Because it implies there has never been any kind of critical update to the hosts in 10 years.
Do you critically update something you suspect is working as intended?free_mhayden said:
Because it implies there has never been any kind of critical update to the hosts in 10 years.
Joseph Parrish said:Do you critically update something you suspect is working as intended?free_mhayden said:
Because it implies there has never been any kind of critical update to the hosts in 10 years.
It was flat out stated that he wasn't updated in 10 years, but I'm not sure how it implies that all the hosts hadn't been updated in 10 years.free_mhayden said:
Because it implies there has never been any kind of critical update to the hosts in 10 years.
ALL. THE. TIME.Joseph Parrish said:
Do you critically update something you suspect is working as intended?
aTmAg said:
The fact that Anthony Hopkins considered him a sort of "project" implies to me that he gets special treatment that other hosts don't get. It's not hard at all to explain all that away.
Joseph Parrish said:Do you critically update something you suspect is working as intended?free_mhayden said:
Because it implies there has never been any kind of critical update to the hosts in 10 years.
bobinator said:aTmAg said:
The fact that Anthony Hopkins considered him a sort of "project" implies to me that he gets special treatment that other hosts don't get. It's not hard at all to explain all that away.
Except to me it changes everything that we just watched. Akecheta's journey of self-discovery, facing death, etc, etc don't seem as important when framed by Ford helping, watching, etc the whole time.
I disagree.bobinator said:ALL. THE. TIME.Joseph Parrish said:
Do you critically update something you suspect is working as intended?
Why? Anthony was mostly watching. The only help Akecheta would need is to turn off his transponder (or whatever they call it in WW) so that the higher ups wouldn't notice him wondering everywhere and to help lead him to the basement. Other than that, he would have been caught and his escapade would have been over. He was still self-discovering.bobinator said:aTmAg said:
The fact that Anthony Hopkins considered him a sort of "project" implies to me that he gets special treatment that other hosts don't get. It's not hard at all to explain all that away.
Except to me it changes everything that we just watched. Akecheta's journey of self-discovery, facing death, etc, etc don't seem as important when framed by Ford helping, watching, etc the whole time.
Turning off a transponder and unlocking a few doors is not "complete control".Malcolm52 said:
I love the series and look forward to watching each week. That being said, I think it is a bit cheap to write off every head scratching moment as "Well Ford had complete control"
Yeah, upgrading them when they die isn't a bad plot device, it's a pretty obvious one, but the idea that they ONLY update them when they die is absurd.aTmAg said:
Also, they said it takes 4 hours to upgrade a host. So it would make sense that they do it when they die, since everybody dies quite often typically.
I hadn't put much thought into it when they mentioned it on the show, but it seems that only updating them when they die makes the most sense. It's probably part of the process that happens when they get picked up by techs, hauled back to the lab and get cleaned off and repaired.bobinator said:Yeah, upgrading them when they die isn't a bad plot device, it's a pretty obvious one, but the idea that they ONLY update them when they die is absurd.aTmAg said:
Also, they said it takes 4 hours to upgrade a host. So it would make sense that they do it when they die, since everybody dies quite often typically.
Each of these things has the processing power of a supercomputer, they're going to need to be updated more than once a decade. Like Hayden said, it's not a huge deal, it's just a really dumb/lazy line.
Except this particular one was "off the grid". If they didn't know that he was wondering all over the place, it makes sense that they wouldn't know he's in need of an update too.bobinator said:Yeah, upgrading them when they die isn't a bad plot device, it's a pretty obvious one, but the idea that they ONLY update them when they die is absurd.aTmAg said:
Also, they said it takes 4 hours to upgrade a host. So it would make sense that they do it when they die, since everybody dies quite often typically.
Each of these things has the processing power of a supercomputer, they're going to need to be updated more than once a decade. Like Hayden said, it's not a huge deal, it's just a really dumb/lazy line.
IT people are dealing with security holes to avoid exploitation of outside hackers and Apple is pushing IOS11 to their customers. That is different than non-security related things that are completely operated and controlled internally by the company.bobinator said:
No, it doesn't make sense. I don't really want to chase this rabbit all the way down the hole because it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, it was just a line that annoyed me because it's so unbelievable.
