JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Depressing is not that big of a deal, a lot of genres (horror, noir, catastrophe, etc.) aren't exactly sunshine and puppies. It's just that the source material is sometimes a bit dry for general audience, and the fun parts aren't often spelled out but only implied, so the movie script needs to add a lot of things that make it a movie attractive to a modern audience. And this needs to be done very tastefully because the original is not of that nature at all. And "tastefully" does not seem to be something the people in (extended) Hollywood are capable of doing. Thus, abominations like ROP are born. Is it possible in theory? I think it might be. But it requires a lot of skill and love and integrity, and I don't expect somebody with all these qualities to be able to pass through the gatekeepers of Hollywood and be able to actually execute such project.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Yeah, Cavill leaving The Witcher was kind of a bummer. I'm not sure whether I'll keep watching.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I'm not sad, if needed, I could spend 50 years rewatching old movies. I was just wondering - could I be missing something? The Rock is 52 by now, not sure if it's "old" but definitely not "young" anymore.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
when he was 15 years old
That kind of changes the whole picture. It's beyond idiotic to hold a grown man, years later, for shit he did on the internet when being a horny teenager. Ever more idiotic, they apparently allowed him to work for 2.5 years, presumably accessing all that top secret information, and then suddenly they started digging into his behavior as 15 years old? So many levels of pure dumb.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
What a perfect illustration. Just an ugly box next to perfectly nice buildings would be an injury, but they had to add an insult to it by adorning it with a massive penis. So everybody knows what they meant by it.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
the fact that this piece made you feel emotions, and then discuss them, is probably a victory for the artist.
That's probably what I hate the most in the modern art criticism. Nothing against you personally, but this is so unsatisfactory and lazy. I mean I get all the things about "everything can be art" and pop-art and readymade and stuff. But when a seagull pooping on my shoulder is art (it certainly makes me feel emotions!), I think this makes the whole thing meaningless. Maybe that's the goal, but I know it is not meaningless. I have been to the museums. I know how art can make me feel, and I know it is something. Something that "ha-ha, made you look!" is not. These two aren't just part of the same worlds, and maybe I can't explain with proper jargon why exactly, but I know it.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
structures supposedly built for the public that actually looks like it hates the very people it's meant to serve.
Welcome to brutalism. Making nice things is boring and passé, proper architects hate your guts and let you know it.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Reading stuff on the internet, I was suddenly hit with a realization that Tom Cruise is over 60 now (looking ridiculously good for the age, btw). Which got me thinking - almost all the movie stars I am familiar with are officially old now. I am mostly into action movies (though not only, I like comedies and even occasional romcom) and it used to be that if the movie has, say, Bruce Willis, or Schwarzenegger, or Harrison Ford, yes, Tom Cruise, you get the idea - I'd at least pay attention to it. It may still be bad, but I'll at least bother to check (otherwise I'd have to hear some good hype from some respected sources to even pay attention, there's just too much junk around otherwise). So, my question is - are there any stars under 40 now that are worth paying attention to? Who are they? Obviously, it's very subjective criteria, a matter of taste, but I'd like to hear some opinions.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I'm skeptical of this blend, which seems to essentially just be false consciousness: if not for an external force you would see our interests align.
For people living in the Western countries, this is largely true. None of the people they encounter daily have fundamental differences with them that are irreconcilable. KKK-style racism is largely either dead or so deep underground that you're more likely to encounter 10 trolls mimicking them to piss people off than one geniunie article. Violent homophobia never has been truly widespread, but now is practically extinct. "Transphobia" has always been more of a slur than a description of something real and threatening. Most of the differences are about relative political power, policies, etc. which can be reconciled in a way that may lead some people unsatisfied - in a way that one would be agreeing to a salary less than they'd like to get, ideally - but not in a way that makes violent conflict inevitable. There are some enclaves where one could experience something approaching that, and there are individual psychopats and criminal groups, of course - but if you specifically don't go to those places, they likely won't come to you. In general, you can expect that vast majority of people you encounter do not have fundamentally irreconcilable interests with you.
These people mostly have no experience with conflict where the other side genuinely wants you dead. Not get 5% more in relative distribution of power, not some goods (physical or social) redistributed, but genuinely thinks each moment you exist is an offence to all that is holy, and each action that contributes to your destruction justified, not just practically, but because it is objectively Greater Good Thing. Such conflicts exist, and there's no way one can bargain your way out of it. There's no arrangement where the interests of the sides align, when one side's interest is seeing other side completely annihilated or enslaved. Not all conflicts - even in the Middle East - are of such nature, but some are. "Get along" people can not accept that, and the more evidence is piled up to support it, the more ardent they become in inventing complex structures that would justify why it is not the case.
