u/clce

After watching for the second time and doing some googling trying to get it exactly what the plot is saying etc, I have concluded that they made a basic flaw that would have made the show much better.

The whole idea of a show world in which there are multiple universes and people that somehow can accidentally or purposely travel between them, or scientifically, is fine and intriguing. But it created a lot of problems to the plot that just messed up the alternate history story.

I don't know if it's in the show or just fan theory or what the showrunners have said, And also a little related to the original book, which I haven't read but read a little about. There seems to be an idea that this isn't just a universe in which the Nazis won and there are other universes in which they didn't .

There is an idea that something went wrong with the Nazis winning and for that reason, other realities keep intruding. But it's never really confirmed and brought out in the plot as far as I can see. Instead, it's simply a matter of multiple universes, some of which the Nazis won in and some of which they didn't .

This makes the whole thing kind of pointless in my opinion. Who cares if there are other universes or films from other universes? It's a little troubling that the Nazis want to access this portal and travel to another universe for some nefarious purposes. But what are they going to do? Try to conquer a United States that also has nukes? It's intriguing that the baddies have alternate lives in which they were goodies and could live in peace with their children. And that's a great motivation if there is something to be set right or corrected. But as it is now, just knowing there's an alternate universe with an alternate you living with his family in peace doesn't really mean much.

And in the plot, people like Julia keep talking about how if people just know and see these films and believe them, that they can somehow set it right by conquering the Nazis in the Japanese? But that makes no sense. Just knowing that in some timelines the Americans won because the Nazis didn't get the bomb, and the Americans did, so what ?

Is that supposed to rally people to fight to free themselves, knowing that it's possible. Of course it's possible to defeat any enemy or overthrow any invaders or colonizers, and people fight for that all the time. I honestly believe that the resistance would be much greater than it is in the show and the US would be impossible to pacify for either Nazis or Japanese. But that's another story. As it is, they act like just knowing there's an alternate universe or two in which the Nazis lost somehow is going to make some difference to people who aren't fighting them now. It makes no sense.

All that said, if there were somehow some glitch in the matrix so to speak, some thing that went terribly wrong, and I don't think Nazis winning is enough to throw off the universe. Bad guys win and build empires all the time. It has to be a result of the timeline glitch, not the cause. You can't just say those Nazis are so bad that there must be something terribly wrong with the universe. It just doesn't work.

However, if you somehow can figure out that There is an alternate timeline, not just a universe but a significant timeline that is what the existing show timeline is supposed to be, and something went terribly wrong but the correct timeline keeps intruding with travelers or film footage or whatever, because it wants to correct itself, then that might inspire people to try to figure out how to help it correct itself.

It wouldn't be that complicated. Maybe the Nazis conducted some nuclear experiment that created a glitch in the timeline. Or maybe the Nazis invented something using the portal technology that somehow through the timeline out of whack or even traveled into the other universe may be back in time or something and gave the Nazis the plans for the nuclear bomb and that threw off the timeline, but the timeline is constantly trying to correct itself.

I don't know how it might correct itself but maybe it might have to do with the resistance getting a hold of their machine in the mountains and reprogramming it to somehow reset and then boom all of a sudden the world is right even if no one remembers it or one person remembers it or who knows?

But I think that would all work because they would have a goal to work towards to somehow correct the timeline that has been wanting to correct itself anyway.

One of the biggest problems I have felt the show has is an inability to decide if it's a multi-universe show or a alternate history show. It was a pretty good alternate history corrupted by the constant multiple universe issue. An alternate history could have ended with a popular uprising that somehow overcomes the Nazis, maybe smuggling bombs into Berlin and Japan and defeating them with a popular military uprising in the US.

Or, it could be an interesting multiverse show in which there are maybe only one or two alternate universes that are actually accessible from this one through the machine but somehow agents from both sides get through to other universes and maybe they get the Americans to help them defeat the Nazis in the show universe. But they never really made that work and instead it just became a jumbled mess.

But, my conclusion is that if they simply made it a story about a timeline that was essentially minding its own business and somehow it got corrupted resulting in the Nazis winning, then it would make sense to somehow figure out a way to correct and restore it.

Anyway, that's my analysis of what's bugging me about the show and why I don't think it really comes together and how it could have made more sense and work better.

If I've got anything wrong according to the actual script and show, or even what the writers and show runners have said, please let me know so I can rethink it. But as it is it doesn't seem quite clear exactly whether there are just multiple universes or as some people have alluded to in the scripts, there's something off with this timeline.

