And AFAICT his understanding of modern viewing habits is as poor as the BBC leadership’s.

Honestly, I don’t think he cares much. And to the extent that he does care, I think it’s pretty solidly on the side of “Doctor Who is for kids,” and so he’s unafraid to get very silly with it.

I would have much preferred if he’d stuck to the 60th anniversary specials and then taken a step back to coach his replacement from an executive or advisory position.

Yeah…I had extremely mixed feelings about him coming back, and the outcome was really worse than I imagined. But he still managed to produce a few top-tier episodes in all that mess.

Onward and upward. I hope.

Yup. The tv landscape has changed in ways that no one can really understand.

I say it a lot, but from my perspective, RTD came back and made pretty much the same show he did the first time around, and got a vastly different outcome.

It’s more worrying that the BBC still, 20+ years into the streaming era, don’t seem to have understood that “linear TV”, as well as the ritual of communal watching, are pretty much in the past.

I wonder how much of that is wishful thinking on their part, and how much of it is structural, leaving them no choice. Any time I see a story about the state of the Beeb, it sounds pretty dire.

the visual effects were absolutely top notch for a BBC produced show.

No disagreement here - I’d be quite happy to return to that.

The government is expected to table legislation on Friday that Carney said would enhance its enforcement to keep goods made with forced labour out of the Canadian supply chain.

I guess we’ll see…

They restored it about two months later, after receiving an interim UN report on the original allegations.

My interpretation so far is that the bill is meant to signal to social media companies that they should alter their platforms to implement “adequate safeguards” (not yet defined) and apply for an exemption, do they don’t have to use nonexistent technology to verify users’ ages.

IGN ain’t what it used to be

Yeah, it looks like the goal here is to get the thing set up to provide an option for other nations to pour resources into.

At this rate, we’re likely to outlive Star Trek itself!

I think it’s practically a necessity at this point. I’m not in the camp of “Doctor Who should have a shoestring budget,” but it could probably contract to at least the equivalent of what it was during the Chibnall era.

The sky has always been falling, and will continue to fall forevermore.

I think in the case of the Manitoba storms the other night, the correct level was being used - there were legitimate funnel clouds being produced - but the coverage area was way too large.

I got 5 or 6 top level “tornado in your area” alerts - not from Environment Canada, mind you, but from the government emergency alert system - but the actual at-risk areas were up to 30 km away.

It was worth a shot (from the perspective of an evil, soul-sucking corporation) - had it gone their way, it would have been one hell of a legal precedent.

Radio Times has more info on the tender process, and what it means in this context.

Tenders are usually issued by large companies or public bodies like local authorities, and the chosen bidder gets paid to provide a specific service like recruitment or security for them.

…

BBC programmes have gone out for tender before, lots of times; it just means that other production companies have a chance to take a crack at it and bring new voices to the table. It’s something they are required to do by the BBC Charter. This is also not the same thing as trying to find a streaming partner for the show.

According to the statement, the BBC will announce details of their tender process “in due course”. When it’s ready it will go live on their dedicated tendering site, the BBC eSourcing Portal.

…

A typical tender process starts with a tender eligibility form (TEF) so they can shortlist financially stable companies who have at least half a chance of getting something done. A full tender invitation comes to those who pass the TEF and they must sign an NDA.

Production companies will answer a series of questions like mini essays, where the question tells you exactly what they want to hear. Once the tender is submitted (usually about a month after it opens), the assessment takes between 1-3 months. The BBC will invite presentations or pitches from shortlisted bidders once the assessment ends. For a huge show like this, only a few big companies will be in the running.

Once the decision is made, all bidders are told and the standstill period begins. This is 8-10 working days and lets bidders challenge the decision if they feel it was wrong. If there are no issues, the contract can go ahead on the agreed date, and we’ll get an announcement.

It’s important to note that the BBC aren’t selling the show as part of this process. The broadcaster confirmed: “The BBC retains all IP in Doctor Who. BBC Studios will continue to lead the global distribution of Doctor Who as well as licensing, consumer products, digital and immersive experiences on behalf of the BBC.”

As Canadian businesses rush to adopt artificial intelligence tools, they face a growing risk of customer backlash — even legal action — if those tools make mistakes.

Canadian law has already established that companies can be held liable if AI chatbots dole out bad information. In a 2024 case, Air Canada was forced to honour a fare rebate after its chatbot provided a passenger with incorrect advice about bereavement fares.

The airline argued before the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal that the chatbot was “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions.” But the tribunal disagreed, stating that Air Canada was ultimately responsible.

“Just like an employee may do something wrong and the company’s held responsible, a bot is just like an employee,” said Tanya Walker, a litigation lawyer with Walker Law in Toronto.

“I don’t think companies really realize the magnitude and the power that a bot can have,” she said. “It can enter into a contract on your behalf.”

Amusingly(?), if we were to bring back the Retrospective Discussions, “New Earth” would be the second episode up.

Today is day 1,568 of Putin’s 10-day “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Well, that’s why I said “on its own” - the rest of the bill is extremely vulnerable to criticism.

The more I think about it, the more it’s clear that the intent here isn’t to prevent kids from using social media - it’s about forcing the social media companies to implement “adequate safeguards.”

There’s an exception available for them if they do, and a surprisingly hefty fine for violations.

That’s a good question. The bill itself is pretty vague so far:

Obligation 27 (1) Subject to section 29, an operator must, with respect to every regulated social media service specified by regulations made by the Governor in Council under subsection (5) that it operates, implement adequate age-verification or age-estimation measures designed to prevent a person under the age of 16 from being able to have an account with, or be otherwise registered with, the service.

Adequacy of measures

(2) In order to determine whether the measures implemented under subsection (1) are adequate, the Commission must be satisfied that the measures

(a) are effective;

(b) do not involve the collection or use of personal information other than for age-verification or age-estimation purposes;

© provide for the destruction of personal information that is collected for age-verification or age-estimation purposes once the verification or estimation is completed;

(d) provide for the protection of personal information that is collected for age-verification or age-estimation purposes until that information is destroyed; and

(e) comply with any other requirement specified in the regulations.