/hobby/ - Hobby

>>36089
Making your enemy a soulless alien monster is the politics of fascism
>This idea of "history inevitably leads to socialism" is dogmatic nonsense.
I dont mind being a socialist dogmatist
>Human Nature and humanity is contradictive
Transcendental error
Everything human comes from human nature
As we also come from the larger spectrum of nature itself
Again, only darwinists (capitalists) posit nature as this cruel merciless anarchy that humans have conquered, and that we need to defend against by "inventing" morality and so on. Its nonsense.
We are already in a post-apocalypse, thats my point. The fantasy of a "real" post-apocalypse is reactionary, thats why they both love accelerationism and primitivism, since technocapitalism is able to unleash their excessive desires.

>>36117
>Making your enemy a soulless alien monster is the politics of fascism
No anon, that's not how dehumanization (which you clearly refer to) works. To dehumanize something, you must take a human(oid) and represent them as evil and vile. A monster is in many senses a force of nature or a reflection of humanity depending on how deep the monster in a film is being. This "every monster is fascist dehumanization" is utter nonsense and typical over-extrapolation based on loose ideas. Godzilla was symbolic of the atom bomb tests and was originally possessed by the souls of the Japanese killed in WW2 angry with Japan because they were sent to die by the Emperor's decisions. The Xenomorph from the Alien franchise are horror of alien lifeforms with an emasculatory method of propagation, Pennywise is a creature that preys on the fears of children and so hunts children. These movie monsters are different aspects of the emotion of fear and terror. They are inhuman and so not as mundane as your average serial killer, even movie slasher villains and serial killers have aspects unique to them that make them supernatural.
>I dont mind being a socialist dogmatist
Then you're a foolish ideologue looking for things that aren't there.
>only darwinists (capitalists) posit nature as this cruel merciless anarchy that humans have conquered
Neither of these things is true.
1) Darwinism relates to a proven theory of Evolution; survival of the fittest, which does not mean what you think it means. It means that those that survive and propagate are those that are the fittest in one aspect or another and their traits are passed down to their children more or less.
2) The idea of Nature being conquered and fighting with humanity is as old as humanity itself, to somehow claim this as a capitalist idea is ignorant ahistorical rubbish.
>we need to defend against by "inventing" morality
What the fuck are you even on about? You seem to be conflating Nature itself with the concept of Human Nature. Going by instincts there is no civil dialogue or discussion in the case of high tensions and emotions, without morality, ethics and cold logic which belongs to sapient creatures like humans, we would likely have never reached the level of material development we have now. Violent atrocities that are immoral could not be defended against because such actions are "human nature" going by your schizophrenic logic.
>We are already in a post-apocalypse
You clearly do not understand the meaning of APOCALYPSE which is a very serious event resulting in great destruction and change. The fall of the USSR was not an apocalypse, WW2 and WW1 are as close to an apocalypse as we have seen in recent times. For Greece the Dark Era was their apocalypse when written language and cohesive governments were all but lost and the population lived in isolated communities with significantly less development than in centuries prior.
>The fantasy of a "real" post-apocalypse is reactionary
No it is not. Fantasizing about living in one and having slave girls and what all isn't reactionary either, even if it is a scummy fantasy, that's not the meaning of reactionary.
>they both love accelerationism and primitivism
I've never seen any fascist be pro-primitivist or accelerationist, primarily because fascists have an obsession with authoritarianist dictatorship like that of Nazi Germany, the aesthetics of which would be wholly contradictive to the libertarian ancapistan fantasy that Post-Apocalyptic living would lend itself to.
Then your next statement
>since technocapitalism is able to unleash their excessive desires.
completely contradicts your point and confirms my own.

Furthermore within the genre of Post-Apocalypse the hero is often the person that rejects the brutal rules of the post-apocalyptic world, that fights against the harsh "strong oppress the weak" lifestyle. Guts, Kenshiro, Mad Max, Tank Girl, Spike Spiegel, Joshua Graham, Joel Miller, Solid Snake, Lionel Verney, Nausicaä, etc. are all positive characters that reject the descent into barbarism that the apocalypse threw them into.

What we live in now is a dystopia, simply less techno-punk than what films and books imagined it as. A dystopia is not the same as a Post-Apocalypse, even if one can exist with the other. We have not HAD an apocalypse occur for our society to be Post-Apocalyptic.

