And the award for scientific realism in a movie goes to...
Listening to Cory Doctorow talking about his book Enshittification (which I'm currently reading) on a podcast today. He talked about how publicly sharing his notes daily, and how that had shaped him.
So why not? I've done it before, in a form. And these days, good, bad, or indifferent, my thoughts of the moment tend to be formed on and by Bluesky. I post, I reply, and more often than not, I delete what I typed instead of diving in.
Last night we watched One Battle After Another. I wasn't entirely sure I wanted to watch a movie about out-of-control anti-immigrant law enforcement in California (the idea felt too close to reality), but the things I'd heard about the movie ranged from "good" to "good enough", but I wasn't without reservations. I'm pretty sure the last Leonardo DiCaprio film I saw was Django, and I've heard too much recently about his habit of dating women under 25 (as he gets older and older).
What I didn't expect to be impressed by was the use of science.
What impressed me most about "One Battle After Another" was the DNA test. Improbable DNA testing has become the norm on crime shows, so it was satisfying to see something realistic I'm pretty sure the centrifuge was balanced(!), the micropipetting looked realistic, but mostly...they just ran a gel!
— Ian Ramjohn (@iramjohn.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T20:00:00.738Z
Not only was there no magic DNA sequencing done in minutes by a black box machine - they sat there and watched a gel run (and used it well to build tension). I enjoyed the film, especially Chase Infiniti and Sean Penn's performances. But that was all secondary to somewhat accurate DNA sequencing.
— Ian Ramjohn (@iramjohn.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T20:00:00.739Z
I'm sure if I re-watch that scene I would find mistakes — I have no idea if they switched tips between pipetting the samples — but it was still so satisfying to see that level of realism.