site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3547 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for November 24, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I suppose "place vs place, japan" is a common enough meme. Just have a look at the meme, it's easier than me having to type out an explanation.

I don't really relate to the main idea that people are overly enthusiastic about Japanese things, just because they are Japanese. I do think Japan has uniquely beautiful places, I like JDM cars for reasons other than the J, I actually think sushi tastes good, etc.

The meme generalizes to <thing/place> vs <coveted thing/place>.

For example this instance of the meme. The bottom location doesn't exist. But Ushuaia, Argentina is actually real. Both its landscape and cityscape are very similar to Scandinavia. The crazy part is, that my eyes know what's real, but my brain is tricking me, despite knowing otherwise. When I see the bottom picture from "Norway", I think along the lines of "wow that's a beautiful place, I wish I could visit one day", whilst I see the exact place in Argentina and think "It's alright I guess?". Of course, the context aids the preference, wine from the more expensive bottle tastes better even if it was switched with boxed wine, you get the idea. But I'm surprised that I would fall for it, post revelation. I thought those wine tasters were lizard-brained simpletons.

So what are your lesser known examples of Place vs Place,Japan?

One of my gotos are Swiss Alps vs Kashmir, Pakistan/India. Equally beautiful, and order of magnitude cheaper and less well known. (There are many alpine resorts all over Central Asia in Pakistan, Kazakhstan and other stans, and they are all dirt cheap relative to similar locations in EU and NA.)

I was a digital nomad for over a year. I grew a bit desensitized to the place vs place, Japan thing. One of the first things I noticed was that when I was walking around a foreign country, everything seemed magical just because I knew I was in a foreign place, but eventually I started to realize that things aren't always super special just because it's foreign. Sometimes the small things are just small differences and don't really have any meaning. When I started traveling I was really annoyed with the US so every difference I would see I would make up some story to myself about how it's so much better than in America. Eventually I developed a better and more keen sense of where things lie and I can appreciate differences in culture and aesthetics while understanding the downsides to differences as well. I still enjoy traveling overseas and exploring new cultures but I think the most important thing I learned is to respect whatever I see everywhere I go, whether that's a foreign country or my small hometown.

Exploring more of Asia also brought greater perspective on the Japan thing as well, having been to Thailand and South Korea I feel like I understand Japan better and can see it more for what it is. I was always a total weeaboo for a long time and visited Japan a few times growing up but stayed there for three months recently and it was great to live there while working from my computer but having been to Seoul it's easy to see how the stagnating economy has been hurting Japan, compared to the up to date and high tech vibe of South Korea which Japan used to have a few decades ago.

Speaking as a designer I will say that Japanese aesthetics and design are objectively better than in most of the world though. There is something different about the sense of space in Japan and attention to detail that I find really attractive to the country.

To directly address the question you posed, what are some lesser known examples of place vs place, Japan?

I think the Appalachian mountains are ridiculously beautiful and extremely underrated. Every time I drive through West Virginia I'm impressed by the scenery. I would consider moving to the region.

The Detroit Rule

Detroit pizza is probably my favorite pizza style.

Would you have thought that if you were just hearing about it for the first time? Because to me it sounds like a euphemism for a manhole cover, or a circular piece of cardboard covered in bandaids, gum and used condoms.

It reminds me of that part of the movie Stripes where Bill Murray brings home a pizza that fell topping side down onto the street.

So what are your lesser known examples of Place vs Place,Japan?

My toilet vs "Toilet", Japan. Indian toilets come with bidets as standard, and believe me you don't need them to come with all the bells and whistles the Japanese ones do if your primary concern is getting your butthole squeaky clean.

I live in Dubai, I know how useful those hand canons are lol.

I like that you gave the example of India. It is filled with instances of "place vs place". If anything, Kashmir is the more recognized version of 'place vs place' within India. Kashmir is well known, but the political instability around the region has made it difficult to recommend as a tourist place.

Kolikkumalai India vs NaPali Hawaii.

The western ghats, eastern 7-sisters and Himalayan areas are seriously underexplored.

I especially see the 'place vs place' phenomenon with food.

Pate, Escargots, Foie Gras & Caviar are all seen as delicacies. On the other hand, goat brain (bheja), frogs legs, tripe, gizzards, etc. are all seen as disgusting offal eaten by barbarians.

I see a similar trend in American Carnival food vs east-asian street food. Indulgent street food vs shitty gas station food. Korean street food gets praised to high heaven, while the exact same stuff in the USA gets made fun of for being hill-billy food.

I'm going to leap to the defense of frog legs. I've had them in America and in China and they were good both times. If you like eating chicken meat off the bone, it's the same thing.

I am much less enthused about the pig kidneys and intestines that I ate. No thank you. That should be fed to dogs.

Fully agree on frogs legs.

Objectively a better chicken and wont be convinced otherwise.

Dunno about pig offal, but chicken liver takes amazing. It's my home town delicacy. I also cook really great gizzards, but theyre admitedly work.

Haggis is the mosy disgusting thing in planet earth and i really did give it a fair try.

Chicken liver mousse is great. I can't recommend it enough.

I was quite surprised years ago to find what we used to call corn dogs at the local (Japanese) convenience store, just up the aisle from the riceballs and sushi.

They're called American Dogs here.

The cheesy (meaning, made of mostly cheese) Korean Hattogu is a bizarre twist I would expect from the shittiest of the state fairs of my youth. But there people are, eating them for Instagram likes (or BeReal likes, that seems to be the newer thing.)

India is kind of like a mini US in the fact that it contains so many biomes ranging from deserts to rainforests to alpine tundra all within its borders.

The mountainous regions of South India are especially overlooked relative to the beauty of the landscapes and how much people pay to travel to similar or worse destinations elsewhere in the world. Kodaikanal looks like its a different planet.

Hardly any good beaches I'm afraid, and I've been to most. In contrast, my recent trip to Thailand had me blown away by how picturesque the beach and emerald waves were, it's like they threw a photoshop filter on reality there. The closest could be the beaches on the Andaman islands, but they're within spitting distance of Thailand anyway.

That's entirely ignoring the maintenance of most beaches, they're not usually clean.

I've seen enough nature documentaries to reflexively avoid all water features in the tropical Indo-Pacific. I like not having to worry about if that pretty seashell on the beach will kill me thank you very much.

To be fair, Thailand seems to have some of the best beaches in the world. The part that surprises me most about India is how many beaches we have, and how almost all of them are heavily 'used' (abused?). (to put it politely).

1.4 people and nature do not go well together.

In Thailand I’m always surprised how, even in tourist shitholes full of drunk Russians in Phuket, the beaches are pristine. They’ve made a real effort and it’s paid off in spades, to have such beautiful and clean beaches even in cheap tourist destinations in a country much poorer than, say, the Greek islands or Florida (where authorities can brute force things by using huge tourism revenue to hire huge numbers of staff to keep things clean-ish) is impressive.

I'm starting to think you have a story to tell us about Phuket, given that you bring up multitudes of drunk Russians every time the topic of Thailand comes up.