>>36119
"Humanity versus nature" has been a discourse for milennia because it is idealist and sees man as more than an animal, thats what "humanitas" refers too on the first place, one distinguished as part of a "free" polity, as opposed to women, children, slaves and animals.
The powers of reason, morality and so on have ALWAYS existed, and have NOT changed - so what changes is material conditions, which are progressed by labour power.
>APOCALYPSE which is a very serious event resulting in great destruction and change.
Global capitalism IS this
People have commented before on the condition of japan after 2 nukes being incomparable to the destructive power that liberalism has on the planet. Same with the conditions of WW2 being a simple drop in the bucket - difference with ww2 is its anthropocentric discourse.

>>36123
Now you're shifting goal-posts and brushing past your dogmatic assertions being incorrect.
>"Humanity versus nature" has been a discourse for milennia because it is idealist
No, it is based on material dialectics and the formation of human societies and cultures.
>sees man as more than an animal
Because we are more than our physical selves and instincts, that is what makes us sapient, sentient beings and not just smart animals.
>one distinguished as part of a "free" polity, as opposed to women, children, slaves and animals.
That is not how humanitas is defined, not then and certainly not in the current age. The lack of rights for women, children and slaves was because of the general nature of Ancient Societies, that have been almost universally male dominated. That was based on the material realities of the time which was caused by the material development from prehistory into the first civilizations. Thus etymology reflects this male-centrism for the most part.
>Global capitalism IS this
Fantastical nonsense. Global capitalism is not an event, it is a socio-economic environment.
>People have commented before on the condition of japan after 2 nukes being incomparable to the destructive power that liberalism has on the planet
And?
>Same with the conditions of WW2 being a simple drop in the bucket
WW2 and WW1 were the end of the British Empire as we know it, the losses of 100s of millions of people and destruction of social, economic, political and other structures on a scale never seen before, all within a few years. WW2 was in the grand scale of time, an event… an event, which the occurrences within would shape the direction of history. To say it is just a drop in the bucket is to be utterly ignorant of the scale and meaning of WORLD WAR.
>its anthropocentric discourse
They're both human related, human caused, how is WW2 NOT anthropocentric when socio-economics and politics are the cause of it, just as liberalism IS a political socio-economic ideology.

>>36124
Our "higher" qualities are just human instincts is my point. Man is born a reasonable animal the same way a bird is born to fly. Aristotle is as smart as any thinker today.
>male domination
This only occurs after slavery is introduced, following from primitive communism. Before this there was general equality among the sexes.
I will agree about the "event" view of concentrated violences as opposed to the "environment" of a distributed violence. I do think events are ways to point to things which appear to be "outside" the system though, when they are just eruptions from within. A view that we live violent lives is a more proper critique than than the spectre of an isolated "apocalyptic" event though; "We live in an apocalypse", hence the semantics.

>>36125
>Our "higher" qualities are just human instincts
No they are not. Humanity was not born with that capability. While our instincts allow us vague concepts of competition and cooperation, the ability to be reasonable and logical and ignore emotion is much harder
>Aristotle is as smart as any thinker today.
Aristotle
A) Would be an outlier, he is not representative of the entire human population of his time
B) Is an individual, the general levels of intelligence has grown over human history because WE have grown and improved and become more or less more civilized, even if it isn't unitary.
>This only occurs after slavery is introduced
Absolute fucking ahistorical burger revisionism. Human social dynamics, including male dominance arose from natural material realities - hominid males are sexually dimorphic, being stronger, more aggressive, larger etc. Which meant that they took charge of their groups and over females, thus in early hunter-gatherer societies women were almost exclusively gatherers and homemakers, while the males were the ones hunting and killing, because that was the more physically taxing work. This sort of dynamic can be seen in Native American societies prior to Western Colonization diluting their culture. American Indians did not have slavery, or most of them did not, but they still had this male dominated society and while women could hunt or otherwise act in roles traditionally held by male Braves and chieftains - the exceptions to the rule. Native American societies were male dominated as were almost all human societies until the past few centuries, because human rights can only exist in a society developed enough to actually care to enforce entirely metaphysical rules on the treatment of others. Callousness and rudeness only have meaning, because society as an existance gives them meaning for example, just as any other forms of manners, it is an unspoken rule we created to keep a civil tongue in our heads.
Similar to Native American Indians, numerous African tribes remained tribalistic hunter-gatherers for a long time, and most of them still had male dominated societies. In some rare cases things were more equal, more out of the lack of resources and very small size of their communities than anything else. There is a wild-tribe on a remote Indo-Pacific Island that hasn't had contact with the outside world for centuries. Their warriors are all male, females all live in small, barely existant villages they live in.