Our IT people lose their minds if a software patch isn't installed within like 72 hours of it being released. My five year old ipad mini barely works anymore because it can't use IOS11 and most new apps won't work on IOS10.
We're talking machines with insane processing power that communicate with each other, they would definitely know if one of the machines hasn't been updated in ten years.
aTmAg said:Except this particular one was "off the grid". If they didn't know that he was wondering all over the place, it makes sense that they wouldn't know he's in need of an update too.bobinator said:Yeah, upgrading them when they die isn't a bad plot device, it's a pretty obvious one, but the idea that they ONLY update them when they die is absurd.aTmAg said:
Also, they said it takes 4 hours to upgrade a host. So it would make sense that they do it when they die, since everybody dies quite often typically.
Each of these things has the processing power of a supercomputer, they're going to need to be updated more than once a decade. Like Hayden said, it's not a huge deal, it's just a really dumb/lazy line.
Anthony Hopkins said that he was taking a special interest in this one as an experiment of sorts. That leaves open all sorts of possibilities for this one unit that the others don't have. And when a guy is giving an excuse on why a unit wasn't upgraded, he's going to give the excuse that exonerates him. He's not going to say, "well I messed up and lost track of this one." He will use whatever excuse off the top of his head he can think of. That's what his excuse was. That doesn't mean it's 100% gospel.free_mhayden said:aTmAg said:Except this particular one was "off the grid". If they didn't know that he was wondering all over the place, it makes sense that they wouldn't know he's in need of an update too.bobinator said:Yeah, upgrading them when they die isn't a bad plot device, it's a pretty obvious one, but the idea that they ONLY update them when they die is absurd.aTmAg said:
Also, they said it takes 4 hours to upgrade a host. So it would make sense that they do it when they die, since everybody dies quite often typically.
Each of these things has the processing power of a supercomputer, they're going to need to be updated more than once a decade. Like Hayden said, it's not a huge deal, it's just a really dumb/lazy line.
But they didn't say the reason he wasn't updated was because he was "off the grid", they said it was because he hadn't died and they don't get updated unless they die.
But even if they had gone the "off the grid" route... Yeah, I get the whole show about sentient robots requires a suspension of disbelief, but inside the actual world of the story you expect things to be competent and make sense. Even if this robot is "off the grid" for 10 years. You telling me there's no analysis done on # of robots constructed vs # of robots showing up on the grid? Counter that he was maybe constructed in secret? Ok... But he's clearly seen interacting with guests and killing off other hosts that are inventoried and tracked -- so what comes up in analysis there?
I guess it's just the computer geek in me, but when I'm watching a show that has robots that must have required incredible amounts of programming, analysis, data recording, etc... for a world that was constructed to capture the data on all of the visitors and their interactions with the hosts... watching that and having explanations be "well we don't update them until they die so this guy hasn't been updated in 10 years" or "well that one was off the grid so no one knew about it" just don't jive with how every other aspect of Delos is run.
I'm willing to move on also, but the problem is that Westworld has basically invited all of this close scrutiny because of the way they're telling the story. If you're going to puzzlebox the whole show, and make the plot so confusing that a big part of the viewing experience is trying to piece it together using every single tiny clue, then the details matter.Teddy Perkins said:
Times like these I'm glad Reddit exists. Let me know when this thread moves past the one line about updates in a great episode.
Military aircraft talk to each other on networks too. Yet we we have this sort of software disparity all over the place. The F-35 is the most network heavy aircraft in existence, yet we will have block 2b aircraft talking to block 4 aircraft. That will easily be 10+ year disparity. Older aircraft have even larger disparities. It's more common than you think.bobinator said:
If none of them had been updated, that would be fine. But it's the idea that some of them are running new stuff and others are running old stuff which seems crazy. Especially because they interact with each other so much, they're even networked.
Anyway, not going to ruin my life. They had to create some sort of reason why he would be left alone in the mesa, and that's the best they could come up with, it's fine.