Maybe people should start invading this guy's press conferences. "No, no, you don't get to send in armed officers. Your best defence is to comply."
One thing I find a bit funny is that some people claim that doesn't happen for any taxes except tariffs, because of who implemented the tariffs.
My favorite part of the real-world two minutes hate is that part of the ritual is screaming "I'm so empathetic and loving! Why must the enemies of the regime be so hateful?! I hate them so much for their hate! I hate them so much for their lack of love!!!!"
It's kind of cartoonish. If I wrote a character like that the editor would probably say I'm being a bit on the nose and I should be more realistic.
It's kind of cartoonish. If I wrote a character like that the editor would probably say I'm being a bit on the nose and I should be more realistic.
Incidentally, I had to download a torrent recently, and decided on the bittorrent client called "bittorrent".
That client sucks! Not only did it try to install a bunch of extra crap programs, not only did it have two video ads playing at all times on the main screen, but it didn't even successfully download my torrent! I had to uninstall and install Transmission which works much better even on windows.
That client sucks! Not only did it try to install a bunch of extra crap programs, not only did it have two video ads playing at all times on the main screen, but it didn't even successfully download my torrent! I had to uninstall and install Transmission which works much better even on windows.
"Nobody has reminded them of what happened last time someone tried to separate from the United States"
"Also, nobody has reminded them of how much debt they've racked up"
"Also, nobody has reminded them of how much debt they've racked up"
[Admin mode] Power failure during a thunder storm knocked out the servers and more importantly broke dns. All back up now.
It's been 10 years of "if you didn't like this movie it's because you're actually evil" -- but is it really culture war stuff, or is that just the argument they're using? Filmmakers have never liked critics, but now they've got an argument that their critics are fundamentally evil and every reason in the world to use that argument.
I think you kind of have to look past the specific form of what these people say, because they're from Hollywood, they don't believe a word they say about anything unless it's how great they are, and lashing out at people they don't like or who criticize their work.
Healthy ecosystems such as Hollywood of yesteryear or Japan's anime ecosystem today had different rungs, you'd get lower cost lower impact media to start, and as you succeeded you'd get to work on higher impact higher cost (potentially higher profit) works until eventually you earn the big tentpole blockbuster through proven success.
There used to be multiple rungs in Hollywood, but now you go from niche movies at Sundance (not even a market) to producing mega budget blockbusters, and that's not healthy. Hollywood would blame streaming for this, but other markets have rungs still, it's more that Hollywood got addicted to blockbusters and ate their seed corn.
Some of the best movies of all time were created at those lower rungs. Star Wars: A New Hope was actually a fairly low budget movie. E.T. was a lower budget movie. Cult classics Half Baked and Office Space were lower budget, and Fight Club and The Matrix were mid-budget, not massive tentpoles with budgets that would bankrupt the studio. They couldn't make any of these today because those rungs of the ladder don't exist. They can only hand the empire to a child emperor and watch them have a hissy fit when the treasury starts to dry up and barbarians at the gate start taking territory.
I think a lot of these storytellers are trying to do what Joker did -- hop into an established franchise and tell the story they want to tell regardless of the franchise. That's a big problem with an established brand because something that could have been a modestly successful lower tier film ends up pissing off customers who came in with an expectation based on the brand. The problem was never politics, but not following the laws of physics when it comes to pleasing customers and making money. Then the child emperors lash out because it turns out the emperor must follow certain laws of physics or their empire collapses. Then the audiences are alienated because the movies wasn't FOR them, and you get the current MCU. Even if they make some decent movies, it'll take a lot of time in the penalty box.
I think you kind of have to look past the specific form of what these people say, because they're from Hollywood, they don't believe a word they say about anything unless it's how great they are, and lashing out at people they don't like or who criticize their work.
Healthy ecosystems such as Hollywood of yesteryear or Japan's anime ecosystem today had different rungs, you'd get lower cost lower impact media to start, and as you succeeded you'd get to work on higher impact higher cost (potentially higher profit) works until eventually you earn the big tentpole blockbuster through proven success.