>following from primitive communism
Right… primitive communism, with hierarchies! The most basic ape groups have hierarchies with a dominant male and several other top-males under him who dominate other males and females and adolescents. There is anthropological evidence to suggest early hominids were also like this and so were the first Homo Sapiens. A trait that further went on to continue into the first societies and civilizations that arose.
>events are ways to point to things which appear to be "outside" the system though, when they are just eruptions from within.
A Nuclear bomb is not an eruption from within a system unless you want to play at some pseudo-philosophical waxing about mankind destroying itself. A human society falling into chaos is a sort of apocalypse, but humanity while on a decline hasn't fallen yet.
>A view that we live violent lives is a more proper critique
In what sense? This liberal expansion of the term violence has made violence itself lose meaning, like many other words reinterpreted by various liberal ideologues and demagogues.
>"We live in an apocalypse", hence the semantics.
We'll be living in an apocalypse when the government begins to fall apart. "We live in a dystopia" is the correct term.

>>36119
>Pic
Speaking of Tank Girl, does anyone have that leftyb edit where it says Tankie Girl in the comic's style of text? This was back on 8ch and I never found the pic since.

>>36126
>>36126
>While our instincts allow us vague concepts of competition and cooperation, the ability to be reasonable and logical and ignore emotion is much harder
I disagree. Humanity's general and specific intelligences seems to be a genetic fact - where else does this "divine spark" arise from if not the already-existing cognitive and environmental conditions of early humanity? They say we havent evolved as a species in around 100k years, so i doubt we just got "smarter" once we left the jungle.
>human rights can only exist in a society developed enough to actually care to enforce entirely metaphysical rules on the treatment of others.
And where does this "care" come from? Look at children, they are sentimental - its an inborn quality, the same one we had before civilization. If you look at animals, particularly mammals, they display the same feelings.
>violence
Violence in its most basic terms, such as the murder of animals, the exploitation of humans, the destruction of plant life, the destroying of the ozone layer, etc. All for the vanity of market excesses. Violence is part of life but it is overdone today - the same you can violate the laws of war.
>dystopia not apocalypse
Again, semantics, but youre right.

>>36146
>Humanity's general and specific intelligences seems to be a genetic fact
It is not. Nurture over Nature is a fact. Humanity was not suddenly intelligent, our intelligence came with learning and passing on our knowledge and learning more each generation.
TL;DR: We have the POTENTIAL, but without nurturing by our fellows, without education the ability to know and grow is limited by our cognitive capability to interpret.
>They say we havent evolved as a species in around 100k years
Who is they? And that is incorrect, humanity has changed both physically and genetically over the millenia. Neanderthals are just one of the subspecies of Homo Sapiens and were absorbed into the population of humanity along with all others. Physiologically we do not look like early humans and Homo Sapiens evolved immensely from Homo Erectus just as Homo Erectus evolved significantly compared to Australopithecus.
>Look at children, they are sentimental
They can also be cruel, stomping on ants, it's all up to the individual and also up to the nurturing of parents who in turn were nurtured by their own.
>where does this "care" come from
An evolved/developed sense of right and wrong that came about through the development of (a) society over history
>Violence is part of life but it is overdone today
Agreed, definitely
>the same you can violate the laws of war
Elaborate.

>>36150
>>36146
This whole conversation is wildly idealist and displays profound ignorance of evolution. Nature and nurture are not a dichotomy, the entire basis of evolution is that nurture shapes nature - in the darwinian sense by the environment shaping which traits become dominant in a population and in a lamarckian/epigenetic sense as well by changing individuals and their descendants more directly.