I love Phuket and go almost every year for a few days on the back half of a roadshow we do in Asia. And, really, the drunk Russians are unavoidable (but often very charming). Less loutish than the Brits, typically.

Watched Hotel Mumbai, 7/10. The most memorable part is where the head chef encourages the hotel employees to stay and be slaughtered with the guests when they could have left, out of some ridiculous sense of duty and loyalty (“the guest is God”) . They are praised for this decision at the end.

As a leader, he has no business giving them that option. As a guest, the thought of someone pointlessly sacrificing themselves for me is sickening. Forget godhood, I can offer brotherhood. And what kind of man lets his brother throw his life away?

This sacrifice is in stark contrast with the tepid intervention of the police (who to be fair, are portrayed as completely out-armed and out-trained). Here, I could use some self-sacrifice. This predilection for passive sacrifice is morally harmful. Fight or flee, but for the love of all that is holy, do not lie down and share my fate.

I despise the idea that the Captain must go down with their ship. What's that going to achieve? Sure, their duty might incorporate sticking around as long as possible to arrange an evacuation, but when that's done, they don't have any responsibility to feed the fishes.

It's about skin in the game - Captains have responsibility for the ship, and therefore should accept the greatest risk, to keep them responsible.

Pointlessly suicidal demands that a captain literally go down with their ship exist, but they're outliers and often self-enforced (and sometimes overriden by other staff).

The phrase dates back to and probably originates from the Birkenhead Drill, where the ship could not float enough lifeboats for its crew and soldiers, and that as a result the officers commanded and demonstrated willingness to attempt a long (and for most, suicidal) swim to shore rather than swamp or overturn the lifeboats, resulting in a greater number of deaths.

In the modern day, (almost) all ships have enough lifeboats for an excess of passengers and crew: in these contexts, the demand is more than staff should remain until both all passengers have been disembarked (and the ship has been certainly lost, due to salvage law), closer to your preferred framework. However, spelling it out as potentially self-sacrificing is important: whether there are sufficient lifeboats and time to embark them, there remains a serious temptation for crew to save themselves while leaving their charges helpless. Passengers may not even be physically capable of the necessary actions to evacuate, nevermind have the knowledge of how or why to do so.

This is present even for other contexts, such as aviation, albeit in a lesser form. While there are exceptions for some types of incident where near-instant unsurvivable effects are likely to occur, both pilots and especially cabin crew are trained to evacuate as many passengers as their roles and positions in the plane allow before leaving themselves, and this matters.

That said, while I'm not very familiar with the 2008 Mumbai attacks, from what I've heard these causes don't really apply to hotel staff faced with spree killing terrorists.

God damn me.

I hate you both for your lack of culture.

When mustering for a march, it is customary to form up by hieght-line or "parade order", that is shortest to tallest with the shortest man (with the shortest legs) setting the pace for the company so the whole bloc stays together. However, for certain ceremonial circumstances it is customary to form up by "funeral order" that is youngest to oldest with the youngest at the front because this will be their first time. The famous (infamous?) command issued by Captain Salmond that later became known as "the Birkenhead drill" was to load the boats with women and the children first, and then to allocate any remaining seats by funeral order. The captain is the senior most, and (excepting an elderly passenger) often the oldest man on the ship. Being the last man off, even if it means going down with the ship, isn't pointless, it is setting a positive example.

Yeah, Birkenhead drills are far broader than just "the captain goes down with the ship" or "women and children first". In aviation, the phrase is used to not just mean a duty to passengers, but also civilians on the ground.

But I think it's important to spell out that it's not just setting a positive example, but that it did so in a way that probably saved over a hundred lives at Birkenhead, directly.

Sorry that was supposed to be one level up.

However, spelling it out as potentially self-sacrificing is important: whether there are sufficient lifeboats and time to embark them, there remains a serious temptation for crew to save themselves while leaving their charges helpless. Passengers may not even be physically capable of the necessary actions to evacuate, nevermind have the knowledge of how or why to do so.

One recent example of that is of course Costa Concordia, whose captain Francesco Schettino ran her aground while getting frisky with an exotic dancer and was the first one to evacuate. The crew, left without a leader, bungled the evacuation.

I found this entertaining and interesting enough that I've watched it like five times: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9KBwqGxTI&ab_channel=InternetHistorian

The MV Sewol is another case, and one with both more egregiously bad behavior by the crew, and an even steeper death toll.

wiki:

Schettino said he left the ship when it turned over, and that he fell into a lifeboat
[...]
the on-duty Italian Coast Guard commander told Schettino, "Vada a bordo, cazzo!" ("Get on board, for fuck's sake!"), but Schettino did not do so and was one of the first to reach land.

lmao

I found this entertaining and interesting enough that I've watched it like five times: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9KBwqGxTI&ab_channel=InternetHistorian

Thanks, got some good laughs from that. Surpised the video didn't use the "this is fine" dog at any point.

align conflicting interests of the ship-owner with the person controlling the ship

Yeah, I don't see that working very well, certainly not enough to justify a needless death. Most captains are probably getting their ships sunk as little as feasible. Those who are feckless enough to not care probably aren't going to stay around except at gunpoint.

Consider why fighter pilots are given parachutes, surely they'd fly better if they knew they were guaranteed to go down with their jet?

aligning conflicting interests isn't "needless," it's an imposed cost and whether or not it's worth it is up to the parties involved, in this instance the person who owns the ship picking a captain to helm the ship

whether or not the death itself is necessary for the mores to accomplish some of its purpose is another question, the existence itself could preselect those who are better suited for the owner similar to Mutually Assured Destruction imposing an apprehension even if it's not actually followed through

if jets came about during a time when it took 6 months to a year to return the jet to the owner, I have little doubt there would be a similar tradition

additionally, given the likelihood hotel staff is ever put into the position to choose to die with the guests is extremely small, the benefit of instilling "the guest is God" in them likely have strong benefits with little costs the overwhelming vast majority of the time

traditions don't exist for the hell of it; this is chesterton's fence

aligning conflicting interests isn't "needless," it's an imposed cost and whether or not it's worth it is up to the parties involved, in this instance the person who owns the ship picking a captain to helm the ship

You can see that my claim is that the cost is grossly excessive to the benefit.

if jets came about during a time when it took 6 months to a year to return the jet to the owner, I have little doubt there would be a similar tradition

The current turnaround time for a new bleeding edge jet is measured in years, the pilots are expensive, the jets are ridiculously so. They still come with ejection seats.

additionally, given the likelihood hotel staff is ever put into the position to choose to die with the guests is extremely small, the benefit of instilling "the guest is God" in them likely have strong benefits with little costs the overwhelming vast majority of the time

And it's not possible to instill the belief that "the guest is God" without demanding that they die for them? What else might also be inculcated if the satisfaction of guests is elevated above all else, the staff expected to sleep with them or let them stay for free? There are obvious bounds on their hospitality.

traditions don't exist for the hell of it; this is chesterton's fence

I can only groan. As is the case for all fully-generalized counterarguments against doing anything ever, it counts as weak evidence for that claim. There are plenty of utterly retarded, harmful and destruction-worthy traditions, both that existed in the past, like sati, and those that exist today, like female genital mutilation.