There used to be multiple rungs in Hollywood, but now you go from niche movies at Sundance (not even a market) to producing mega budget blockbusters, and that's not healthy. Hollywood would blame streaming for this, but other markets have rungs still, it's more that Hollywood got addicted to blockbusters and ate their seed corn.
Some of the best movies of all time were created at those lower rungs. Star Wars: A New Hope was actually a fairly low budget movie. E.T. was a lower budget movie. Cult classics Half Baked and Office Space were lower budget, and Fight Club and The Matrix were mid-budget, not massive tentpoles with budgets that would bankrupt the studio. They couldn't make any of these today because those rungs of the ladder don't exist. They can only hand the empire to a child emperor and watch them have a hissy fit when the treasury starts to dry up and barbarians at the gate start taking territory.
I think a lot of these storytellers are trying to do what Joker did -- hop into an established franchise and tell the story they want to tell regardless of the franchise. That's a big problem with an established brand because something that could have been a modestly successful lower tier film ends up pissing off customers who came in with an expectation based on the brand. The problem was never politics, but not following the laws of physics when it comes to pleasing customers and making money. Then the child emperors lash out because it turns out the emperor must follow certain laws of physics or their empire collapses. Then the audiences are alienated because the movies wasn't FOR them, and you get the current MCU. Even if they make some decent movies, it'll take a lot of time in the penalty box.
It's a truism that your last movie sells your next movie, and the film industry has spent a decade flagellating fans and telling them it's comfort.
If they do manage to turn things around, it isn't going to be easy. A lot of commentators have been really happy with Andor, but I'm sure a lot of star wars fans assume it isn't FOR them.
If they do manage to turn things around, it isn't going to be easy. A lot of commentators have been really happy with Andor, but I'm sure a lot of star wars fans assume it isn't FOR them.
Tbf, the billionaire is totally want you thinking about it all the time so that they can sell you "environmentalism in a box"
How's it work? Well, the billionaires promise that if you provide them with enough billions of dollars of funding, then they will give you a little environmentalism box that you can hang on your wall or off of your roof that will save the planet.
Don't ask too many questions about that, just consume product and get excited to consume more product.
So the billionaires do want you to be talking about global warming, they just don't want you to be talking about ideas like making the stuff that you buy from them less destructible and more repairable so you don't need to constantly be buying replacement whatever. After all, for a lot of automobiles for example, they could basically last forever if they just used more corrosion resistant materials, but instead they're going to rush to pieces over a certain number of years so that you have to go by brand new one or at least a new used one. As well, major industries have directly opposed right to repair anywhere it has gained traction.
How's it work? Well, the billionaires promise that if you provide them with enough billions of dollars of funding, then they will give you a little environmentalism box that you can hang on your wall or off of your roof that will save the planet.
Don't ask too many questions about that, just consume product and get excited to consume more product.
So the billionaires do want you to be talking about global warming, they just don't want you to be talking about ideas like making the stuff that you buy from them less destructible and more repairable so you don't need to constantly be buying replacement whatever. After all, for a lot of automobiles for example, they could basically last forever if they just used more corrosion resistant materials, but instead they're going to rush to pieces over a certain number of years so that you have to go by brand new one or at least a new used one. As well, major industries have directly opposed right to repair anywhere it has gained traction.
I like my instances 3 rules:
1. I'm not your dad
2. You're not mine
3. This site runs off of parts scavenged from a roadside sign
Though since the site runs off of thin clients these days I guess I'm technically violating rule 3, probably.
1. I'm not your dad
2. You're not mine
3. This site runs off of parts scavenged from a roadside sign
Though since the site runs off of thin clients these days I guess I'm technically violating rule 3, probably.
Protecting the people of his caste, for he doesn't want to touch people of a lower caste, and isn't allowed to touch people of a higher caste.