>Humanity's general and specific intelligences seems to be a genetic fact - where else does this "divine spark" arise from if not the already-existing cognitive and environmental conditions of early humanity?
>Nurture over Nature is a fact. Humanity was not suddenly intelligent, our intelligence came with learning and passing on our knowledge and learning more each generation.
We do have a much much greater capacity for intellect than other species, which is obvious from looking at brain anatomy or behavior. But the nature is not enough. You need both - feral children who grew up in the wild without having the proper nurture to make their brains develop fully are unable to acquire language or many other normal human behaviors. But at the same time you can't raise a chimp to be human. You need both "nature" and "nurture."
>They say we havent evolved as a species in around 100k years
All species are continuously evolving. What you're referring to is anatomical modernity (which has been pushed back as far as 300k years btw) in which the remains of homo sapiens sapiens that we find are not significantly different from modern humans. That doesn't mean there's no difference, just that the differences are relatively small and we couldn't really separate these humans from modern humans based on their physical traits alone.
>Physiologically we do not look like early humans and Homo Sapiens evolved immensely from Homo Erectus just as Homo Erectus evolved significantly compared to Australopithecus.
Homo Erectus is much older than anatomical modernity, although they continued to live among various human lineages until quite recently. We diverged from them more like 1.5MYA. Of course we have evolved more in that time than 100k years, that's 15 times as long.
>Violence is part of life but it is overdone today
There is no "correct" amount of violence. All sorts of species (not even just animals) kill each other for food or other reasons. The significant impact humans are having at the moment is causing global climate change and a mass extinction event, which is mostly not caused by direct violence.
>They can also be cruel, stomping on ants, it's all up to the individual and also up to the nurturing of parents who in turn were nurtured by their own.
Empathy is both a trait that is found across many species and something that humans have evolved a special capacity for. There is evidence all over our physiology for this, from all the extra face muscles to make our feelings easier to read to our mirror neurons that are literally a specialized type of cell that promotes empathic cognition. Like other cognitive abilities, humans have evolved at a physical level to specialize in empathy and a sense of "morals," but one needs the proper environment to promote their development. Fundamentally it's really not that different from needing to train muscles or your circulatory system. Humans also evolved to be exceptional long-distance runners, but even an animal that's really bad at that is going to do better than a human couch potato who gets winded from standing up too fast.

Both of you are arguing from a position of ignorance on these subjects and your time would be better spent reading about it.

>>36150
>Nurture over Nature is a fact
I disagree in terms. All nurture comes from nature. I think in terms of general "knowledge", all which has transpired (outside of natural science) is just the switching of words themselves - in humanity, concepts are eternal, since our brains havent changed. God has a thousand names, and so on.
Not violating the laws of war is a common sense that we developed naturally - thats why i say morality is inborn, not "nurtured" into us, either way. In war you can do anything yet we dont just kill surrendering soldiers.
Some would like to, but they are rare, as psychopaths usually are.

>>36152
>There is no "correct" amount of violence.
There is an incorrect amount however
>The significant impact humans are having at the moment is causing global climate change and a mass extinction event, which is mostly not caused by direct violence.
The system itself is violent

>>36153
>All nurture comes from nature.
The ability and need to may be from nature, but how it is done is based on the environment. A mother in the 1580s is going to be nurturing their child very different to one in the 1980s.
>our brains havent changed
But we have. Not significantly enough to make modern humans a subspecies, but enough that physiologically we have changed, this is readily apparent in examples such as height or brain chemistry compared to human populations of the past.
>Not violating the laws of war is a common sense that we developed naturally
True, but without relying on any specific dictats of written law, the general consensus on inhumanities in war become muddied and less concrete, because your natural instincts may interpret the concept of eliminating a threat in a very different way than you would imagine as a hypothetical when not in combat.
>In war you can do anything yet we dont just kill surrendering soldiers.
And yet this happens rather often, many only restrain themselves from doing so because of the written social law of war-crime, and if there was no governmental body holding them accountable would not flinch in committing such a crime.

