erwgv3g34
My Quality Contributions:
User ID: 240
There are tons of children's movies that deal with the permanent death of a beloved character as a major part of the story: Bambi (1942), Old Yeller (1957), Charlotte's Web (1973), The Hobbit (1977), The Land Before Time (1988), The Lion King (1994), Antz (1998), The Princess and the Frog (2009), Summer Wars (2009), etc. They still have happy endings, but the fundamental message is that death is a natural part of life and we need to accept it and learn to move forward despite our losses. Why not show her one of those?
Yes, they are a little old, but that doesn't mean they are bad. The great thing about little kids is that YOU control what they watch, not them. If you think the media of your past is what made you who you are today, why not restrict her to that media? What is your daughter going to do, take out a Disney+ subscription on her credit card?
From "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" by AntiDem:
First, as the leftists used to say, “Kill Your Television”. I am not one who generally thinks that machines are inherently evil. Television is an exception. It is no more and no less than a hypnotic mind control device. Don’t believe me? Sit a hyperactive toddler in front of a television and watch what happens. They freeze, turn away from everything they were doing, and stare at the screen. Gavin McInnes once noted that the “on” switch of his television was an “off” switch for his kids, and so it is. Do you think this device does not place ideas in the minds of those who fall into a trance in its presence? And what ideas do you think the Hollywood/New York axis wishes to place there? I recall reading one account of a father who, tired of his two under-10 daughters’ bratty attitudes, limited their television viewing to a DVD box set of Little House on The Prairie. The change in his daughters’ behavior was dramatic – within a couple of weeks, they were referring to him and his wife as “Ma” and “Pa”, and offering to help with chores. The lesson is obvious: people (and especially children) learn their social norms from television, far more even than from the people around them.
Ideally, one would cut oneself off from it totally. Many find this rather difficult (I must admit, myself included at times). Some keep a television set, but make sure it is disconnected from broadcast channels and use it only as a monitor for a carefully-selected library of DVDs. Others (myself included) don’t own a set, but download a few select programs from torrent sites and watch on laptops or tablets. My total viewership of television programs tops out at perhaps 3-4 hours per week during particularly good seasons. Any traditionalist should strive to do the same. In fact, traditionalists should reject – should “drop out” of – all popular culture (especially that produced after, say, 1966) to the greatest degree possible, and make sure their children are exposed to it as little as possible. Music, video games, even the web – either drop out of it completely, or, at very least, carefully limit the time and scope of it in your life and the lives of your children.
And from "Culture Is Not About Esthetics" by Gwern Branwen:
Or consider another medium: movies. Have you seen the IMDB’s Top 250 movies? There are excellent movies in there. Some are profound, others moving, and not a few profoundly moving. Why are you going to watch Transformers 2 or Ice Age 3? For entertainment value? But there are movies in that list which are far more entertaining, I assure you.
Even if you’ve seen the top 50, there’s another 200 to choose from. If you think the IMDB is too faddish and Internet-centric, there’s no shortage of other lists - the New York Times would be happy to tell you all about “The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made” (6 years at 3 movies a week). And what about television? If we ask IMDB about movies by year or all the movies and TV episodes it knows about, it’s happy to tell us: 1,111,244 episodes; 263,524 movies; and 1,920,757 works in total (as of 2011-06-28). We can also look at movie production over time, where we find that as early as 1917 (109 ya) there were 5,490 movies made. (A current estimate for the EU is “1100 features and 1400 shorts per year”.) So even if we got in at the beginning, we never had a chance at watching so much as a small fraction.
Here’s a thought problem: suppose an intensive study revealed, authoritatively, that removing all subsidies and ‘intellectual property rights’ would cause movie production to fall by 95%. Would you regard that as a disaster, something to be decried and abhorred and legislated against? I suspect so. Suppose the study found that, specifically, this 95% fall was composed partially of movies never getting made, but also partially of movies getting made and then lost or never distributed or never shown at all (perhaps because in the absence of copyright, pirates would undercut them and take all profits); would this change your opinion much? Probably not for the better - if anything, it’s even more horrifying, in the same way almost winning the lottery but missing by 1 number is more saddening than missing it by 2 numbers.