Curious to hear other thoughts

TL/DR: how would an appraiser approach a residential home with additional upside value of the lot which has been up zoned?

Real estate agent. Listed house on land worth let's say $400,000 If it were just a residential lot. But the land has been up zoned at some point quite a bit. It can have up to a six-story building with commercial on the bottom etc.

Also could be smaller, townhouses even that could probably fit three on the lot but that might make the land only worth maybe 400 or more. But the up zoning potential sooner or later is huge. This is in a city in the suburbs of Seattle by the airport. Active developing commercial area. Mostly apartment buildings and such. It is one lot away from a corner commercial lot on the main business arterial through the area. One guy owns that lot and a rundown duplex lot between my listing and the more valuable commercial lot. Surprised he didn't buy my listing actually.

The lot itself is probably not big enough to really maximize, but in the future there are numerous lots that could be combined and eventually a large development could be built. But, no developer has stepped up to grab the lot for specific development.

I estimated the up zoning could add maybe up to $150,000 in value and we listed it accordingly. A bit of interest. After several weeks we negotiated an offer and made a deal. The price is a bit over what the value would be if it were just a house on residential land. It's not even a great neighborhood for residential land so appraised as a house on residential land it would be fairly low. The buyer owns a business nearby and wants to live in it or maybe rent it out in the future but is willing to pay a premium as an investment in the future. But, they are buying it with a residential conventional loan. The house is rough but livable and with a bit of cleanup should be fine for them to live in until the time comes that a developer will be interested.

Basically, my question is, how much of the upside potential value can the appraiser take into account? It's hard to say what the raw land is worth. It's easy to say what the house would be worth if it were a residential lot. But to what extent can an appraiser evaluating a house on a lot assign additional value for its investment potential in the future?

TL/DR: when did it become common and the norm for singers to do regular concerts with the audience knowledge and expectation that they were just going to be hearing the singers sing to an obvious pre-recorded track with no expectation of anything else behind them?

This is a little bit nuanced, because I don't mean lip syncing on the Ed Sullivan show or American bandstand. As I understand it, in the '60s there were bands that would use some pre-recorded backtracks or music that they couldn't really replicate on stage, and I know some performers will play studio produced songs that they don't want to try to do on stage or will do in conjunction with a performance .

What I'm talking about is a single or group of singers that are not at all musicians or a band, but come out and sing to recorded backing music that everyone knows is recorded backing music and expects it to be.

Of course, in the past, most singers sang in front of an orchestra they belonged to. Some singers would be just singers and perform in front of put together orchestras or bands, or studio or house bands. But the music was still typically live .

When the rock era came along and there were bands making their own music, especially as they got more complicated and studio production driven, I'm sure we saw the growth of using prerecorded music .

And of course on shows like bandstand, it was often all lip synced, with a recording of the song, probably their basic record released, being played while they lip synced.

But all of that seems a little different to what I'm talking about.

I'm not into a lot of modern pop music but my girlfriend and I went to a recent show with her favorite, New kids on the block, and Rick astley, and en Vogue, and salt and peppa. And it occurred to me that it was all recorded music and nobody in the audience would have had any expectation to the contrary. There was no illusion of a backing band or orchestra playing off to the side or backstage as would have been done for a singer in the '60s or '70s.

So I'm wondering, who were the first singers to have no backing band as part of their group, or even real musicians at all playing, with just pre-mixed tracks as a background to their singing?

Of course, some might say what does it matter? Or, it was just an evolution and it's not really different from the past because people used to lip sync etc. But I think it's different, at least in a way.

I was basically struck by the idea that nobody imagined any kind of band backing them. You couldn't even pretend or imagine because the music just isn't anything a band could produce. Even in hip hop, there was typically a DJ doing a creative performance of playing and mixing music, so even that's a little more of a live creative musical performance.

And I'm not putting down any pop singers or groups. The show we went to was fine and I thought they put on a great show and are good singers. It just occurred to me that it is in a way quite distinct from being a singer or group of singers in front of a backing band. And I think part of it is a change in the public. Yes, people probably knew on some level that American bandstand was lip synced. But, often they would have the band also fake playing their instruments, so it kind of created the illusion of a live band performance. And with individual singers, people still heard a recording that could have been a band backstage. But nobody would expect that at all now.

I don't know, does that make any sense and mainly, who were the first bands to perform with what was obviously and expectedly a studio produced backing mix? And how exactly did it evolve and who were the first people that said, you know, let's not even pretend there's a backing band? Just curious about this.