>>36152
>This whole conversation is wildly idealist
Projection
>Nature and nurture are not a dichotomy
Never stated such, there are aspects however that come from the former or from the latter rather than both.
>the entire basis of evolution is that nurture shapes nature
>in the darwinian sense by the environment shaping which traits become dominant in a population and in a lamarckian/epigenetic sense as well by changing individuals and their descendants more directly.
Not the ENTIRE basis, but yes, this is more or less correct.
>We do have a much much greater capacity for intellect than other species
>feral children who grew up in the wild without having the proper nurture to make their brains develop fully are unable to acquire language or many other normal human behaviors
>You need both "nature" and "nurture."
Correct and agreed, most people in developed or developing society receives education and is nurtured by family that pass on their knowledge, so that the individuals grows new knowledge and understanding on top of that which the previous generations passed onto them.
>Homo Erectus is much older than anatomical modernity
I understand that, it was a more understandable example of what I meant by physiological changes in humanity
>There is no "correct" amount of violence.
Not from an evolutionary view perhaps, but from the aspect of civilization as we know it, excessive violence and especially misdirected violence has cost the human whole a lot. After all we are not JUST animals.
>The significant impact humans are having at the moment is causing global climate change and a mass extinction event
In the apocalyptic sense, yes.
>Empathy is both a trait that is found across many species and something that humans have evolved a special capacity for.
Yes, agreed.
>Like other cognitive abilities, humans have evolved at a physical level to specialize in empathy and a sense of "morals," but one needs the proper environment to promote their development. Fundamentally it's really not that different from needing to train muscles or your circulatory system.
This, this is my point
>Both of you are arguing from a position of ignorance on these subjects
I've been reading about evolution of mankind and anthropology since I was 7 and that was decades ago. Most if not all that you've said has been exactly my point, which is why most of what you've said is essentially the same as what I have said, simply more or less long-winded and worded differently.

>>36156
As things change, the more they stay the same
Thats all i can say

Cyberslav has gotten its first updates in 5 years, I'm hoping it gets released soon
Most recent trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSR3jDjjJoM

Accidentally posted this in the wrong thread >>38053 A.I.D.A. a Fallout parody.

>>38077
Sure, post the zip, sounds alright

>>38079
Here, zipfile is larger than I can post as a file and I don't have a Mega. You can download it safely from the download links, I did.
https://new.lewd.ninja/game/85196-aida-v051-zem

>>38077
>>38053
spoiler images the lewds

>>38241
Don't be a prude, one barely has some side-nip and the other is literally covered up with metal covers. Also it's a robot.

>>38243
>Don't be a prude
>metal covers, not metal tits
I use the /sfw/ boards for no promotions, if you want to post a promotion then post in /alt/ or just spoiler

>>38245
>hen post in /alt/
This IS an /alt/ board and I'm not promoting anything, it's related to the topic at hand - post-apocalyptic media.
>not metal tits
Did you miss the part where its a robot? Or the fact that this is an imageboard?

>>38247
I just want to browser /sfw/ anon
pls stop bait

I like threads

>>38250
And I just wish you weren't an underage bitch, but here we are.

>>38286
Rude.Νν

>>38296
No you, interfering n00b.

>>36166
>>38077
Speaking of Fallout, Amazon Prime is going to be making a TV series out of it and the trailer looks promising.

>>40750
Isn't it the one with terrible makeup? Or is it a different one?

>>40760
No, its this one, and from the trailer makeup is the least of its problems. Literally every aspect of it looks comically cheap.

>>36119
>No anon, that's not how dehumanization (which you clearly refer to) works. To dehumanize something, you must take a human(oid) and represent them as evil and vile.
huh? coming up with a super special definition of dehumanization doesnt even rebut or address anything that that other anon asserted

>>40822
Then the phrase "the trailer looks promising" doesn't really make much sense.

>>36117
>Making your enemy a soulless alien monster is the politics of fascism
Kinda. But then again, we have all kinds of parasitic organisms here on Earth so stuff like xenomorphs doesn't seem like a projection. Also, our own ruling class is imperialistic so it's obvious that people have a habit of extrapolating this to aliens as well. I'd also mention Lovecraft since the creatures that are way more incomprehensible to us than black people or even androids may or may not have a disregard for human life because our conceptions of morality are entirely irrelevant to them. I'm more concerned with the portrayal of the orcs in fantasy. The main reason why the orcs are evil is that they're "made that way" which is… uh… what?