But the interesting thing is that this is already happening: less than 5% of movies are available to the public[23], and only around 10% of silent films survive in any sense anywhere[24]. So that 95% fall has already happened; civilization seems to have survived[25]. (A reflection on the ‘movie canon’: if you believe the canon is aesthetically invalid and has not successfully picked out the best movies made, then that implies anywhere up to 90% of the best movies ever made are lost forever to you.)
[23] “…But tragically, some of the world’s strangest movies will never be available on DVD at all. The TCM database estimates that only 4.8% of all films ever made are currently available to the public. Though the Internet has been invaluable in finding strange and forgotten relics, some films, whether through accident, disaster or perceived disinterest, have been lost or temporarily displaced.” –io9, “Weird and Wonderful Movies That You’ll Never Get to See”
[24] “Pandora’s digital box: Pix and pixels”, quoting Jan-Christopher Horak, Director, UCLA Film and Television Archive.
[25] Of course, one could argue that there is something uniquely optimal and special about the current existing level of movie production, such that this invisible 95% fall is acceptable but another 95% fall would be cataclysmic. I hope the reader understands that this is a deeply untrustworthy position to take (and they should read the Bostrom link on the ‘status quo bias’) - I’d parody this argument as “oh, that 95% fall is OK because it still leaves us a number of movies which is bigger than some-number-I-made-up-just-now-based-on-the-information-you’ve-provided-me; but another 95% fall, well, that’d just be madness!”
erwgv3g34
14hr ago
I mean, yes, obviously? What's next, are you going to point out that the survey is (4682+121)/(4682+121+610+21) = 88% men? Come on.
erwgv3g34
14hr ago
Ravenclaw, obviously (unless muggle realism damns me to Slytherin). I suspect most of us would go there, this being a rationalist site and all.
erwgv3g34
1d ago
Watched Destination Moon (1950) by George Pal.
Astounding! I had doubts that this film could measure up to Pal's later When Worlds Collide (1951), since the stakes are much lower (winning the space race versus the end of the world), but the movie made up for it with its incredible scientific realism.
The astronauts endure take-off in acceleration couches to withstand the increased gravity during boosting, but spend most of the trip weightless, held to the surfaces of the ship by magnetic boots, then turn around and deaccelerate for the moon landing.
Reaction mass is always correctly referred to as such, not as fuel (which they presumably have a virtually unlimited supply of, this being an atomic motor). I chuckled when it was explained that the reaction mass is water, and that the rocket works by heating it up and expelling the resulting steam; in other words, it's boiling water again.
They even included the speed-of-light delay for communications with Earth! This is why it pays to hire a hard science-fiction author when you are writing your screenplay (Robert Heinlein worked on the script).
The highlight of the film for me was the Woody Woodpecker scene, "one of Hollywood's best known actors", which our heroes play during their pitch to explain the physics behind the journey. I'm a huge animation fan, and that bit was completely unexpected. Again, completely scientifically accurate.
I was amused by the fact that bureaucracy and regulation was a problem even in the 50s! "I will be [out of my mind] if we run into any more red tape. Now look... There's no law against taking off a spaceship. It's never been done, so it's not been prohibited. If we ask for permission, they'll find a way to block us. So we go now!" Of course, the problem is much worse now.
The special effects mostly hold up well, using practical tricks like dressing up a floor to look like a wall and rotating the angle to let the astronauts walk on walls with their magnetic boots. The only exception is the floating pill, which looks ridiculous; they should have just mimed it.
One of the greatest science fiction movies ever made. Highly recommended.
erwgv3g34
4d ago
OsmAnd, which uses OpenStreetMap data, is the main alternative. The free version only lets you download or update maps 7 times (you are supposed to have at least one map and update it monthly) before you have to upgrade to the paid version, but if you download F-Droid (a third-party app store for Android) then you can install the paid version for free.
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You don't need to make firms hire men whenever possible. You just need to stop punishing firms for not hiring women and let the market solve things. Or do you think companies want to hire people who are prone to maternity leave and sexual harassment lawsuits?
erwgv3g34
5d ago
Been loving this show. Banger opening, with lots of references for cinephiles. Pretty unique; you don't often see an anime like this (closest would be Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt or Tokyo Godfathers). Yani Neko reminds me of my sister (I hate my sister). Most people think best girl is either Yaku Neko or Kansai, but I disagree; best girl is clearly Hame Neko (DFC, certified virgin, gamer girl, only problems are bladder control and anger issues which is pretty mild compared to most of the cast). And, yes, watching it with the rest of the internet as it gets released has been a trip; I guess that's why people prefer consuming new media?
erwgv3g34
6d ago
Most guys want tits and ass, big as can be
It's more complicated than that. Men want curves, yes, but we also want thinness. What we are actually trying to maximize is something like the breast to waist ratio. Which is why images like this are a male superstimulus.
That's a good point. She aged very quickly during the first couple of movies, and by Prisoner of Azkaban basically looks the same way she will look as an adult, whereas before she looked more cute and innocent.
You know what? So long as we're dropping HP hot takes here, I might as well say it; Philosopher's Stone Pansy Parkinson is insanely hot. Totally mogs Philosopher's Stone Emma Watson, and pretty much any other actress in the series except maybe Order of the Phoenix Evanna Lynch.
erwgv3g34
6d ago
Yes, thank you! I'd personally put the peak a little later than you (16 rather than 13, to give more time for breasts and hips to develop, which is not to say that 13-year-old girls are unattractive) but it is ridiculous the we are all forced to pretend that a woman's attractiveness peaks in her twenties. No, that's bullshit. Doubly so because, by then, there is a negligible chance that she is still a virgin, and virginity is in one of the things men are most attracted to.
I'd much rather marry the 13-year-old Emma Watson, who is going to grow up into the 16-year-old Emma Watson anyway, than a 25-year-old Emma Watson. More fertility-years and attraction-years that way, and more chance (which is to say any chance) of a hymen.
From "How to Say Nothing in 500 Words" by Paul Roberts:
CALL A FOOL A FOOL
Some of the padding in freshman themes is to be blamed not on anxiety about the word minimum but on excessive timidity. The student writes, “In my opinion, the principal of my high school acted in ways that I believe every unbiased person would have to call foolish.” This isn't exactly what he means. What he means is, “My high school principal was a fool.” If he was a fool, call him a fool. Hedging the thing about with “in-my-opinion's” and “it-seems-to-me's” and “as-I-see-it's” and “at-least-from-my-point-of-view's” gains you nothing. Delete these phrases whenever they creep into your paper.
And from "Rationality and the English Language" by Eliezer Yudkowsky:
If you really want an artist’s perspective on rationality, then read Orwell; he is mandatory reading for rationalists as well as authors. Orwell was not a scientist, but a writer; his tools were not numbers, but words; his adversary was not Nature, but human evil. If you wish to imprison people for years without trial, you must think of some other way to say it than “I’m going to imprison Mr. Jennings for years without trial.” You must muddy the listener’s thinking, prevent clear images from outraging conscience. You say, “Unreliable elements were subjected to an alternative justice process.”
One of the worse things about The Motte is how the moderation pushes people into writing verbose, obfuscated, bloodless posts in order to avoid getting punished for being uncivil or writing a low-effort post. Words words words should not be a requirement of a good comment.
erwgv3g34
7d ago
A poetry reciting orc isn't so strange, they may be crude, but they are still intelligent beings with cultures of their own, they even come up with and sing songs.
Missed opportunity to link to the biggest banger in Middle-earth.