You can draw a direct line from the French Revolution to Karl Marx. They're both effectively part of the same modernist utopian revolutionary project, and the same progressive project. Marx had a hypothesis about why the French Revolution failed, and his Marxist ideology was designed to try to prevent a repeat performance. Unfortunately for humanity, his hypothesis about what the French Revolution got wrong was incorrect, and so instead of getting the revolution right, it just resulted in the exact same failure modes.
If you think about it, Marx's focus on the bourgeoisie is facially absurd. "Oh, the aristocrats failed, the middle class failed, but definitely the lower classes won't fail!" -- ironically, it's trained centuries of Marxists to ignore that aristocracy even exists, such that they think we just need more aristocrats to protect against the bourgeoisie, as if that's actually superior.
In an interesting point showing LaPlace domain history (Note that while the two are named for the same man, LaPlace domain is a real tool used in the real world, LaPlace's demon is a thought experiment about the predictability of the universe), when China met the west and vice versa, China gained modernism, but Europe gained the bureaucracy. Imperial China has waveforms that echo into Europe, across America, and ends up reinforced by later Modernist China.
Part of the problem is the modernist tendency to want to just knock out parts of the equation to try to change things, but math doesn't work that way -- if you knock out an equation on one side, it just moves that to the other side. Kill all the rich, kill all the powerful, kill all the oppressors, and you get equal rich, powerful, and oppressors on the other side of the equation.
Thing is, this description might provoke modernists into thinking you just need to modify the equation in different ways and you can find utopia, but that's wrong -- like Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem proves you can't know the location and velocity of a particle at the same time, you can't know everything required to create utopia. Laplace thought you could predict the future if you could know the initial velocity and position of every particle and had a good enough model, but the universe literally refuses that concept as a law of physics.
Even Liberalism is in essence proto-modernist, coming from the enlightenment period immediately prior to the modernist period. Is liberty the highest good? Only in plurality with other factors which are erased once you put it on a pedestal. Once you treat liberty as the sold totalizing good, then everything else falls apart -- and it has.
If you think about it, Marx's focus on the bourgeoisie is facially absurd. "Oh, the aristocrats failed, the middle class failed, but definitely the lower classes won't fail!" -- ironically, it's trained centuries of Marxists to ignore that aristocracy even exists, such that they think we just need more aristocrats to protect against the bourgeoisie, as if that's actually superior.
In an interesting point showing LaPlace domain history (Note that while the two are named for the same man, LaPlace domain is a real tool used in the real world, LaPlace's demon is a thought experiment about the predictability of the universe), when China met the west and vice versa, China gained modernism, but Europe gained the bureaucracy. Imperial China has waveforms that echo into Europe, across America, and ends up reinforced by later Modernist China.
Part of the problem is the modernist tendency to want to just knock out parts of the equation to try to change things, but math doesn't work that way -- if you knock out an equation on one side, it just moves that to the other side. Kill all the rich, kill all the powerful, kill all the oppressors, and you get equal rich, powerful, and oppressors on the other side of the equation.
Thing is, this description might provoke modernists into thinking you just need to modify the equation in different ways and you can find utopia, but that's wrong -- like Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem proves you can't know the location and velocity of a particle at the same time, you can't know everything required to create utopia. Laplace thought you could predict the future if you could know the initial velocity and position of every particle and had a good enough model, but the universe literally refuses that concept as a law of physics.
Even Liberalism is in essence proto-modernist, coming from the enlightenment period immediately prior to the modernist period. Is liberty the highest good? Only in plurality with other factors which are erased once you put it on a pedestal. Once you treat liberty as the sold totalizing good, then everything else falls apart -- and it has.
Remember "darwin awards"?
Turns out they're more popular than you'd think. Half the people in my generation aren't reproducing. It's sad. Make the world too safe, and eventually nobody takes the risks you need to make life worth living and continuing.
Turns out they're more popular than you'd think. Half the people in my generation aren't reproducing. It's sad. Make the world too safe, and eventually nobody takes the risks you need to make life worth living and continuing.