Incidentally, there was just recently a book review - the "nine lives" one - that showed how some "irreconcilable conflict" people think. Thinking that you can get them to abandon their beliefs by just giving them more of something and making a bargain with them is completely idiotic. Of course, idiots is something that there was never a shortage of.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
simply boils down to people looking at which side has more people dying
I wish it was that easy, and maybe for some small part it is. I think for much bigger part it's either "look at which side is more Western and choose the other one" or just "look at what my cool friends are saying and repeat after them".
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Kinesis Freestyle2 Blue. Decided to try it out on a whim and turned out a split keyboard is surprisingly convenient.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
I use LLM regularly to generate code. It's mostly useful when I'm dealing with repetitive code - like, copy this code block, but change a little thing in it 10 times, or produce a code that looks like this code, but with a little twist changed - basically, smart enhanced copypaste. LLM is decently good at this - sometimes you have to fix a couple of things, but can easily turn a 5-minute task into a 5-second task if you're reasonable lucky. I am working with Java, which traditionally has a lot of boilerplate code - and LLM is very helpful in speeding up producing such code. It also helps with doing standard things like "here I have this collection of values, I need to apply this mapping function to it, then filter it this way, then rearrange them in this way and then store them in this way" - I can write it all myself, but it'll require me at least one trip to the docs to remember the exact name and syntax of certain method, and LLM can deliver all that in seconds without switching context. Which is amazingly helpful when you're "in the zone" and don't want to ruin your flow.
It has also been useful for generating quick one-time tools - like transforming data in certain format in certain place (say, database) into certain other place using certain API. Basically the sort of thing you did with your proxy thing. I can write most of such tools easily, probably in 10-15 minutes, but instead if I feed description to the LLM, it can deliver the same in seconds, and again, I wouldn't even have to look up the docs. So, nothing I can't do myself, easily, but these tasks are boring and LLM can do it quickly without me having to do mental context switch. Not a groundbreaking capability, but a very nice convenience for me.
One has to be careful with it, because sometimes it has a penchant for hallucinating things that don't really exist but it thinks it may be helpful if they did. A good IDE though usually helps to fix that, but sometimes, if the actual task is not easily achievable, you can be lost in the labyrinth of LLM hallucinations and just waste your time.
I have not been successful in making LLM to produce something substantial and even moderately complex from scratch. That's where the fact that this thing doesn't really understand anything shows.
All in all, as a professional software developer, this is an amazing tool that provides me with a lot of convenience, but so far any talk of it replacing any of the professional engineers is a complete bunk. I can not say what will happen in 10 years (or even in 3 years) but that's what I am seeing now.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Sometimes I appreciate her steady self confidence. Other times, I am frustrated by her lack of brutal drive to self improvement.
If you expect to find a woman who would never frustrate you, will be perfect in every regard, who would never do anything to piss you off and do everything exactly right and exactly like you want it - that's not going to happen. People are imperfect, and they are imperfect in a myriad different ways. There's no way a real person would be exactly perfect complement to all your wishes. The real test is whether you want to stay together despite all the rough spots. When it's obvious to you that what you're getting out of the relationship vastly exceeds the blemishes.
And yes, a part of you wants excitement and novelty. But you can find it in other things. Part of you would be scared at the thought of spending the rest of your life (or at least a very very long portion of it) with the same person. But if you feel good around this person, maybe it's not that bad an idea, actually? As a person who's been married for over 20 years, you can't keep the excitement of the first years on the same level, but you can transform it into different forms and different things. Of course, it's on you to decide if this relationship is what you actually want. But you should also be realistic and not expect things that can not happen, and be ready for work and frustrations which are a normal part of life and relationship. Don't be afraid of doubts, but also be honest with yourself and recognize what your true feelings and needs are.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
The children angle is always, always, always BS. Any child old enough to have interest in b00bz and unfiltered access to the internet will find it. Especially in a Western country where internet access is everywhere. Ones with filtered access will likely find it too (they have friends, etc.) Shit I grew up before internet and I had access to porn as a teen too (pretty shitty quality, but still). Nobody will be hurt by it. Parents who are more honest just say they support this shit because they are lazy and want the government to do it so they won't have to educate their children and deal with it (yes, I have had multiple real people tell me that). But again, that's not why it's being done from the top. It's to establish a foothold for censoring any information on the internet. If we already have a setup for censoring porn, why not use it for censoring "vaccine misinformation" or "election misinformation" or "untrustworthy sites spreading foreign propaganda that threatens our democracy"? It's always has been, is and will be about control over information. Children is just a convenient excuse to get the foot in the door.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Don't worry, I know the story of the Spanish flu. Still, it was named so because people thought it came from Spain, even though later it was found out not to be true. So, again the tradition was supported.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
WTF is that? who came up with that?
