Jellyfin is the goat. I started with Plex but found it really complicated to just watch my own media, jellyfin is like "yeah here's your movies, your movies, your books."
Geez, poor guy's face stopped growing at 10 years old. I'd want to be blasted all the time too!
I agree with what you've said.
I've written at long length about the way postmodernism isnt used consistently, it's often used as a weapon used to cut down things that are in opposition to certain groups but magically never gets used on any of their grand narratives or objective truths.
Just a slightly different glistening facet of the crap gem that is contemporary western society.
I've written at long length about the way postmodernism isnt used consistently, it's often used as a weapon used to cut down things that are in opposition to certain groups but magically never gets used on any of their grand narratives or objective truths.
Just a slightly different glistening facet of the crap gem that is contemporary western society.
Japan is a modern society with deep premodern roots, America is a postmodern society (which is itself a modernist ideology where the grand narrative is that there are no grand narratives and the objective truth is that there are no objective truths) with modern roots. Once you understand this about the two countries, everything makes a lot more sense.
Both are flawed ways of looking at the world, but modernism still believes that there's a societal telos, postmodernism believes that any direction is inherently evil (except direction away from a societal telos)
For America, events such as the nuclear bombing of Japan may have won them the war, but those same events were existential attacks on the grand American project. Events such as World War 1 broke the western narrative of peace and progress, and events such as the holocaust held up a mirror for the west to see what their totalizing ideology looked like, and they didn't like what they saw.
Both totalizing ideologies -- modernism's totalization towards "progress" and telos, and postmodernism's totalization away from such things, are effectively suicidal in the long run. If you have a dog and you give it only food, and it dies, so you give the next dog only water, it will die too. A dog needs many things to thrive, and in differing amounts at different times. Food, water, purpose, rest, play, social play, meaning, meaningless moments.
Japan is in trouble -- but they're not in trouble the way the South Koreans are. There will be fewer Japanese in 50 years than there are today, but not "4 great grandchildren for every 100 living koreans today" fewer.
Meanwhile, America and the west's deconstruction threatens the foundation of the civilization. One of the reasons for the fall of Athens and the western Roman Empire was the constant importation of people from outside the Empire and the effects that had on the natives who weren't part of the elite classes, and we're seeing that today.
Japan's current trajectory began with Commodore Perry's black ships sailing into Tokyo harbor where the pre-modern ideology of Japan at that time was tested and found to be wanting against the modernist ideology of the Americans and Europeans, leading to the Meiji Restoration and quick adoption of many modernist ideals which ultimately resulted in Imperial Japan in World War 2.
America as a nation was born very close to the French revolution and the birth of the modern period, and is strongly influenced by that modernism. When Japanese modernism falls apart, premodern themes emerge. When American modernism falls apart, there's nothing left.
Both are flawed ways of looking at the world, but modernism still believes that there's a societal telos, postmodernism believes that any direction is inherently evil (except direction away from a societal telos)
For America, events such as the nuclear bombing of Japan may have won them the war, but those same events were existential attacks on the grand American project. Events such as World War 1 broke the western narrative of peace and progress, and events such as the holocaust held up a mirror for the west to see what their totalizing ideology looked like, and they didn't like what they saw.
Both totalizing ideologies -- modernism's totalization towards "progress" and telos, and postmodernism's totalization away from such things, are effectively suicidal in the long run. If you have a dog and you give it only food, and it dies, so you give the next dog only water, it will die too. A dog needs many things to thrive, and in differing amounts at different times. Food, water, purpose, rest, play, social play, meaning, meaningless moments.
Japan is in trouble -- but they're not in trouble the way the South Koreans are. There will be fewer Japanese in 50 years than there are today, but not "4 great grandchildren for every 100 living koreans today" fewer.
Meanwhile, America and the west's deconstruction threatens the foundation of the civilization. One of the reasons for the fall of Athens and the western Roman Empire was the constant importation of people from outside the Empire and the effects that had on the natives who weren't part of the elite classes, and we're seeing that today.
Japan's current trajectory began with Commodore Perry's black ships sailing into Tokyo harbor where the pre-modern ideology of Japan at that time was tested and found to be wanting against the modernist ideology of the Americans and Europeans, leading to the Meiji Restoration and quick adoption of many modernist ideals which ultimately resulted in Imperial Japan in World War 2.
