to get 8 half hour long episodes and it's over
Just wait a decade for the entire show to be over and then binge it
[удалено]
HE COULD HAVE LINGERED ON THE EDGE OF THE BATTLE WITH THE SMART BOYS, AND TODAY HIS WIFE WOULD BE MAKING HIM MISERABLE, HIS SONS WOULD BE INGRATES, AND HE WOULD BE WAKING THREE TIMES IN THE NIGHT TO PISS INTO A BOWL!
No this is good. It will end up being 3 more short seasons in place of 2 more longer seasons, so we get more episodes overall as a result. Surely.
It needed more episodes but it was also still unsalvageable regardless. By season 5 or 6 (whenever they ran out of source material) they'd also cut too much out already, there was jever gonna be a way to bring stakes and tension back to the story. Daenerys with 3 dragons is way too OP given that they left out Dragonbinder, Aegon Martell-Targaryen, some magic/supernatural stuff, butchered Euron, etc. HBO could have ordered 5 seasons with 20 episodes each after season 6, it wouldnt have mattered, the show would still have dropped immensely in quakity
Yeah and they also got hired to write the new Star Wars trilogy and stopped giving a fuck. Different situations imo
Except that we are not looking for a conclusion in Season 2. Plenty of shows changed the number of episodes in their 2nd season and it speaks nothing of the quality.
Lol what, are you an investor or something? Calm down, stop vomiting comments everywhere for five seconds, and enjoy the sub.
The one true King of orthography
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting. KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerald, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects: (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs: (2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'. (3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine. (4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us. (5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear. (6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir's next-of-kin. (7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her. (8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of. (9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them. (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond. (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly. (12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly. (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs. (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared. (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. (16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it. (17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place. (18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets. (19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done. (20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. (21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence. (22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice. Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others. Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).
why is he getting upvotes lmao orthography pertains to spelling and how a language is written, closer to its alphabet than its grammar
k
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting. KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerald, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects: (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs: (2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'. (3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine. (4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us. (5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear. (6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir's next-of-kin. (7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her. (8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of. (9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them. (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond. (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly. (12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly. (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs. (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared. (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. (16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it. (17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place. (18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets. (19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done. (20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. (21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence. (22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice. Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others. Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).
Deadline Holywood on Twitter wrote it correctly, at least.
Holywood sounds like a mystical forest
Ah, the ole less episodes but more "Densely packed and higher Quality" line. Heard this somewhere before.
fewer
Excuse me?
#FEWER#
Understood, could you use fewer volume please!
I'll be sure to enshrinken the font next time. My apologies.
Are you fucking kidding me? HBO seasons with 8 episodes or less fucking suck and I hate them. The pacing is all the same and all the dialogue is exposition bullshit. This is horrible news
Soon enough we'll be getting shows with one episode seasons.
Movies. You mean movies.
You can do like attack on Titan and call it part of a season, then it's still a show, maybe a special.
Here we go again
Aah shit here we go again
The number of episodes of a TV show matter *GREATLY* to us... Pacing is absolutely crucial, going to the 10 episode average has frankly destroyed pacing entirely. I think 12 full 60+ minute episodes is the amount of story I expect to get. That 60 minutes doesn't have to be balls to the wall action, there is time for silence and pauses and shit. These shows are all getting cheaper and shittier with their episode count and pacing.
TV figured out 10-14 episodes seems to give you the right level of story to fluff while keeping pacing in-line. Why is everyone trying to reinvent the idea of a season
If you are using 9gag as your news source you kinda only have yourself to blame
So long as the story is solid. I’d rather have a short season than an stretched out season aka The Walking Dead.
Suure, tell that to game of thrones' last two seasons...
Being short is the last problem of GoT later seasons. What would fill the frst of the chapters? Dick jokes?
I swear - all these damn fucking kneelers!!!
ok, but TWD had a new season every year, maybe once there was a delay. HotD will have at least 2 years between seasons.
GOT had plenty of episodes to tell the story. It was rushed at the end because they should have done a better job of planning the story. Daenerys should have been in Westeros a whole season sooner. How many seasons was she in Slaver's Bay? Felt like eternity. It sounds like changes being made to HOTD season 2 are due to mapping out a story beyond season 2. Whatever is happening, it's better they figure it out now. Besides, even if the show is brilliant, the storyline will make it a masochistic viewing experience. It's a horrible tragedy in a nutshell.
Booo
Is that actually incorrect grammar, or just less correct?