Ah, diseases used to be named by places where they are first discovered (Ebola, Marburg, Spanish flu, West Nile virus, Zika, MERS, Lyme, etc.) But when the deplorables started using "Wuhan flu", the left declared it racist because naming anything bad after anything non-Western is clearly white suprematism, so they renamed it to COVID (which is an awful name since it means "coronavirus disease" and there are tons of coronaviruses which can cause all sorts of diseases, but anything not to be racist). They also renamed "monkeypox" to m-pox because mentioning monkeys is somehow racist too (don't ask, I have no idea).
BTW can confirm denial of medical services during the pandemic panic. Fortunately, in my wife's case we were able to find a less insane provider and also the services we needed didn't require a lot of personal attention, most of it could be managed by email, so it ended up well, but the state of utter panic and disarray which was everywhere among people who were supposed to know better and serve as guardians for the masses (I know, way too naive) is something I will never forget.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
these borders were made up by the Soviets and didn’t matter
As opposed to other borders that were directly proclaimed by God in a holy revelation? Of course all borders are made up by humans who were in charge of making borders at that time, there's literally no other option. Concluding from that that they don't matter is just saying "I am the sole authority on declaring borders because I am the only person whose opinion matters".
Most charitably, people seem to infer this based on his starting a war and speaking of history
You're saying it as if deriving the intentions of the person from his convictions and his actions is somehow a dirty trick, while believing his words - a words of known and repeated liar - is the only way to know the truth. Of course the real situation is the opposite - it is very easy to lie when speaking directly about one's intentions. However, it's very hard to hide your true intentions consistently through all the pattern of your actions, your references, your interests, your convictions and your propaganda - even if you could do the job convincingly, that would just have the effect of hindering your true efforts, because you henchmen and your subjects would also think the opposite of your true intentions if you're so good. But usually the actual intention shines through well enough, and in Putin's case it definitely does. While literally recreating precisely the borders of the Russian Empire (which btw were never stable anyway) is not the goal, certainly recovering it's former glory is, and any territory that has been owned by it is considered as valid target (even if some currently inaccessible).
Less charitably it’s a deliberate distortion to make the bad man appear even more bad.
Or, on your side, to make the bad man less bad out of contrarianism. I understand it's tempting to think if the state propaganda says Putin is bad then it probably isn't that bad. The tragic fact is he's worse.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Yeah the kraut (sauerkraut) is seriously undervalued in America. It's super tasty if done right, goes with almost any savory food, can be self-made easily and cheaply (which is good because if you can even find it in store it's usually subpar), keeps very well and is a pretty healthy food.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Many religions already have done this. I'm not sure what could move me to think I could be any better at this than God.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Well, the common wisdom in the Dem party has been that Biden is the albatross around their neck, and they'd surely lose the election if he keeps running. That's why they booted him after all. So, after that happened, there was a certain bump of excitement, as befits the removal of albatross from one's neck. However, the problem is while Kamala is the "logical" successor by the internal logic of partisan mechanics, she still is a completely horrible candidate, with negative charisma, no original ideas (and her un-original ideas make AOC seem conservative) and an annoying habit of launching into an irritating cackle when she doesn't know what to say, which is very often. Objectively, she is a bad candidate and her performance in the past elections proved that. However, now that she has been anointed, the party machine has no choice but to line up behind her and power through, to whatever end there would be. And make no mistake, the Dems have a powerful machine which should not be underestimated. We know they can elect a candidate which has been formerly charismatic but now running on mere fumes of the old brainpower. Can they elect a candidate which is as anti-charismatic as Kamala? I don't know, but it's not about excitement, it's about power and execution of this power. This power will be applied in multiple routes, regardless of Kamala's personality which will be only sparsely shown. E.g. the Russian collusion is back, did you hear? Probably some sexual accusation of Vance will pop up too (too late for Trump I assume). It may swing some votes, in general I think very little of what's going to happen for the next two months would be about her and a lot would be about power.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Here's a fresh example of using funding power to coerce a red state to change their policy: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2024/09/04/scotus-blocks-oklahoma-federal-family-planning-funds-amid-abortion-fight-n2644339
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Why didn't Biden use this power against Abbott when Texas defied the federal government on the border?