If you put such a high premium on arguments from tradition, then I'll quote the reasoning of the British officials who put in place the ban on burning widows alive when their husbands passed:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.]

So my custom, as is the custom of the Rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries, is pointing out civilizational inadequacies and behaviors that have become maladaptive, assuming they were even good for anything in the first place.

Malpractice insurance works, offing doctors who failed to cure the Pharaoh didn't. So too for imposing legal or financial liabilities on ship's captains being reckless, not asking them to die for it.

the benefit is to align the confecting interests of ownership and control

my comment isn't an argument from tradition, it's a description of why the tradition exists which is not "it's been around a long time"

the purpose of chesterton's fence isn't to argue for the fence because it's been around a long time, it's that it exists for a reason and you need to understand why before you rip it down

you're arguing against a comment I didn't write

So my custom, as is the custom of the Rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries, is pointing out civilizational inadequacies and behaviors that have become maladaptive

"the rationalist movement in the many forms it has had over the centuries," is little more than destroyers who rip things down they don't fully understand, vastly overestimating their ability to predict the benefits and costs, ignoring the resulting costs or blaming it on others, and then claiming credit for any perceived benefit, redefining and recategorizing as necessary to achieve that narrative

Would it really be that easy to track down and enforce "legal liabilities" on a captain who lost/"lost" their ship back at that era?

The Royal Navy at its height automatically court-martialed every Captain who returned to the UK without his ship. The vast majority were, of course, acquitted. But given the social status of a captain, they were fairly easy to track down in practice.

I am not talking about "that era", I am talking about today.

And there was law enforcement back at the time, regardless of how difficult it was, desertion or dereliction of duty was very much punishable, and most often such people had families back home so they didn't have the luxury of being guaranteed to go off scott free.

I can't speak for India, but in Japan the hospitality trade takes itself very seriously. I could easily see a similar scenario playing out here, based on your loose description and myself not having seen the movie. It's interesting the strong reaction this seems to have produced.

I can't speak for India

I can, and I can assure you that close to ~100% of the hospitality staff are booking it in this scenario.

This sentiment is completely alien to me and every other right-thinking person. Like most here, upon my death I plan to reward my retinue by having them buried alongside me, alive if necessary, provided that they have taken every effort prior to my demise to lay down their own lives in service of my health and wellbeing.

However, if I am displaced from my retinue for whatever reason, an impromptu cadre of hotel employees will have to suffice - but I’ll grant them some measured appreciation in the hereafter for their necessary sacrifice.

an impromptu cadre of hotel employees will have to suffice

The only justification I've seen for mandatory tipping!

What are some of your favorite Christmas carols?

In preparation for Advent, I'm going to teach my kids some songs this year, and while we'll be doing the hokey kiddie stuff like Jingle Bells, I want to sing a few more serious and cool ones like Gaudete, Christus Est Natus or the Coventry Carol (okay, maybe we won't sing that one).

Also, tomorrow is the Feast of Christ the King. Here's an early happy liturgical new year to those following such things!

The Sussex Carol: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wxaLyJ5G4zM&pp=ygUbc3Vzc2V4IGNhcm9sIGtpbmcncyBjb2xsZWdl

Good King Wenceslas: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6QwOMUsPdyI?si=yeaNFIIlHw4d2FAp

If you want one a little less used, Angelum ad Virginem: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YrcnLtv_vLI?si=aTZyhFPsrX5b7IKi

And you can’t beat Hark the Herald Angels for pure bombast.

The First Noel it's a very abbreviated retelling of the Christmas story and is easy to sing for lay singers.

You know, I'm not sure what makes a Christmas song into a "carol" actually. I should look into it. Anyway: this Bing Crosby rendition of "Faith of Our Fathers" really moved me when I heard it. Great song with a nice message. I have this record and it sounds awesome on scratchy, poppy vinyl.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AEuGAEg1u7c?si=AJH_lvsce8kGH2lc

I always assumed the divide was secular vs religious. Most Christmas songs you hear around town seem to be romantic / sexual, which saddens me.

Your one seems to be about religion but not per se religious, so it’s interesting :)

carol

12 Days of Christmas

Jerusalem by Willam Blake & Hubert Parry (not a Christmas carol but still highly recommended)

The Happiest Christmas Tree.

I want a Hippopotamus for Christmas.

O Come, O Come Emmanuel.

The nativity Canon: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NAC-_gbLLPM

The sea monster spat out Jonah, like a newborn from the womb.

Hah, how many Greek orthodox are on this site anyway? ;)

For kids, O Little Town of Bethlehem is a good one.

I personally like In the Bleak Midwinter, but it is a bit...bleak.

  • Carol of the Bells
  • O Holy Night
  • Mary's Boy Child

I guess the latter two work better as solos, though.

Also, while your linked video of Gaudete is my second-favorite recording of that song, allow me to share an even better one.

I rather like Christmas carols, and I grew up learning a bunch at school and church, so I’ll give you a lot. First, some of the ones I learned as a child:

  • Adeste Fideles/O Come, All Ye Faithful
  • Angels We Have Heard on High
  • Away in a Manger
  • Ding Dong, Merrily on High
  • From Heaven Above to Earth I Come
  • God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen
  • Good King Wenceslaus
  • Hark! the Herald Angels Sing
  • I Saw Three Ships
  • In Dulci Jubilo
  • O Come, Little Children (Ihr Kinderlein Kommet)
  • O Holy Night
  • O How Joyfully (O Du Fröhliche)
  • O Little Town of Bethlehem
  • Silent Night
  • The First Noel
  • We Three Kings
  • What Child Is This

Kids tend to especially like “Angels We Have Heard” and “Ding Dong, Merrily” for the lengthy slurs in the refrains.

Others that I learned as an adult and rather like:

  • A Babe Is Born All of a Maid (this is also frequently set to a modern tune, but I vastly prefer the one I linked)
  • On This Day, Earth Shall Ring (Personent Hodie)
  • Sussex Carol
  • The Seven Joys of Mary

Then of course there are the many fantastic Advent hymns (O Come, O Come, Emmanuel; The Angel Gabriel from Heaven Came; Savior of the Nations, Come, etc.), and plenty of other good Christmas hymns that I wouldn’t consider quite carols.

I've been whistling Good King Wenceslaus to myself since Friday. Don't know why I started but... Can't stop...

It’s a great tune. Definitely not the worst earworm to have.

Soul Cake (The Souling Song)

God Rest You Merry Gentlemen

We Three Kings of Orient Are

Ive always had a special fondness for

I Saw Three Ships

And

We Three Kings

I expected that second link to take me to a movie about the Gulf War starring George Cloney and Ice Cube, but instead it was one of Markey Mark's old songs.

Still, not bad for a boy band.