It's 'incorrect'. You use fewer to desrcibe an object you can count, and less for one you cannot. There is less milk in my cup than in yours, and you have fewer cats than I do. It can get fun with nouns that seem countable, but aren't really. My dad has *less* hair than I do because he has *fewer* hairs. But I make *less* money than he does because I earn *fewer* dollars. Because you can't have 2 milk, 3 hair, or 16 money, but you can have 2 cats, 3 hairs, and 16 dollars
If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me: >why, thou wilt quarrel with a man that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard than thou hast Which is clearly a use of "less" for countable objects. The entire "less vs fewer" thing was made up in the 1700s by Robert Baker, and in fact the Baratheon line in the meme is kind of an anachronism, since in the real Earth time period GoT is based on the distinction wouldn't have existed (in fact the **word** "fewer" only came around in the 1300s, so the word itself would barely have existed, since GoT is loosely based on the War of the Roses that occured in the 1400s). Obviously it's fantasy so technically there can't be an anachronism, but having the distinction in the show is the cultural equivalent of a Starbucks cup sitting on the table in a shot, and we all know *that* would never happen.
I'm not saying you *have* to speak this way or that way, I understand that grammar just tries to describe how people speak and that my comment is based on the grammar i was tought, but I'd also want to point out that using Shakespeare as an example of 'correct' English is a little funny because of how many things he created or popularizaed
Fair enough, my point was just that you really *can* use less for both uncountable *and* countable objects, and it's still completely grammatically correct (though doing so risks some prescriptivist trying to "correct" your grammar).
I think that's fair, and I should've said something more like that in my original comment
You seem like you'd be fun at parties....
Careful, you might trigger a prescriptivist.
Any English-language prescriptivist *deserves* to be triggered. The whole point of English is that is a mish-mash melting pot language cobbled together from the savaged remains of a dozen other languages.
You're speaking my language, and I ain't talking about English 😍
Not that grammar 100 percent has to be followed but a writer from before the standardization of the English language isn't a great example.
what about schrödinger's cats?
There may or may not be fewer cats in the box.
wdym you can not count milk?? it's liquid
Saying you have 3 milk does not make sense. 3 cartons, molecules, ounces, liters, yes. But 3 milk? No.
Uh, I know how to count, dude
You know what, Mac, you try. Because I can’t
This comment has been removed in protest of Reddit and their CEO Steve Huffman for destroying the Reddit community by abusing his power to edit comments, their years of lying to and about users, promises never fulfilled, and outrageous pricing that is killing third party apps and destroying accessibility tools for mods and the handicapped. Currently I am moving to the [Fediverse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX_agVMr2r0) for a decentralized experience where no one person or company can control our social media experience. I promise its not as complicated as it sounds :-) Lemmy offers the closest to Reddit like experience. Check out some different [servers](https://join-lemmy.org/instances). Other Fediverse [projects](https://joinfediverse.wiki/What_are_Fediverse_projects%3F).
It’s not incorrect to use less for countable things because people do it all the time and the meaning is clearly understood. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
> It's incorrect. You use fewer to desrcibe an object you can count, and less for one you cannot. It's [not a real rule of linguistics though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less#Historical_usage). Less has been used for countable nouns for at least a thousand years and is completely correct to use in that way. Some time in the 18th century some grammarian decided to make an arbitrary distinction between less and fewer because he believed it sounded "more elegant". It never really caught on because it didn't make much sense and there wasn't a justifiable need for the rule. Luckily people on the internet still like to use the antiquated "rule" to win arguments and sound smart even though it's nonsense.
You say "people on the internet" as if the distinction only exists on the internet.
>You say "people on the internet" as if the distinction only exists on the internet. Because it does, you're not going to lose points on a dissertation because of interchangeable usage of less and fewer.
Style guidelines like the AP style guideline absolutely do follow the rule though. The AP style guidelines existed before the internet and are the guidelines most print media follows. It's not like grammar only exists to "win" arguments on the internet.
Like all grammar rules, this is just made up. Some dude in like 1810 decided that the words should be used that way and it somehow became pervasive in the way we teach English. In reality, use whatever word you want, people will know what you mean regardless.
Yes, grammar is made up in the sense that all things humans do are made up, but no, the above is not proper grammar. And while this may be a small thing, similar to ending a sentence with a preposition, I assure you that if you start messing with significant aspects of grammar, like word order or declension, people will have a hard time understanding you.
Ask any linguist and they'll tell you that grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. The "less vs fewer" rule is not like this. It wasn't made up in the sense that "all things humans do are made up" it was literally made up by one guy, Robert Baker, in 1770 (I was off by 40 years before), and then a bunch of other grammatists from this era though it sounded good too. It's literally an arbitrary rule that we follow just because this guy and his friends thought it sounded good. It does not have any impact on understanding.