America as a nation was born very close to the French revolution and the birth of the modern period, and is strongly influenced by that modernism. When Japanese modernism falls apart, premodern themes emerge. When American modernism falls apart, there's nothing left.
Completed my second arc tonight, and already 10% into my third. Roughly 19k words left on the body of the work, meaning I'm well into the final stretch. I'm happy with how the second arc turned out, but I'm glad I'm done with it -- there are two characters in the arc, and both of them are really tough to write for different reasons.
One thing that this past arc is a reaction to is a "Short Trek" episode I watched with my mom (who has always loved Star Trek) and it was about how religion is evil and if only you got rid of its evil and regressive influence you could be a starfleet super hero. I really hated that story, because it felt like it was about 70 years too late to even mean anything, and possibly 170 years too late to really be cutting edge. It's a story that the person who wrote that episode probably saw on TV as a kid and it was already outdated then.
For all I know I'm doing a shite job myself, but at least I'm *trying* to say something unique.
One thing that this past arc is a reaction to is a "Short Trek" episode I watched with my mom (who has always loved Star Trek) and it was about how religion is evil and if only you got rid of its evil and regressive influence you could be a starfleet super hero. I really hated that story, because it felt like it was about 70 years too late to even mean anything, and possibly 170 years too late to really be cutting edge. It's a story that the person who wrote that episode probably saw on TV as a kid and it was already outdated then.
For all I know I'm doing a shite job myself, but at least I'm *trying* to say something unique.
In many ways I could believe it. We've got some really incredible technology which makes us look back and think they were idiots, but besides being required to do math in their heads every day due to lack of digital calculators to do it for them, it seems clear there was a lot more mythology passed between generations from storytelling, and once the printing press arrived, reading was considered a major past-time, and of long books most people would never look at in between tweets today. Writers in genres like history were rock stars in a way that would seem absurd today.
Seems to me like there's a lot of stuff God doesn't want you to do that's possible. Adultery, creating carved images, stealing stuff, boiling goats in their mothers milk, Having Gods before that one, misusing the name of God, pretty much everyone has to work on the sabbath these days, really easy not to honor your mother and father, coveting is super easy, killing is pretty much how we all got here...
So we live in a world where sin is allowed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean it's something approved of by God.
So does that mean animal-human hybrids are something God would like or dislike?
No fuckin clue.
Leviticus 19:19 says not to breed different kinds of cattle, but most Christians don't think mules are evil (and the clothing you're wearing right now is almost certainly made up of several types of material, just check the washing label).
I do think that pre-epistemologically, creating something that's a little bit closer to a human than an animal is awfully squicky. How close do you get before you've created something that is effectively a human and must be treated like a human?
Even genetically modifying a pig to produce human-compatible organs might give some people a bit of squickiness. Like, you want to have body parts from a pig sewed inside of you? You know we slaughter and eat pigs (even though that's technically banned too) -- would you have a nice ham from the pig that gave you your new liver? The other thing being, the sort of feeling of profanity of using the liver (or god forbid stomach) of the pig to devour its own meat. Like, that's squicky, right?
Again, who knows? Maybe catgirls are God's plan for us!
So we live in a world where sin is allowed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean it's something approved of by God.
So does that mean animal-human hybrids are something God would like or dislike?
No fuckin clue.
Leviticus 19:19 says not to breed different kinds of cattle, but most Christians don't think mules are evil (and the clothing you're wearing right now is almost certainly made up of several types of material, just check the washing label).
I do think that pre-epistemologically, creating something that's a little bit closer to a human than an animal is awfully squicky. How close do you get before you've created something that is effectively a human and must be treated like a human?
Even genetically modifying a pig to produce human-compatible organs might give some people a bit of squickiness. Like, you want to have body parts from a pig sewed inside of you? You know we slaughter and eat pigs (even though that's technically banned too) -- would you have a nice ham from the pig that gave you your new liver? The other thing being, the sort of feeling of profanity of using the liver (or god forbid stomach) of the pig to devour its own meat. Like, that's squicky, right?
Again, who knows? Maybe catgirls are God's plan for us!