You've made me yearn for a terrible, terrible cover of We Three Kings by George Clooney, Ice Cube and Mark Wahlberg.

Well, this isn't that, but ... I offer it to you in its absence.

Justin Bieber and Busta Rhymes? That isn't a lot if things

Who hasn't? It's a very compelling yearn.

I watched ‘Napoleon’. Dissident right Twitter is upset with it because it portrays Napoleon as a cuckold and they’ve decided they like him recently. There is some minor diversity like some of the senior officers and ladies maids improbably being black, but I didn’t think it was really a ‘woke’ picture.

Instead, the surprise seems to be that it’s mostly a comedy, except with some more traditional ‘action movie’ battle sequences (which I found enjoyable except for the Battle of Waterloo, which drags somewhat). It’s got a certain kind of English vaguely-panto vibe, crossed with a classic stage comedy, but not really the laugh out loud type. Napoleon is depicted as an extreme autist and is arguably the butt of the joke, but is also a competent general and a great strategist on a number of occasions. That said, the movie does end by explicitly characterizing him as a villain who was responsible for millions of deaths for (implicitly) no real reason. Some will say it also implies there was a direct causal relationship between his need for military victory and his cuckoldry, but I don’t think it’s that explicit. It is, on balance, an anti-French movie that takes the traditionally dim English view of the revolution and its consequences.

An entertaining movie, and rare to watch something where the big CGI fight scenes are actually very good and keep the viewer awake. Some very cringe dialogue not on purpose, some on purpose. Napoleon’s actor is too old. 3/5.

Ridley Scott said there's an "extended" version of the movie, a four-plus-hour cut, that will be released on AppleTV+ soon. For those thinking about seeing the movie in theaters: Don't waste your time.

My attention span is extremely poor, so I like movies in theaters because I’m pressured into switching off my phone and concentrating wholly on the film. When I watch movies at home I’m usually easily distracted.

Still, in this case I agree that I’m interested to see how the director’s cut changes things.

I’m not sure I agree that it was a comedy - a couple of laugh lines, yeah, but I wouldn’t say I laughed more than twice. I’m not gonna bother commenting on the improbable diversity - that’s just what Hollywood is now, and there’s no point blaming anybody involved directly with the film.

I agree that the battle scenes were the most exciting part of the film, and frankly I wish they’d focused more on those, especially given that the film is about one of the greatest generals in history. Very few people are fascinated by Napoleon because of his marriage(s).

I don’t agree with the popular take that the film gave too much time and importance to Josephine; she genuinely does seem to have been a centrally-important part of his life. (I also don’t agree with the take that Vanessa Kirby is unattractive. I think she’s got beautiful eyes.) However, attempting to make a film that focuses extensively on that marriage while also making a film that gives adequate attention to his military achievements was a massively overambitious undertaking. Overambitious especially because Ridley Scott doesn’t really seem to understand Napoleon on any psychological level. Scott doesn’t offer a “take” on what made Napoleon tick. I guess that’s probably better than a total hatchet job that makes Napoleon an irredeemable villain (I disagree with your take that the ending paints him explicitly as a villain - I think it’s fair to point out how many men died in the wars, even if there were obviously more subtle ways Scott could have gone about this) but I think the lack of a coherent interpretation is one of the reasons the film feels so bloated and directionless at times.

This should have been at least two different movies, and if they’d cast an actor of appropriate age and charisma they could have achieved this and probably had success. Ultimately I feel like this was a waste.

Do they know that he actually was a cuckold?

I agree that it was occasionally hilarious though. The line about the English having boats had the whole cinema laughing.

Dissident right Twitter is upset with it because it portrays Napoleon as a cuckold and they’ve decided they like him recently.

Is there some reason we shouldn't like Napoleon?

Conservatives/rightists loving Bonaparte is the centuries long version of the left wing Twitter gag about how MSNBC rehabilitated Dubya and made Liz Cheney a hero for opposing Trump, that inevitably in 2036 they'll rehab Trump and say we should vote for Don Jr to keep Matt Gaetz out of office.

The great conservatives of the time were all opposed to Bonaparte, the great liberals all favored him at least a little. So the question does become, is trad unchanging, or does anything become trad with sufficient time? A lot of Napoleonic borders either created nationalisms, or became future flashpoints for competing nationalisms.

I've no intention of seeing the movie, but I don't understand how you try to make a movie called Napoleon? Napoleon and Josephine, great movie idea. Napoleon in Egypt, great movie idea. The rise of Napoleon, great movie idea. The grande armee, great movie idea. Waterloo, great movie idea. You can even sneak in a thoughtful slow paced Elba movie! And bitches love franchises, you find the right actors you can do a Napoleon movie a year for five or six years! Which gives you an opportunity to introduce "our guys;" fictional side characters whose arc is contained within each film, with maybe a later callback.

Trying to fit his entire career, an entire era, into one film? You might as well make a movie called America and try to cram the civil war, the world wars, and the sixties into fifteen minutes each.

Yeah, after watching it, my overwhelming impression was “this needed to be at least two movies.”

He killed what was left of the HRE and accelerated Germany's slide into Prussian hegemony, so he's in my bad book.

Amazing General, though. The anti-meritocrats tell me that it's entirely down to luck, but given the long string of battles that he should've lost by the numbers but somehow turned into victories, I strongly suspect that skill has something to do with it.

Enlightenment guy who fought reactionary forces. Kind to jews. Although he seeded nationalism and Nietzsche liked him, so I guess it’s a wash for the DR.

Surely the default is simply having no particular opinion of him? They don’t venerate most great historical generals, typically.

Generals who manage to conquer most of Europe are usually more well known and also have a fan base on the fringes of the political spectrum.

You cannot stop me; I spend 30,000 lives a month.

There is some minor diversity like some of the senior officers and ladies maids improbably being black, but I didn’t think it was really a ‘woke’ picture.

I don't think that was particularly unlikely at all, France had a number of black mixed race people in it, including in the upper class. For example the famous author Alexandre Dumas' father was mixed race and a French general.

Personally I didn't like the movie, it really did feel like it made a buffoon out of Napoleon, who got cuckolded and is very insecure about his success. I would've preferred that it either double down on being a period piece romcom, or to have been properly about Napoleon's battles and conquests, instead of being a weird romance interspersed with battle scenes.

Thomas-Alexandre was briefly shown in the film as I remember, but I think the actor was full blooded African rather than biracial, which would have been more accurate.

Josephine's maid was also afro-Caribbean, which is plausible since she grew up on Martinique.

But yeah, there were a few other Africans that were thrown in awkwardly. My suspicion is that Scott did the absolute bare minimum to keep the diversity-mongers happy, which is all we can expect from him I guess.

Incidentally, Oppenheimer has a similar 'bare minimum' moment where the camera lingers on the face of an African woman inexplicably attending a 1930s physics class in the Netherlands before never showing her again.

I agree, in this case though Napoleon teaches a handful of young British naval officers while a captive after Waterloo, one of whom is a black man, which seems somewhat less likely.