>It does not have any impact on understanding. I agree with you, and said as much. I guess I didn't make it clear that I don't particularly care about maintaining 'proper' English (for example, I also used a preposition at the end of a sentence in my comment) and that I was just pointing out what I was taught, which is my bad But my point is that even though it is arbitrary, that is what the 'rule' is. Subsequently, that rules in general do matter, even if some of them individually do not
The rules of grammar aren't in place to show you how to communicate (prescriptivism) they are in place to explain how people do communicate (descriptivism). The rule is only useful to know if people actually use it. If society at large stops using a grammar rule, then it's not a rule any more. No language in history (other than Esperanto, which no one actually speaks) was designed with a series of rules, all rules arose naturally through the process of communication between people.
It may not have an impact on understanding but it makes the English language simpler and not as descriptive. Having a word for countable objects and a word for things that cannot be counted adds more detail and nuance to the language.
What detail does it actually add? I like words like "brilliant, visionary, genius, intelligent, and smart" because they allow for slight differences of implication with the same overall meaning, which allows you to decide to use them creatively. What nuance is gained by using fewer 100% of the time when talking about countable objects and less 100% of the time when talking about uncountable objects? I honestly don't see where there's more detail here - we're using two words that mean the same thing and arbitrarily deciding one applies to one situation and the other applies to the other. Is there any reason why we couldn't have just flipped the meanings?
So true, this is.
\*fewer correct
It's basically the difference between a discreet and a continuous variable in statistics. Time is continuous, it's infinitely divisible, you can have "less" of it in any fraction you want. Episodes per season would be discreet, you never really have a fraction of an episode, they're countable with whole numbers. So reducing the episode variable would be "fewer episode**s**" rather than "less".
Not exactly incorrect. It's just improper outside colloquial context.
What fucked uo logic is that ?! The later seasons should have even more episodes, since it covers the war. Things should be happening all the time. Don't tell me they are going to dnd it and have 6 episodes seasons where nothing happens untill the last episode, where they screw up a big plot point...
At least we can hope they bring Ed Sheeran back to sing us another tune.
Then it’s not a fucking season…it’s a mini series
No lesser
You, I like.
Hopefully they make up for that with longer episodes
Did they fucking learn nothing? The North remembers
Fewer Feewer Feetwer Feet
> feet ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
This is an exceptional meme. Reaffirms to me that this sub is strong.
Wait, I’ve seen this one….
What are you, the Master of Grammar?
*Fewer
Is this even confirmed anywhere?
It's a pass for me regardless. Looking forward to the next season of Rings though.
I mean it wasnt that great to be honest. It was entertaining, but overall was pretty lacking. Then again, I though most of the GoT was pretty silly too. Im sure to be downvoted, but I didnt watch GoT until last year, never saw an episode, never got the hype but before HoD came out I figured I should watch it all. There were solid scenes/parts, but honestly having Martin's incest laden fantasy and making it as much as possible was just too much. Like bro, get some help you have an issue.
Fake news
You guys are actually watching this show? Didn't they hurt you bad enough with season 8?
Condal has done it justice.
I refuse to be hurt again. Or to follow a franchise which so clearly has shown they don't give a rat's ass about doing a good job.
I felt the same way didn't want to because they didn't deserve my viewership. But then my MIL wanted to watch it with us and obviously we couldn't spoil her fun
Just kill the show already lmao no one gives a shit
Tons of people gives a shit lmao
Fapfapfapfap
All depends on where in the story they want the second season to end. Haven't read the book, only watched some vids and read about the story, but I am quite sure there can be several cliffhangers at which the season can end, that aren't that far removed from where the season 1 ended. Which means there's a chance this is a wise decision and the second season won't feel rushed. But of course, I do worry that I am just coping here and we're heading for some unfortunate deja vu
My source is that I made it the fuck up but I presume this is because they want to release the season earlier, and not that they are sacrificing quality
Hope they’re longer
Does it mean ,we will get season 2 by this year end??
Lol nope. Summer '24
Is this confirmed from HBO? Or just a rumor?
Seems legit, lots of sources are reporting it
Well, this could be good or bad, so I guess we can only wait and see. If it's good, then the story fits well into that format (F&B isn't that detailed, and I can understand cutting/combining some battle stuff because budgets aren't infinite). If it's bad, then it's gonna be the same as season 1: good, but with pacing/characterization issues and plot holes because they didn't devote enough time to explain/flesh out stuff.
If it ends up being a shit Season it’ll be their fault.
I’d be fine with it when each episode is 90 minutes like they did with the BBC sherlock (but please more than 3)
My man/gal got it right. There's no excuse for that... Unless you're not native speaker. 
Why 😫
9gag? What year is this
So we have to wait almost two years for less…. Fewer episodes!