Incidentally, the fact that the middle east was lush forest within written history (the epic of gilgamesh talks about the great cedar forest in the middle east), and that northern europe was covered in ice helps us understand that climate change happens without our help, and from that perspective it becomes something we need to learn how to live with rather than something we should assume we can totally nullify.
Interestingly, even in the era of Uruk, killing the guardian of the great cedar forest was seen as something of a sin, and if the Gods hadn't granted their blessing then a great curse would have been cast upon them, similar to how killing the great bull of heaven ultimately led to Enkidu's death. It's a narrative far older than modernist thought.
The bronze age collapse was caused in part by a changing climate, and not just in Europe. The Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley in India was buried under a desert, but it existed for a thousand years in a place where agriculture was practiced.
Arguably, some of these changes were caused by humans to an extent. The soil was degraded by agriculture in the Indus Valley, and the cedar forests were deforested. However, it was more than just that or something could have remained.
We obviously don't want to destroy our home ourselves and we need to do what we can to prevent those outcomes, we also obviously live on a planet that has changed without our help for billions of years and will continue to change without our help. Therefore, rather than just complaining that the climate is changing because we aren't sacrificing enough of our enemies to the Gods, we need to find ways to be resillient in the parts of our world that are presently "uninhabitable" because if history is any indication, the regions considered "inhabitable" and "uninhabitable" are inevitably going to change whether we sin against the environment or not. Given the past, it's equally likely that most of what we consider the "civilized world" today is under a kilometer of ice in another 1,000 years and we're all living in the lush Sahara basin region.
Interestingly, even in the era of Uruk, killing the guardian of the great cedar forest was seen as something of a sin, and if the Gods hadn't granted their blessing then a great curse would have been cast upon them, similar to how killing the great bull of heaven ultimately led to Enkidu's death. It's a narrative far older than modernist thought.
The bronze age collapse was caused in part by a changing climate, and not just in Europe. The Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley in India was buried under a desert, but it existed for a thousand years in a place where agriculture was practiced.
Arguably, some of these changes were caused by humans to an extent. The soil was degraded by agriculture in the Indus Valley, and the cedar forests were deforested. However, it was more than just that or something could have remained.
We obviously don't want to destroy our home ourselves and we need to do what we can to prevent those outcomes, we also obviously live on a planet that has changed without our help for billions of years and will continue to change without our help. Therefore, rather than just complaining that the climate is changing because we aren't sacrificing enough of our enemies to the Gods, we need to find ways to be resillient in the parts of our world that are presently "uninhabitable" because if history is any indication, the regions considered "inhabitable" and "uninhabitable" are inevitably going to change whether we sin against the environment or not. Given the past, it's equally likely that most of what we consider the "civilized world" today is under a kilometer of ice in another 1,000 years and we're all living in the lush Sahara basin region.
It's complicated. In The Graysonian Ethic, I have a chapter called "Failure is an option", and come to roughly 3 major conclusions:
1. failure is an option, and it sucks. No matter how smart you are, no matter how talented you are, no matter what your fundamental aptitude, if you do not put in the work you will fail.
2. Sometimes failure is an option through no fault of your own and you have to figure out what you are going to do about it.
3. Failure is an option. Sometimes it is an option worth taking, if failing today means winning tomorrow. It is very important that you are making a conscious decision to fail rather than just allowing it to happen using strategy as an excuse for not trying.
1. failure is an option, and it sucks. No matter how smart you are, no matter how talented you are, no matter what your fundamental aptitude, if you do not put in the work you will fail.
2. Sometimes failure is an option through no fault of your own and you have to figure out what you are going to do about it.
3. Failure is an option. Sometimes it is an option worth taking, if failing today means winning tomorrow. It is very important that you are making a conscious decision to fail rather than just allowing it to happen using strategy as an excuse for not trying.
Throughout the 1980s, China remained engaged in armed conflicts with both Vietnam and the Soviet Union, particularly along disputed border regions. These confrontations included significant skirmishes that continued into the late 80s. In some cases, what that looked like was artillery barrages hitting population centers. In more recent years, tensions with India have persisted, culminating in deadly clashes in 2020 during the Galwan Valley incident, where both sides suffered fatalities.