As someone who has a fake going on the computer job and a degree, I've gotten roped in to tutoring/babysitting a psuedo family members kids. They go to one of those classical academy style charter schools everybody is excited about and got dANG: These 3rd - 5th graders don't know how to fucking read.

They are learning through something like systematic phonics (probably), where you learn letter and syllable sounds first; resulting in two kids who REALLY slowly scan through a sentence like human recursive descent parsers and one brighter middle schooler who totally ignored the teachers and taught himself how to read on his own by simply picking up a book and plowing through it.

Interestingly, one of the two kids in elementary is doing pretty good in math, so I gotta assume that the IQ is there. Little dude might be a little dyslexic, who knows?

Apropos: Anybody have any experience getting kids who can read but aren't very good at it interested enough in a book that they are willing to learn on their own? What are the kids reading these days? I'm gonna see if I can't find them a bigass children's science encyclopedia, that was my jam as a little babu but I welcome any suggestions from ya'll.

I'd like to second this from @roystgnr :

Comic strip collections ... let young readers who aren't 100% solid manage to grasp more context from the drawings.

I got started with reading on "Calvin & Hobbs," one of the all time greats. I'm not sure if Spaceman Spiff is still relevant, but I know the stuff about ethical philosophy and girls being gross is timeless.

The obvious "nudge" style suggestion is to put on closed captions / subtitles for every youtube video / TV show they watch. Or get them into video games or websites that involve reading a lot of text?

Anybody have any experience getting kids who can read but aren't very good at it interested enough in a book that they are willing to learn on their own?

What level are they at?

Comic strip collections (my kids liked Baby Blues most, IIRC) let young readers who aren't 100% solid manage to grasp more context from the drawings.

Children's science encyclopedias are great; if the kids have some obsession (space, dinosaurs, animals, whatever) then get one focused on just that to start with.

At a higher level, Harry Potter is a classic for this. My eldest went from "slowly moving through 100 page books together because that's what mommy or daddy were pushing" to "finishing 500 page tomes by herself because nightly reading time with daddy wasn't long enough or frequent enough" astonishingly fast.

At a higher level, Harry Potter is a classic for this. My eldest went from "slowly moving through 100 page books together because that's what mommy or daddy were pushing" to "finishing 500 page tomes by herself because nightly reading time with daddy wasn't long enough or frequent enough" astonishingly fast.

Similar story here, started off with the Hobbit and the Jungle Book, graduated to Harry Potter, and next thing I knew little dude was sneaking into our den to steal my books.

Perfect suggestion; they are for sure ready for some comics. I'll find some inofensive manga that they can binge if they like, maybe Dragon Ball. Some good clean slapstick and ultraviolence but fun.

Re. Tomes: The older one is about the age where I found a Wheel of Time book in the elementary school library for some god damned reason and was permanently afflicted with a love of 1500 page fantasy doorstoppers, but I don't want to scare them off.

This is literally one of the hardest societal problems scaled down. The problem of educating the uninterested. And to be fair reading isnt all that interesting as an adult, let alone a kid.

Maybe try gameifying it? Play some game where theyd need to know how to read to succeed, then make fun of them for being illiterate, that'll get em in line.

And to be fair reading isnt all that interesting as an adult, let alone a kid.

I wouldn't be surprised hearing this from a rando on the street, but you're a regular on The Motte, all we ever do is read and argue haha.

It's still a foreign notion to me, I read voraciously the moment letters ceased to be arcane scribbles, I actually did the whole reading labels on shampoo bottles thing well before it became a meme. If I show up late to my own funeral, it'll be because I was reading the obituary..

I read a lot as a child as well. DK encyclodedias, magazines, cook books, whatever was on the book shelf. But you couldnt force me to do it. I would have rather eaten the book than read it.

Recently, I've concluded that I basically agree with Bankman Fried. Most books could have been a 6 para blog post instead. And that reading for the sake of it is like driving to the grocery for the sake of it. Its a means to an end.

Recently, I've concluded that I basically agree with Bankman Fried. Most books could have been a 6 para blog post instead.

I don't necessarily disagree, it certainly doesn't seem to me that non-fiction books are optimizing very hard for succintness.

And that reading for the sake of it is like driving to the grocery for the sake of it. Its a means to an end.

I mean, I disagree, because if you consider simply driving, or even walking or running, many people find it intrinsically enjoyable. At any rate, I can't say you're not well read despite not finding it intrinsically motivating, so who am I to judge?

As someone who has a fake going on the computer job and a degree, I've gotten roped in to tutoring/babysitting a psuedo family members kids.

Speaking of reading well - this sentence took me far too long to parse. You're talking about an "email job" where you are required to do very little? And a "pseudo family member", whatever that means, knows you have plenty of time on your hands?

I don't know much about the subject, but I think what you are describing is actually the correct or less bad way for kids who aren't naturally gifted towards reading to learn to read. You have to build on simple fundamental blocks. For some kids this takes a week, for others it takes years of training. You're not supposed to work your way through the building blocks after years of school, so I don't know what's going on there. I've heard of a far worse trend from California and elsewhere in the US, where they try to teach all kids the smart kid version of scanning a full sentence, and looking for context in the paragraph etc. They're producing total illiterates.

The actual young family members I've seen recently all go to CA public schools as we (the extended family diaspora) all firmly believe that private schools are for richie riches or assholes. They are all doing something like whole language learning, and all are way more advanced in all subjects than any of the charter school kids I know (sample size: like 5. Basically worthless).

That said, they share some of my crazed book addict genes so maybe it's a worthless comparison.

That said that said: maybe I'm seeing these shitty results because this is the puritanical version of phonics where you aren't allowed to even look at a complete phrase incase it makes you go into hysterics, where as the public schools in my area are just doing common sense readings of"The Kuh AH TUH in the HUH AH TUH", you know what I mean?

I swear that fragmented phonics bullshit actually discourages kids from reading. My sample size is similarly useless, but of the eleven kids I know who can read, the three who were taught that way all hate reading and do it slowly, while the two who were taught the whole language method love it (and the other six all learned to read before they started school, and they of course love it.) And while I know it's conspiracy theory talk, it wouldn't surprise me if it was deliberate - an illiterate population is a more manageable population than a literate one after all.

It would surprise me! The people making curriculum decisions—and especially the ones implementing them—are rather removed from those “managing” the population.

Which is why they were told dumb kids need the phonics method or they will be left behind. And did we mention which races have more dumb kids? You're not a racist are you?

I think setting up a con on the entire educating class is where this starts to get implausible. Especially when the current doctrine is downstream of a decades-long political battle over psychology research. Far easier for me to believe that politicians stumbled into this stance as a consequence of general trends in accountability and social welfare.

Oh it's definitely implausible, that's why I called it conspiracy theory talk. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be true though, after all the other implausibly convoluted manipulation techniques the USG has employed over the past century.

an illiterate population is a more manageable population than a literate one after all.

That sounds like an applause light line. Reading won't save you, if all you read is propaganda, and some of the most easily managed Current Thing followers I ever met are avid readers.