A strange Post-Apocalyptic series that came out around the same time as the Hunger Games and other book series about teen heroes throwing off the system, is City of Ember and its sequels. Strangely enough I found the books to be quite interesting in their attempt to portray human conflict, the fear of the unknown and the unpredictability of even the best laid plans. Some of the story was a bit silly but it wasn't beyond suspension of disbelief. The film was a bit weak but I found it was pretty unique and interesting in its own right, and the child actors weren't terrible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Ember?useskin=vector

>>40915
I never saw the movies but the books did a pretty good job of portraying biases of tradition blinding people to reality. Dramatic irony works pretty well for that, but that's nothing new for YA dystopian stories. The conceit of a Fallout-like vault but nobody in there knows there's anything outside is pretty interesting.

>>40846
Oh yeah, Black River really sucks all the fun out of the postapoc idea.

Not quite the right thread but its the most relevant given the semi-apocalyptic nature of these films:
Recently I discussed the 2023 film, ISS - a mediocre film but the story was an interesting space station isolation concept - in the Chernobyl thread and it's plot, (stranded, partisan inhabitants of a Space Station placed at odds with one another because of the grander scale of societal conflict). Afterwards I was reminded of Roland Emmerich's 1984 feature-length film and graduating thesis work, Das Arche Noah Prinzip (translated: The Noah's Ark Principle) which along with some of his other works demonstrates to me that Emmerich was not untalented in film, but I digress.

The film's plot is quite interesting where-in its 1997, nukes have been abolished and the world is at peace. In space there exists a peaceful, civilian satellite called ARKLAB capable of changing weather and averting some natural disasters. It becomes a topic of renewed Soviet-US conflict because the Euro-American satellite also has the potential to INFLICT natural disasters onto an area. The English summary of the film is misleading however, as the Soviet 'paranoia' of it being used against them is not unfounded and the true threat and conflict within the film is not foreign Cosmonauts, or traitor-Astronauts, but US glowies sent up to force the Astronauts into following orders in using the platform for military use, after they refused orders before. For context A conflict escalates in the Middle East in 1997 and US citizens are held as prisoners, the USA wants to create a storm in the area from space in order to send soldiers under a camouflaging shield to free the hostages. The team in the satellite refuse. The unknown factor of who's the spy creates tension and drama ending in the sabotage of the satellite and deaths of most of them. It's an interesting reflection of human conflict and not seeing the forest for the trees, and how in this day of technology it can lead to deadly, and even apocalyptic consequences. As a side note, 2017's Geostorm blatantly ripped off large portions of Noah's Arc Principle, only with a heap of 'Murica! shoved into it.

As a criticism of the film and really many of Emmerich's works; It is noticeable how well he manages to find the right image sections and combine action and atmosphere with dynamic editing. The latter is the strength of the film, the paranoid story that is told is reflected in claustrophobic images of space station corridors. However, the story is told very weakly, although the plot is interesting, Emmerich is far too invested in the atmospheric superficialities. The novel based on the film by Martin Eisele is even worse - only here can you really find out where and what is currently flashing, where a noise can be heard from and exactly which numerical codes are being entered into the computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Noah%27s_Ark_Principle?useskin=vector

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Принцип_Ноева_ковчега?useskin=vector

>>36128
I remember that, it was an edit of pic rel I think, with "tankie girl" and a hammer and sickle on the helmet or something

What an absolute masterpiece Fallout series was.

>>41360
yup i love the 1-2-NV trilogy that absolutely didnt have any other entries

>>41361
Ive been diving deep into the fallout fan community on places like No Mutants Allowed and RPG Codex lately and there are even folks that dont like anything that came after Fallout 1

>>41361
I was talking about the new TV-show that I just finished watching. When talking about the games New Vegas was my least favorite. The game was just too silly for a post-apocalyptic hell scape with all the legionaries and gambling cowboys. Best one imo was Fallout 3 with special mentions to slaver DLC. First time getting out of the vault was something I still remember.

>>41362
that doesnt mean anything, you can find any kind of person on the internet

>>41364
>The game was just too silly for a post-apocalyptic hell scape with all the legionaries and gambling cowboys
<the best one was the game with 99% mindless raiders
butt scifi

>>41364
>>41360
bait used to be believable (not even gonna bother getting the image)

>>41364
>>40750
Thread >>41241

>>38077
>>38080
>>38243
There's a chatbot for her now LOL
https://venus.chub.ai/characters/Sirus/AIDA

>>4494
Still spot-on. This article reminded me of your post https://www.pastemagazine.com/tv/amazon-prime-video/fallout-tv-series-ending-explained-spoilers-streaming-industry-corporations.