First of all, Texas didn't really do anything substantial. The border is still largely non-existent and the migrants are still pouring in. Second, SCOTUS and Republican house are still there, for now. Third, Texas is a big state which may be harder to make to bend the knee. Smaller red states could be much easier. Texas would probably be the last to go, and likely will fall from the inside rather than the outside.
they do not actually seem to relish a fight that costs them casualties
Which fight would that be? They don't need to make army to invade Texas. They just need to restructure subsidies and pork spending and Republicans that are too feisty suddenly find themselves unelectable because they can no longer bring home the bacon. No casualties necessary.
Rittenhouse ended the Kenosha riots single-handedly, after all.
He didn't. 1000+ National Guard deployment did.
I doubt they will relish going door-to-door in Texas or Arkansas, and I doubt they can make the locals do it for them.
How many locals refused the lockdowns and the mask mandates? That was a trial run. Most complied. Seriously, I've seen people wearing masks on the street as late as 2023, and this is a deep red area. They will comply the next time too.
And btw, if anybody on the right gets some ideas about "shifting the probabilities toward collapse of centralized authority" - that would be the left's wettest dream of all. Now they need to wait for China to make a suitable virus or to invent some bullshit threats involving FBI entrapping a bunch of idiots, but if they get a real, genuine thing... They will use it to scare the population so shitless that they will agree to literally anything just for the nightmare to end. They are good at it, judging by the results. And terrified people are very easy to herd.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Could be. So they are much closer to early commie sci-fi - especially Soviet - which also often was very bravura and optimistic. Woke though naturally would tend to be much darker and depressing.
JarJarJedi
2mo ago
Right now there are mainly three venues, as I see, that Republicans can resist. First: SCOTUS, which is the most powerful, even if the slowest and least sure way, and its power means it's going to be destroyed first.
Second: electing Republicans that are capable of blocking Dems in Congress, in numbers that enable that. With filibuster pretty much gone, and Republicans still unable to figure out how to counter things like mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, and completely incapable of handling lawyer superpredators like Elias, this option's time seems to be running out quickly. Oh yes, and if Big Tech keeps its informational war against the Right - and I see no reason why they wouldn't - it means reaching the masses necessary to make cheating impossible, and delivering message consistent enough to entice them, is extremely hard. Not many normies read Gab and TruthSocial (and tbh things happening there aren't always good for convincing normies, either). Musk helps but it won't be enough - and with enough force deployed, Musk will fall too. If 2024 elections would resemble 2020 in any way, this option is out.
Third: red states conducting independent policies and blocking federal Dems. This is also a weak option and becomes weaker once SCOTUS falls, because this means state rights are gone, Constitution is a living document, and Feds can do anything they want. Plus, many states have been long dependent on massive federal funding grants, and threatening to pull those would politically kill any local Republican that becomes too uppity. So yes, these things are reinforcing each other, each of them makes resisting others harder. Please tell me which venues of resistance I am missing.
The problem with this is that a considerable portion of their opposition will not give up, that escalation can and will invalidate all advantages of the snowball,
What kind of escalation you are talking about? Strolling through Capitol again and getting 8 years in jail for that? I am not sure it's as scary for Dems as some may think.
Russia is kind of an anomaly here. I think the Left has been generally rather friendly towards Russia (remember "the 80s called and want their foreign policy back"?) until somebody thought it'd be a brilliant move to declare Trump a foreign agent (which is BTW so Russian thing to do it is not even funny) and whose foreign agent could he be? Iran and China obviously don't fit, but Russia fits just fine. Trump was not openly hostile to it, nobody in the US knows much about Russian politics, and Russia is big enough that they have spies in the West (as do Iran and China, of course, but it's not the time to talk about those) which could be revealed at the right moment as a proof of whatever nefarious plan is necessary. I think that's when Russia suddenly became a huge enemy of the Left.
More options
Context Copy link