Fair, I can't say my experience with current thing followers is any different. I was under the impression that it's not that being able to read can save you though, it's the not being able to read leaves you at the mercy of those who can. I figure if you can't read, what can you do? Follow instructions, or work out everything from first principles based exclusively on the information in your memory. And when you are forced to follow instructions out of necessity you also implicitly trust the person who instructs you. Same with maths really.

An idea I have been contemplating:

Despite how incidents of unrest and incivility, such as shoplifting, go viral on Twitter and the perceived widespread decline and decay of American society and the breakdown of law and order, Americans a , in large, better-behaved than any other society, and are better behaved now than in the past, compared to even in the Middle East under Islamic law, compared to much of Europe. Western Europe seems to have constant protests and riots, whereas in the US it was limited to 2020 after George Floyd's death, but more contained and ended abruptly.

This is probably better suited for the culture war thread next time.

i think so too, but it did not meet the effort criteria . It was just some idea I had but didn't have the time to flesh it out.

Americans a , in large, better-behaved than any other society,

Western Europe has a much lower level of violent crime, on average. The US's murder rate, per wikipedia, is roughly on par with Russia at 6.8. Plus, both have had quasi-coup/farce events in the last few years!

What about Japan? Their murder rate is very low, 0.2 per 100,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

are better behaved now than in the past,

From 1960, violent crime has doubled, aggravated assault and rape has tripled, robbery is up 25%... Murder is stable, which is a bad thing considering how much medicine has improved over 60 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time

The fact that murder hasn't decreased by a huge amount is a big indictment. There are so many reasons why it should have. Absent these factors, the murder rate would be at all-time highs.

  • Emergency medicine - as you mentioned
  • Universal cell phone coverage (quicker response times)
  • Legalized abortion
  • Banning leaded gas
  • Video games mean young men leave the house less
  • Lower testosterone in men
  • Aging of the population (average age of 39 today compared to 29.5 in 1960)

My honesty index for where I live: the Wawa app order pick up rack. I go to my local Wawa locations an inordinate amount, and very frequently I order a latte, matcha, or some other fancy drink. If you order on the app, at almost every location I've been to and every location I go to regularly, they just put your order on a big rack of takeout orders identified only by the three digit number on the receipt taped to it. Customers come in, take their order, and walk out. Most frequently, if I've ordered on the app, I don't speak to anyone in the store unless it's to say thank you to someone for holding the door; I walk in, take my coffee off the rack, walk out.

They put absolutely zero effort into making sure that you take your order, or even that you have an order at all. Naively, assuming perfect honesty on the part of all customers, I would guess an error rate around 1-2% of people taking the wrong order, just because they misread the receipt. My experience across hundreds of wawa app orders is actually below that, I can't think of a single time my order has been missing (though I can think of several times it's been wrong). Nor, in all the time I've spent in Wawas, do I ever recall witnessing someone complain that their order was missing.

Every day, thousands of times a day, each Wawa location takes $5-25 worth of food and drink, puts it out for anyone to take, and by and large only the people who paid for it take it. That's, when you really think about it, a ridiculous record of honest and law-abiding citizenry. Nor is it purely the small town local yokels I live amongst, my Wawa is only two minutes from a major interstate, nothing stops anyone driving by from pulling in, grabbing a coffee, and being halfway to Jersey before anyone even notices.

My Wawa index for honesty is my theoretical bellwether for when I'll get concerned about society. It indicates that either our society is so honest that no one steals, or that our society is so rich that it is cheaper to simply let a few lattes get stolen every day than it is to take any effort to prevent them from being stolen.

Turning this into my Wawa appreciation post: if you live in Eastern PA, a remarkable thing about Wawas is that the customer base cuts across classes completely. Work trucks and vans and beat up Hyundais share the parking lot with brand new Porsche and Tesla electrics. It's universal.

Counter point: it’s trivial to identify and either ostracize or legally hobble a repeat offender, and there’s barely any gratification from a one-time theft of an overpriced dessert coffee.

On the other hand, I have personally witnessed people attempting to steal booze and smokes, both of which are expensive as hell and taxed to high heaven.

Food doesn’t seem to be a terribly powerful motivator for would-be thieves. Food is plentiful and literally no one in America starves unless it’s on purpose.

Riddle me this, Batman - doesn't "Wawa" sound suspiciously close to "Yaweh" ??? Think. About. It. All roads lead to the One True Hoagie Lord, and the rich and poor shall know him alike.

But seriously -

I like your Wawa honesty index quite a bit. To add some specificity, I think it's a good index for a very direct person-to-person level of honesty. Let me explain. If I'm a no-good-nik walking into a wawa to swipe an order from the ToGo rack that isn't mine, that's quite literally stealing someone else's - one, single person's - lunch or breakfast. It strikes at a deeply personal wrong that's been obvious since childhood. The trope for bullying is literally "stealing someone's lunch money." So, as far as directly personal honesty index goes, I think you've nailed it.

I think, however, it breaks down when you add some ambiguity and turn it from person-to-person to person-in-society. The great, recent example I have for this is from the San Francisco Streets mini-doc by Channel 5 News with Andrew Callaghan (successor to YouTube gonzo journalism channel "All Gas No Breaks"). He interviews a semi-organized stolen goods crew who enjoy haughtily recounting their felonious exploits. They run into high end retailers in the downtown shopping district of San Francisco, Union Square, and quickly snatch as much merchandise as possible. This is done with little to no stealth or concealment. The primary issue at hand is San Francisco's laws related to theft and larceny, but that's for another thread.

A key, but quick, line from one of these non-cat-burglars is "for most of these corporations, it's a write off anyway." Leave aside how valid that is on a legal level and leave aside the downstream impacts of increased insurance costs. That's beside the point. What counts is the revelation of the person-in-society mindset. "I'm not hurting a person, I'm causing a few corporate numbers on a spreadsheet to shift from one column to another...I'm not stealing FiveHourMarathon's sandwich, I'm effecting the same outcome as lost inventory in transit...this isn't a personal crime because I don't conceive of people being harmed or even involved in a direct and meaningful way." When you turn society into an abstract concept, you can abstract away very real and damaging actions. Let's not even get started on "selling some drugs just to pay rent."

(Back to the Hoagies...in a second.)

If everyone could rely on the mental model of person-to-person concepts of honesty, society would be safer, higher trust, All-Of-The-Good-Things. In fact, I'd argue that the primary "low brow" teaching of all of the Abrahamic religions pretty much amounts to "think of all of your actions as essentially person-to-person (or, really, person-to-God) and behave accordingly." Stealing isn't just wrong because a Holy Text says so and because you may be punished for it, it's wrong because it "hurts" God/Society/A stand in concept for another person even if it isn't an actual physical presence.