Nobody is going to be clamoring for this once you say the word "nuclear". People are terrified of nuclear power; they think every plant is a Chernobyl waiting to happen.
erwgv3g34
7d ago
Strong disagree. The Harry Potter movies are AWFUL. They are like a highlights reel of all the books' best action and dramatic moments (or entirely invented action and dramatic moments, like the burning of the Burrow) without any of the plot threads or character development that actually make those moments MEAN something. They are impossible to follow if you have never read the novels.
Only the first two are good, precisely because they stick close to the source material.
erwgv3g34
7d ago
There was already a perfectly good Hobbit movie; there was no need for another one.
But, of course, the Lord of the Rings trilogy made a billion dollars each, and asking Hollywood not to make a sequel to a commercially successful film is like asking the scorpion not to sting.
HBD is not just about intelligence. And, no, I don't mean distance running or altitude breathing; I mean other mental traits.
Intelligence is easy mode, both because we have a test to measure it (IQ testing is the single most successful result in psychology) and because it is easy to say that someone should not be penalized just for being born dumb if they are morally praiseworthy in other areas; that the kind, hardworking janitor still deserves respect and a good life even if he still counts on his fingers. That is, indeed, a core socialist argument for why CEOs should not get paid much more than unskilled labor.
Bur, of course, HBD is also about conscientiousness (or executive function, or grit, or whatever the hell they are calling it now), and propensity to violence, and time preference, and so on. It's another thing entirely to say that a lazy, violent janitor deserves the same good life and social admiration as a CEO. But the shape of the argument is exactly the same. Therefore, proves too much.
erwgv3g34
10d ago
When has a young biological woman ever carried out a cold blooded mass-murder style school shooting with a "military-style" weapon?
Does Cleveland Elementary count? The Ruger 10/22 has seen limited use with the IDF for policing the State of Palestine.
erwgv3g34
10d ago
Agreed. Claude Opus 4.6 is the GOAT; everything since then has been a downgrade.
Well, OK, Fable 5 is better for non-censored stuff, but that's not a fair fight; Fable is in a higher weight class than Opus (literally).
erwgv3g34
12d ago
You really can't conclude anything from trying the free tiers. The difference between Sonnet and Fable is like the difference between a random Baen milSF novel and Ender's Game or Starship Troopers.
Never has the saying "you get what you pay for" been more true than with AI.
If you go around feeling bad each time you manage to kill an enemy soldier, you will never win the war. Bryan Caplan's missing mood is just not realistic human psychology.
erwgv3g34
14d ago
You're right. That bit of evopsych wouldn't have fit an /r/rational review, but I should have mentioned it here.
A lot of people think the girls are stupid for climbing the tower in the first place, but I'd file that under "the utility function is not up for grabs". Like I said, they are adrenaline junkies; they think life has no meaning unless you are willing to risk it all.
Everything that happens after they get trapped is the opposite of a coffee moment.
Cross-posted from /r/rational:
Fall (2022 Film): When two best friends who climb a 2,000-foot-tall television broadcasting tower become stranded at the top, it is up to them to think of a way out.
Holy shit.
When I put on Fall this afternoon, I was expecting another random Netflix movie; low-budget, second screen dialogue, ham-fisted politics, etc. But it was about to leave the platform, and I've always been a sucker for stories about characters trapped in a survival situation, so I decided to give it a chance. I was not expecting... this.
The movie begins with a trio of adrenaline junkies climbing a cliff. They consist of married couple Dan and Becky and their friend Hunter. Unfortunately, Dan has an accident and falls to his death. A year later, Becky is an alcoholic mess, still unable to deal with Dan's passing. Hunter, who has since become a YouTuber, persuades Becky to climb an abandoned television tower with her and spread Dan's ashes as a way of moving on. Inevitably, things go wrong, and the girls get stuck on top of the antenna. It is now up to them to find a way out before they succumb to thirst, hunger, exposure, wildlife, or simply fall off the edge.
Okay, so right off the bat I was impressed by the way the girls reacted to their predicament like level 1 intelligent characters. They remain calm, or at least as calm as they can realistically be under the circumstances, and they keep looking for ways out. They don't break down crying or get into emotional fights or throw down precious resources in a fit of rage to create a dramatic moment. This already makes them better than most Hollywood movies.