There's also been significant tension or territorial encroachments with other neighbors such as Japan, South Korea, Bhutan, Nepal, Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei. There's some minor political tension with Mongolia.
You could argue that none of the things I mentioned were actual wars, but you could make the same argument against many of the things America was involved with. Troop movements into Iraq are considered wars on the top line, but military buildups around Taiwan are not considered wars on the bottom line. Peacekeeping operations are considered wars on the top line, but Chinese military operations against pirates were not. China also participated in UN missions in the 2020s just like America did, notably in South Sudan, Mali, and Lebanon. It's tough to say America is at war when they're on UN missions but China is not.
Moreover, as we've seen in Ukraine, the United States ends up getting dragged into conflicts through their de facto role as policemen of the world, and when they start to act as if they might stop the entire world screams in terror. Even China relies on the American military to keep shipping lanes safe or they could not remain a global manufacturing superpower like they are.
Interestingly, the war between Vietnam and China occurred because Communist Russia-backed Communist Vietnam invaded the Communist China-backed Communist Cambodia. Interestingly, this really is a story that goes back long before Marx or even the modern era, since Asia's politics reside in long memories.
And don't get me wrong -- as a Canadian, I have a genetic allergic reaction to defending US militarism, but we can't pretend China is actually a good comparison.
There's also been significant tension or territorial encroachments with other neighbors such as Japan, South Korea, Bhutan, Nepal, Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei. There's some minor political tension with Mongolia.
You could argue that none of the things I mentioned were actual wars, but you could make the same argument against many of the things America was involved with. Troop movements into Iraq are considered wars on the top line, but military buildups around Taiwan are not considered wars on the bottom line. Peacekeeping operations are considered wars on the top line, but Chinese military operations against pirates were not. China also participated in UN missions in the 2020s just like America did, notably in South Sudan, Mali, and Lebanon. It's tough to say America is at war when they're on UN missions but China is not.
Moreover, as we've seen in Ukraine, the United States ends up getting dragged into conflicts through their de facto role as policemen of the world, and when they start to act as if they might stop the entire world screams in terror. Even China relies on the American military to keep shipping lanes safe or they could not remain a global manufacturing superpower like they are.
Interestingly, the war between Vietnam and China occurred because Communist Russia-backed Communist Vietnam invaded the Communist China-backed Communist Cambodia. Interestingly, this really is a story that goes back long before Marx or even the modern era, since Asia's politics reside in long memories.
And don't get me wrong -- as a Canadian, I have a genetic allergic reaction to defending US militarism, but we can't pretend China is actually a good comparison.
I ended up being an honorary Boomer because I bought a house in a depressed region and house prices have at least doubled since then.
And you know what? If house prices were to go down 3/4 and I lose a bunch of equity, I'm not even mad. I want housing to be cheap because you need a place to live. Of course everything is going to be super expensive when people need $1,500 just to rent a one bedroom apartment.
And you know what? If house prices were to go down 3/4 and I lose a bunch of equity, I'm not even mad. I want housing to be cheap because you need a place to live. Of course everything is going to be super expensive when people need $1,500 just to rent a one bedroom apartment.
The novel I'm working on right now is that a future where AI is more deeply integrated into us through neural implants.
Many of the AI based subplots are about the dangers a non malicious AI can pose, including the risks of having this frictionless access to a thing that can generate simulacra of virtually anything or anyone you want. Without a powerful ideological innoculation against addiction, many people could end up in the opium den in their own minds.
If you lose a loved one, would a mostly accurate simulation work to calm the pain of loss, or would the mistakes in the simulation just make you feel it more? Would you ever leave your simulation if that's where all your loved ones remained? And what sort of inoculation would you require to not fall into a trap like that?
Many of the AI based subplots are about the dangers a non malicious AI can pose, including the risks of having this frictionless access to a thing that can generate simulacra of virtually anything or anyone you want. Without a powerful ideological innoculation against addiction, many people could end up in the opium den in their own minds.
If you lose a loved one, would a mostly accurate simulation work to calm the pain of loss, or would the mistakes in the simulation just make you feel it more? Would you ever leave your simulation if that's where all your loved ones remained? And what sort of inoculation would you require to not fall into a trap like that?