I don't think a totally secular society has a good replacement for this concept. The "best" I have seen is weak sloganeering - "don't be evil ... don't be a dick .... not cool!" It's underdeveloped and light on content and metaphysical heft. It's not specific enough to guide behavior and is used more as an after the fact admonishment. You do have over-thinking and secular-moralizing intellectual arguments about the moral fabric of society and social contracts but, again, I don't see their utility as behavioral guides. By the time I've digested Sam Harris' long winded treatment on the compound ethical implications of impersonal petty theft, I will have already digested FiveHourMarathon's Thanksgiving Hoagie with extra cranberry sauce.

Told you we would wind back up at Hoagies!

I'm not familiar with the logistics at Wawas, but it may be worth considering the chances that you run into the person who's hoagie you are trying to steal -- and while store security is unlikely to beat you up for stealing a sandwich, the same cannot be said for some hungry trucker?

I think that only happens if the sandwich thief offers resistance. What's far more likely is Hungry Trucker sees the steal and goes, "Hey, that's my sandwich" and the thief responds, "oh, whoops, my mistake" and then just sort of wanders out of the store. Sure, it's probably pretty obvious he was trying to snatch the sandwich, but it's no harm no foul.

If life has deposited you into a situation where you're stealing Wawa Hoagies, you're in survival mode and affable duplicity is your middle name.

Love it. The hoagie theory of morality fully fleshed out.

My honesty index for where I live: the Wawa app order pick up rack. I go to my local Wawa locations an inordinate amount, and very frequently I order a latte, matcha, or some other fancy drink. If you order on the app, at almost every location I've been to and every location I go to regularly, they just put your order on a big rack of takeout orders identified only by the three digit number on the receipt taped to it. Customers come in, take their order, and walk out. Most frequently, if I've ordered on the app, I don't speak to anyone in the store unless it's to say thank you to someone for holding the door; I walk in, take my coffee off the rack, walk out.

The same is true at the McDonald’s on Oxford Street in London, probably one of the busiest locations and a zero-trust environment with few to no locals and full of random passers-by and tourists. You can just walk up, take order number #3502 and unless the person who ordered it stops you, you’re fine.

I think the reality is that these takeout settings have only modest stealing rates for several reasons.

For example most modern beggars and petty thieves are in it for drugs and/or booze / money in general rather than actual food, which food banks, shelters etc have plenty of; when thieves steal, say, costlier groceries, it’s typically to sell. And secondly those who are obviously extremely, dysfunctionally mentally ill and/or living on the street can be easily identified by staff anyway, they’re not going to stealth steal like this without anyone noticing.

Or possibly, our perception of "zero trust" is a very weird zero point, a very weird social construct, where the vast majority of individuals are in fact law abiding citizens who will basically follow the rules in all situations, despite the perception of low social trust and a total lack of effort towards enforcement.

This is exactly my point, we first worlders walk through life acting like the sky is falling because something-something social fabric is fraying, but if we look around at mundane stuff we ignore every single day, we see evidence of people acting for the common good.

I'm not particularly saying that my Wawa is special, or that Wawa is special, I'm saying that when we feel the need to not just leave food out for anyone to take at any time, that will be a significant indication of something bad.

People in Japan and Korea often leave the most expensive item on their person, such as a phone, laptop or DSLR, unattended to hold a place for them while they're off using the loo.

If you think you're in a high-trust society, you've seen nothing yet.

Well, I leave my laptop out to keep my space when I go to the bathroom too and I'm in the US. Not NYC, god forbid, but still....

But speaking of Japan, I was once waiting for a very chic department store to open at like 9 am with a handful of other tourists in Tokyo when I saw a (very small female) store employee standing outside, shuffling something around right outside the door. I looked over and she must have had thousands and thousands of dollars in yen in an envelope. I have no idea what she was doing or how often she does this, but I was shocked to see it and she barely winced seeing me (a foreign man) looking at her wad of cash. High trust society indeed.

I wonder if Europeans feel the same way.

"We might have had a little self-contained unrest, but at least we aren't the French."

Social media coverage is going to correlate harder with narrative than with actual impact. We Americans have some of the most integrated social media around. Seems plausible that we'd get the strongest effects. We certainly don't have the level of chaos that you'd see from an actual insurgency.

On the flip side, there's a long tradition of Europeans calling us rambunctious, uncouth, or politically unstable. Some of that was surely due to our Special Relationship with the Brits, but still, we don't have a reputation for docility.

What are some fun activities for male friends to do that are low effort and quick to set up?

I've done some grilling with friends and cooking is nice, but looking for another cheap, more active thing.

I suppose we could hike, though it's cold here right now. Bowling is kind of lame and expensive. Frisbee golf is another option but again, somewhat cold.

Perhaps I'm being too picky, but I wish there was an easy equivalent for men to the 'going shopping' that women seem to default to. They get to walk around and chat in a nice climate controlled environment.

I guess I'm just one more casualty in the culture war :'(

Shooting is the hobby of choice for my male acquaintances. They meet at gun ranges or someone’s house in the sticks to fire rifles at targets. Guns are expensive, though.

Chess. Vanilla if everyone’s skills are comparable, duck chess for the novelty if there is a big skill gap.

I have a few friends for whom the only activity is "drink a few", which unfortunately has dwindled as I drink much less often. On the other hand, grabbing a drink is something that can happen somewhat impromptu. I've rarely had a last minute itch to get out of the house and successfully leveraged that into some kind of organized activity.

Board games, card games, dice games, video/computer games, hiking, biking, swimming, kayaking, fishing, having a bonfire, darts, Jarts (even better if you can find the old metal-tipped ones), horseshoes, cornhole, hillbilly golf, bocce ball, shooting, axe throwing, kubb, strolling around town (either downtown or through any parks or trails nearby)…. As Ioper said, there are a million possibilities.

Generally, especially during colder months, I would recommend card games and dice games. Once learnt, most games are usually hard enough to keep your attention but easy enough to allow for plenty of side conversation. I’ve found that most board games require more attention.

Sports

Yeah I guess I should get into sports. Oof.

Don't surrender to the macroculture. Don't live the lie of pretending to like something as mind numbingly boring as live broadcast sports. Just fucking go shopping for shit ya'll like. Go to home depot and lust after expensive tools.

Fuck it, go look at cloths and maybe get "dripped" so you may become the "rizzler". No, fuck you. I am old in spirit.

Any activity is fun with friends, so just pick any activity with a level of time commitment and expense everything likes.

Playing sports and watching sports is not even in tbe same universe of things.

I meant playing.

Oh shit! Playing sports is fun as heck, but not really a hang out activity.

It definitely can be! Going bouldering with a mate is more talking than activity, because you need to rest between attempts. I do a lot of hiking (&flying), and when I go with a friend we're talking the whole way up. Joining a sports club generally means you'll grab a beer together afterwards, or drive there/back together.

Back when I still lived near friends, we'd usually drink, fence, shoot or play board or computer games.

Board games, video games, just meet up and watch sports, indoor sports like basketball or volleyball, indoor golf, bouldering, going out for a beer at a bar, etc.

There are a million things you could do.

We aren't really sports people, and my friends are a few years sober. But yes board games are good.

Know any good ones for 2-3 people?

Arkham Horror

I'm a fan of detective games myself.

