• Beacon@fedia.io
    0·
    3 months ago

    According to who? Because i don’t recognize most of these, and i don’t see some that are very shared like bad breakdancing woman

  • Altima NEO@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I have heard nothing about the Olympics this year aside from the shooting competition. It’s very weird.

      • kagrocery@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        No, they got the memo. At least in the US, the Peacock app had every single event broken out into live events, replays and highlights. Or you could watch the gold medal stream and just mainline finals. They did a pretty good job, IMO.

        • jqubed@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          My two complaints about Peacock were:

          1. Even taking the raw World feed there were often still segments cut out which I assume is where they ran ads. Watching replays with the “ad-free” plan there were no ads there, but the content was still gone.

          2. Even though the entirety of the events were produced in 4K/UHD, only HD content was available. I understand that they did this because none of their broadcast facilities run in UHD yet and I guess they don’t have their streaming apps supporting it yet, but it’s definitely time for that to be supported. Claiming they don’t need to go UHD because their affiliates aren’t using ATSC 3.0 yet is patently false; the signal is live in my market and dozens of others as well.

          That definitely needs to be fixed by Los Angeles, and really should be by Milano Cortina.

        • rothaine@lemm.ee
          0·
          3 months ago

          I haven’t watched the Olympics in a long time but I thought the experience was kinda shit, especially compared to ye olden days of it being on every channel. My experience was basically:

          My wife: What’s the difference between “Women’s all around final” and “women’s all around final (TV)”?

          Me: googling I think we want the “TV” one?

          30 second ad

          20 seconds of a commentator talking over a view of Paris

          2 minutes of ads

          15 minutes of the camera just looking at an empty apparatus while there’s clearly other stuff going on in the background

          2 minutes ads

          30 seconds commentators discussing the event

          2 minutes ads

          Ok they actually fucking start, finally

          Someone does something, 2 second MICRO AD??? This is a thing now apparently? Randomly throughout there’s these insanely short ads that are super jarring

          Zoom in on Simone Biles face

          Watch someone do a warmup on vault

          Simone itches her nose

          We can clearly hear other competitors doing things in the background, but Simone is looking to the right, so let’s focus on that

          2 minutes ads

          Watch a competitor do uneven bars, neat

          Back to Simone, she’s talking to Suni now, we can’t hear it, but it must be important

          Literally can see people doing flips and shit in the background, but let’s watch Simone as she sits in this chair

          2 minutes ads

          BREAKING NEWS: Simone blinks

          “What did that other girl get for a score? Did they show it?”

          Attempt to rewind 30 seconds. Big mistake, 2 minutes ads

          Simone does a vault

          2 minutes ads

          …

          Like I love Simone Biles, I do. Obviously I want to see all of her events. But holy shit, I’m here to watch the Olympics, not the “Simone is waiting for her turn” show. Also it was like 90% ads, they didn’t even show some of the highest scoring performances (since they only showed like 3 other people besides Simone), and half the time didn’t even show the scores they received. It was just…pretty bleh.

          • Benjaben@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 months ago

            Completely agree, and I have watched a ton. The quantity of ads is outrageous, and the “ongoing coverage” streams make you watch a pile of ads before you even find out what’s playing.

            The video was always stuttering and just shy of unwatchable on the “live” streams, the ads were out of hand, commentary audio was super inconsistent, even the camera work was pretty shit overall. Like, missing critical moments when that was the only thing going on.

            I thought NBC / Peacock did a pretty bad job.

        • aasatru@kbin.earth
          0·
          3 months ago

          In Europe HBO covered it, I think you could even get a free trial during the Olympics if you didn’t have an account from before. My partner has an account so I didn’t check.

          It worked great, and it was nice to easily change the language of the commentary. Really couldn’t have asked for a better viewing experience, as I don’t want public broadcasters to support this corruption shit show.

          That said, it bothers me that it’s impossible to find clips online.

        • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
          0·
          3 months ago

          That’s what I heard from friends who were watching, they said it was a massive improvement over the last Games.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        lol the cookie accept prompt on that site:

        ARE YOU HAPPY TO ACCEPT COOKIES?

        Yes, I am happy

        No, manage settings

    • CareHare@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months ago

      I despise the IOC, but I love all the athletes competing in the event. So much emotion, such dedication. For me, it’s the best reality TV there is.

  • you_are_dust@lemm.ee
    0·
    3 months ago

    I don’t know what is actually going on, but I’m interested in the Olympic level giant wedge of cheese hugging competition.

    • iz_ok@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months ago

      Some cultures allow women to cover their bodies. While others allowed them to show as much as they’d like.

      • discount_door_garlic@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Some cultures allow women to cover their bodies. While others allowed them to show as much as they’d like. Oh they’re allowed to cover themselves? They’re forced to wear it.

        A truly insane way of phrasing repression - I guess Jews in nazi Germany were allowed to wear a star of david? No, I don’t care how liberating some women say the enforced coverings are, when there isn’t a choice - it’s repression. Plain and simple. Try being a woman in saudi wearing normal clothing in public and see how permissive the regime is.

        • shuzuko@midwest.socialEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Ok but like, how is it any better to force them to wear skimpy bikinis they don’t want to wear? Is it not better for the regulating body to offer choice to everyone, rather than enforcing coverage or non-coverage that will inevitably upset someone?

          • discount_door_garlic@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            I’m not saying that all the women need to wear ‘skimpy bikinis’, I’m just making the point that the teams that are wearing the ‘sport hijab’ aren’t doing it because they have any kind of freedom, but because there is enormous societal pressure and political/legal/religious oppression, that extends beyond the games into their daily lives. Calling that ‘freedom’ is unreasonable, because the choice is either ‘wear these specific clothes (men-excluded) or face social outcast/death’

            I completely agree that the frequent sexualisation of women’s sporting outfits is something which is still shitty and I’m not defending the objectification of talented athletes who want to be seen as skilled, rather than oggled for their body - but claiming that because the voluntary admission sports-team outfit is more revealing than necessary, doesn’t mean the athletes were forced into wearing it, and in the broader society, people in those same countries actually have the freedom to wear whatever they please, whether it’s ‘skimpy’ or not.

            Sure, the women on the western team are perhaps pressured into the bikinis from decades of objectification and commercial sex-appeal underwriting womens sports, but in their daily lives outside, they aren’t beholden to a religious dress code, and consequently have much more ‘freedom’. The argument can also be made that even though the ‘skimpy’ outfits are objectifying, the athletes would have known what the prevailing dress code at the sport was before they signed up, and were ‘okay’ with it - at least to the extent that they still participated.

            well nobody is forcing anybody to wear anything in the western countries - the huge difference is that outside of the sporting environment, women can choose to wear or not wear ‘skimpy bikinis’ - but in a sharia observant country, there is no such allowance made, so the sports team outfit actually is indicative of the dress standards forced upon women and expected by society.

            • shuzuko@midwest.socialEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

              I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m talking about the change in the regulating body now allowing the teams, or at least the countries sponsoring them, to make their own choices. It used to be that the regulating body enforced skimpy bikinis, and now they don’t. That’s progress. Individual teams using that choice to be shitty in no way undermines that progress. Less people being forced to do or wear things against their will, better judgement, or desire is always better, even if there’s still progress to be made.

              And this is tangential and I don’t really wish to get into an argument over it, but I have to point out that the logic of “well they knew what they were getting into so they by default consented to it” is really fucking terrible logic. Here, make the choice between being objectified so you can continue competing, or give up your dreams to maintain your dignity! What the fuck kind of choice is that? That’s coercion hiding behind choice. That’s one step below “have sex with me or you’re fired”. Fuck that noise.

            • shuzuko@midwest.socialEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

              The commenter I replied to said, “when there isn’t a choice, it’s repression”. This goes the other way, too. When the volleyball teams didn’t have the choice to cover up because the regulating body enforced “less than 10cm coverage” - which is a fact, this is a thing they did until recently - it’s just as bad. No woman should be forced to wear more or less clothing than they want. My comment was specifically in reference to the change in rules by the governing body allowing teams to come to their own decisions regarding appropriate uniform. Will some teams enforce regulations that are also bad? Yes, but progress is progress. A smaller group of people being forced to follow shitty regulations is always better than a huge group of people being forced to follow shitty regulations. That individual teams do not allow choice in no way undermines the progress of the regulating body.

      • BlackDragon@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        require*

        They don’t get to choose their uniforms, and I’m sure many of them would choose shorts like the men get if they did.

        • elfpie@lemmy.eco.br
          0·
          3 months ago

          It’s not always that simple. For beach volley, I saw athletes commenting that shorts are worse because of the sand getting in the way. Men would chose something better in a different culture. There’s sexism I believe, but it’s not always what we would expect.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      It’s beach volleyball. In the 2020(2021) Tokyo games there was a lot of controversy because the men could wear loose-fittings shorts and shirts, but the women were required to wear bikinis with no more than 10cm of cloth along the side.

      After a lot of backlash to the sexism of the uniform rules, they relaxed them this year. Some chose to still wear skimpy stuff, but it was noonger a requirement.