But what made me post this on /r/rational proper instead of the Monday Recommendation Thread is when the characters started solving problems with previously foreshadowed materials and mechanics. Not just things that were mentioned once briefly, but things that were mentioned over and over again or were given prominent focus. For example, Hunter's push-up bra is brought up early, and her huge tits take up a lot of screen time, but it is not just fanservice;
On top of that, they are fucking awesome. Hunter is great from the beginning, encouraging Becky to get out of her funk and doing crazy stunts like hanging off from the tower's platform one-handed. Once things get serious, she is the one doing risky maneuvers to increase their chances of survival, like
And then there is all the other things. The dialogue is very strong, naturalistic and witty; no second screen here. The girls had great chemistry, to the point where I kept wondering if they were going to lez out. The background shots are gorgeous, with luscious visuals from 2000 feet in the air. The film has a great sense of tension; it's basically r/SweatyPalms: The Movie. And the music was just right, from the diegetic cellphone videos to the credit sequence.
Flaws? The twist that
TL;DR: This movie is fucking awesome and you should watch it immediately before it leaves Netflix.
Other movies I have watched recently:
The Last House (2026): Again, I have a weakness for isolated survival movies. But this one was a disappointment. I couldn't take the disaster seriously (everyone is locked up inside by magic rain), a lot of the survival stuff is opaque (like the building of traps and weapons), and the ending displays the worst tendencies @KulakRevolt called out in "Hollywood Anti-Justice: The Morality of Modern Depravity". At least the CGI was decent. Only reason to watch this film is if you are into WMAF couples (with children, even!).
Labyrinth (1986): Watched this one more because it was an old fantasy movie than for any other reason. Huge letdown. The special effects mostly hold up (except the battle against the robot gate guard, which seems to happen in slow motion) but the writing is atrocious. The supernatural elements get introduced with no buildup, the protagonist is an annoying brat who does nothing to make me root for her, there are no rules which means anything can happen which means I have no reason to care what happens (at one point, the Goblin King alters his own arbitrary deadline!), etc. The most interesting thing to appear onscreen is a basic-bitch knights and knaves puzzle. Maybe if I was a tween girl who could shlick to David Bowie's enormous package I would have enjoyed it more, but I'm not.
erwgv3g34
15d ago
The Mormons are not Red Tribe. From "I Can Tolerate Anything except the Outgroup":
The Red Tribe is most classically typified by conservative political beliefs, strong evangelical religious beliefs, creationism, opposing gay marriage, owning guns, eating steak, drinking Coca-Cola, driving SUVs, watching lots of TV, enjoying American football, getting conspicuously upset about terrorists and commies, marrying early, divorcing early, shouting “USA IS NUMBER ONE!!!”, and listening to country music.
Does that sound like a Mormon to you?
Funny you should mention Evelyn Carnahan. I was browsing the top posts in the sub when I came across "What is 'Romance for Men?' Go Watch 'The Mummy Returns'". And my immediate reaction to that title was "this is obviously bullshit, but I'm going to take a look just to see the argument". So I started reading and... turns out, it wasn't bullshit. By the time I was finished, the guy had convinced me; The Mummy Returns is an /r/Romance_For_Men GOAT.
Godzilla Minus One was SO ridiculous. The movie sacrificed one emotional death (FMC's ), one character development (the natural story arc is for MC to finally redeem himself for his cowardice by carrying out a successful kamikaze mission on Godzilla ), and one dramatically satisfying ending (the threat is gone ) on the altar of a sequel hook.
I means, tons of movies have sequel hooks, but they are usually schlock; Godzilla Minus One hurts because it was so good. It's like if Titanic had ended with an elderly Rose suddenly opening her eyes, startled, then the camera zooms into her window for a menacing shot of the same iceberg that sank the ship all those years ago!
More options
Context Copy link