  • chronicles of crime

  • Watson and Holmes

  • Sherlock Holmes consulting detective (lots of reading) (variable quality across releases) (lots of depth)

2 players:

Patchwork (short and very light)
7 Wonders Duel (short and medium depth)
War of the Ring (or Star Wars Rebellion if sci-fi is more your jam) (long)

2-3 players:

Splendor (short and light)
Race for the Galaxy (short and medium depth)
Le Havre (long)

I'd say generally that you want to be more than 2 people playing board games, 3-5 players is usually ideal.

There are a few that work for just two though, like Robo Rally.

Games for 3+ players:

  • Twilight imperium
  • Dice settlers
  • Carcassonne
  • Settlers of Catan
  • Race for the Galaxy
  • Agricola

Then there are larger expensive multi session games like Gloomhaven

Any musicians there? Is there a word for musical instruments that can play only one melody simultaneously and those who can play several? Is it "polytonic"?

Like, wind instruments can play a single note by definition.

You can play two strings simultaneously on a violin, but it's usually a chord. I think you could change the pitch of only one string to make the melody more complex, but you can't play eights on one string and quarters on the other.

I have no idea if you can play two melodies on a guitar. Theoretically it should be possible, but I can't think of an example.

But a piano or a harp can do this.

Here's Metamorphosis II arranged for a harp. Here's the same composition arranged for a violin and a piano. Lavinija can play both the rhythm line (can I call it the baritone line?), the bass note and the main melodies on her harp, but Anne Akiko can only play the main melody, she shares the bass notes with Reiko Uchida on the piano and Reika has to play the baritone line.

Or, to invert the question, is there a word for music you can arrange for the piano and can't arrange for the flute? Even if that flute was so long it could play any note?

I think part of your problem is your terminology. No music has more than one 'melody' happening at the same time. There are 'countermelodies' which often support or contrast a melody (example, Bach fugues) but very few pieces truly have two melodies at the same time. in this clip Chales Ives has two groups of the orchestra play 'America' in two keys in two different rhythms, literally two melodies.

@KMC I think fills in your other question.

Or, to invert the question, is there a word for music you can arrange for the piano and can't arrange for the flute? Even if that flute was so long it could play any note?

Not really, as in as far as I'm aware there isn't a specific term. There are limitations to every instrument, and it's up to the arranger to arrange things in a way that makes sense for the instrument(s) the person is arranging from the original material.

I have no idea if you can play two melodies on a guitar.

In principle one could, using two-handed tapping.

Fingerpicking can achieve the same result. Undeleted and edited to add: The easiest example is probably the intro to Stairway To Heaven. All the higher notes work together as the melody. The low notes are a much simpler melody, descending from A to E chromatically. That means without skipping any out-of-key notes. Just for reference, there are 12 notes in an octave, and most scales are 7 of those 12. And, as the other guy says, the lower part isn't "officially" a melody because there can only be one melody, but if you played it on its own it definitely counts as a melody, albeit a boring one.

One of my favorite things to play is a solo acoustic arrangement of Scarborough Fair, which has two (and a half?) melodic lines. Sure, when you put it all together it's more like a melody with parallel thirds and occasionally a third voice, but the main two voices are separate melodies. The melodies move together at times, contrary at other times. (Contrary in this context means one goes higher, the other goes lower).

Tapping greatly improves the ability to play separate lines with larger intervals within the voices, but it's entirely unnecessary. The distance between the lowest string and the highest (assuming standard tuning) is two full octaves. That's 24 notes on a piano for any laymen in the audience. Who am I kidding, I'm a layman too.

If this is hard to follow, I blame holiday drunkenness.

I have no idea if you can play two melodies on a guitar. Theoretically it should be possible, but I can't think of an example.

What you're thinking of is counterpoint, I'd say, and whether you can tell the two melodies apart depends on the quality of the musician and the quality of the composition. It's much harder to distinguish multiple voices on the same instrument than it is between different instruments.

Any musicians there? Is there a word for musical instruments that can play only one melody simultaneously and those who can play several? Is it "polytonic"?

The phrase is technically polyphony, apologies to @Ioper, since I was confusing polyphony in music with polyphony in instruments. I'm not sure calling instruments polyphonic was prevalent before synthesizers, since that appears to be the main reason to use the word.

Polytonic means can play more than one tone, so monotonic means only one tone, like a drone or drum.

I would say monophonic and polyphonic respectively.

This can refer both to the music itself and an instrument.

I recently got a nicer mouse that has 8 extra buttons you can customize. I have to say it's very nice and I fully recommend it. I also got bands for my glasses so they don't slip off, and it's also been nice having them not slip at all

Fuck mice, install Vimmium. It lets you do ~anything in a browser without a mouse.

Given sufficient software you could do anything in a browser with one key on the keyboard and a really big binary code table. But why?

Because it's faster, more ergonomic, and more convenient

***once you learn 100 commands

For Vim, sure (even then, more like twenty commands for break even: hjklf/nydxrgg would get you pretty far. But for Vimmium, literally just f is enough to be a game changer. Through in udjkF and now you've really got a stew going.

Assign Ctrl-Tab and Ctrl-Shift-Tab to two of them. That'll let you switch between browser tabs. I chose to assign them to clicking the mouse wheel left or right.

As self_made_human says, browser back and forward are incredibly handy, too. I think it's Alt-Left and, sigh, Alt-Right.

I agree that extra buttons are nice. My current mouse doesn't have them, but I used to have one that did, and they were quite convenient in games for stuff like directing allies around.

I use a vertical mouse and split keyboard. My wrists no longer hurt (except for when I binge-scroll my phone). If you have any wrist pain from typing, check out split keyboards.

Having extra buttons is great, just having access to back and forward keys that works in browsers and most apps, as well as easy volume control is so worth it. In video games, I usually bind them to voice chat, far more convenient than hunting down keys on the keyboard.

I swear by the added grips for glasses, back when I was forced to help with surgeries, I hated having mine threaten to slip off my nose and into an open uterus, if an infant sees the extent of my myopia, they're never going to open their eyes again! Not to mention the headache of having a nurse re-adjust them, or shimmy up against a convenient object at head height to nudge them back into place without disturbing the sterile field.

(I ordered a new set, but apparently the tiny Amazon package got lost in a mountain of other crap, ah well, my current glasses have better grip anyway)

Is this just a sticker you put on the nose pads? I was thinking of the strap that connects to your ear pieces and wraps around your head. Croakies, in other words.

For surgery, I might consider athletic goggles like Horace Grant, but I suppose those are more for contact situations, and it could cause issues with fogging.

The ones I've used were rubber pieces you could slot on the stems of your glasses, with the other end hooking onto your ears so the glasses couldn't shift. There wasn't any strap involved.

No offense, but from a fashion perspective you really need something like this:

https://croakies.com/collections/eyewear-retainers/products/croakies%C2%AE-prints?variant=42307041034462

(I just had to check that croakies are still a thing -- apparently yes!)

I'd rather croak ;)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats