SnapDragon
10mo ago
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but on the topic of The Little Mermaid, I am extremely confused by the Rotten Tomatoes score. The "audience score" has been fixed at 95% since launch, which is insanely high. The critics score is a more-believable 67%. Note that the original 1989 cartoon - one of my favorite movies growing up, a gorgeous movie that kickstarted an era of Disney masterpieces - only has an 88% audience score. Also, Peter Pan & Wendy, another woke remake coming out at almost the same time, has an audience score of 11%. And recall that the first time Rotten Tomatoes changed their aggregation algorithm was actually in response to Captain Marvel's "review bombing", another important and controversial Disney movie.
If you click through to the "all audiences" score, it's in the 50% range. And metacritic's audience score is 2.2 out of 10. The justification I've heard in leftist spaces is that the movie's getting review bombed by people who haven't seen it. And there certainly is a wave of hatred for this movie (including from me, because the woke plot changes sound dreadful). How plausible is this? I haven't seen the movie myself, so it's possible that it actually is decent enough for the not-terminally-online normies to enjoy. But even using that explanation, how is 95% possible?
Right now I only see two possibilities:
-
Rotten Tomatoes has stopped caring about their long-term credibility, and they're happy to put their finger on the scale in a RIDICULOUSLY obvious way for movies that are important to the Hollywood machine. I should stop trusting them completely and go to Metacritic.
-
People like me who have become super sensitive to wokeness already knew they'd hate the movie and didn't see it; for the "verified" audience, TLM is actually VERY enjoyable, and the 95% rating is real.
But, to be honest, I would have put a low prior on BOTH of these possibilities before TLM came out. Is there a third that I'm missing?
SnapDragon
7mo ago
Oof. You know you've gone off the far-left deep end when governor Newsom, of all people, is lightly coughing and hinting that this is unaffordable. So now my California tax dollars will be going towards supporting a strike for WGA workers who, in 2020, were earning a bare minimum of $4,546 a week. (I know the numbers in the current contract under negotiation were leaked, but I'm having a hard time finding a good source...? I suspect most of the media is on the side of any union, anywhere, anytime and would very much not like the hoi polloi to find out just how rich these brave freedom fighters actually are.)
SnapDragon
7mo ago
There are a lot of really good answers in this thread, reasons why historically unions have been a good idea (even if some notable examples have gone too far), but I want to point out that they almost entirely apply to private-sector unions. In the US we also have truly massive PUBLIC-sector unions, which (as far as I know) there is almost no good justification for. Their power derives from the government, which means that when they "negotiate", the government is the one on both sides of the table (negotiating about money that, as always, isn't theirs). It's always seemed insane to me, but maybe somebody here has a good justification...?
SnapDragon
6mo ago
Huh? You posted this as if this article is definitive proof that Israel lies. Was there nothing newer than 55 years old? And all the official data in that article is consistent with a mistake that they immediately acknowledged and apologized for. The rest is a speculative conspiracy theory which, while not impossible, requires both a conjured motive for Israelis to intentionally attack their most important ally and a perfect coverup lasting for two generations.
Are you used to being in some bubble where "everyone knows" that Israel likes to intentionally attack US ships and hospitals, so this link is the kind of "gotcha!" you were hoping for? Or were you just hoping nobody would actually click it?
SnapDragon
11mo ago
Oh wow, that article has yet another brilliant bit of statistical legerdemain.
The report found that suicides are responsible for half of all violent deaths in men and 71% of violent deaths in women.
The second number is higher, so clearly it's Women Most Affected! ...Except, of course, that the base rates are completely different. Slicing the data this way means that the more men die violently, then the more this makes women look victimized.
And when I see articles like this, I can't help but wonder. I usually assume that journalists are stupid rather than actively malicious. But the author had to have done some research to get the stats she's playing with, right? I'm sure she's living in a bubble, but even so it seems hard to imagine that she's never encountered the fact that suicide rates are actually higher for men. The article so carefully tap-dances around this fact, it seems like it has to be a purposeful omission ... which is just so damn evil. It makes me sad.
SnapDragon
6mo ago
The first thing mentioned in that article is that housing isn't being built because the government is actively getting in its way. Sure, a government deadlock will, sadly, not stop the regulators, but it'll (at least temporarily) stop lawmakers from tossing even more monkey wrenches into an already-completely-dysfunctional system. Also, "new rail systems won't get built" just sounds like the status quo to me...
I mean, I still vividly recall that during the long Obama government shutdown the only way they could actually get us hoi polloi to feel any pain was to actively shut down public parks (requiring more effort than doing nothing). When you're doing a performance review, and the answer to "so what do you do, exactly?" is "as long as you pay me I won't set fire to the building", it's time for that employee to go.
SnapDragon
10mo ago
...she didn't intend to expose confidential or classified information and most of the email saga came down to a mixture of negligence and pride...
...It was the pride of "owning" them...
Um, your justification seems to apply equally to both Hillary and Trump, even by your own words. So far as I know, nobody is accusing Trump of actually intending to expose the information.
SnapDragon
10mo ago
Yeah, Keanu Reeves (John Wick) is 58, Vin Diesel (Fast X) is 55 and Tom Cruise (MI) is 60. These are fun action franchises, but where are the fun action franchises with up-and-comers who are 20-30? I sure hope Ezra Miller isn't representative of the future of Hollywood "stars"...
SnapDragon
10mo ago
Yeah, there's a very relevant xkcd. There are thousands of times more cameras at hand to the general public than there were 50 years ago. If 9/11 happened today we'd have hundreds of videos of the FIRST plane impact - which happened with only seconds of warning - instead of just one. Only 12 years later, there was a huge amount of footage of the Chelyabinsk meteor. Even tsunamis - a relatively more common event with more warning - hadn't really been captured on video much before Japan's in 2011.
Real phenomena, even rare ones, get easier and easier to find footage of as technology increases. "Aliens flitting around the skies in spaceships" does not fit this profile at all.
SnapDragon
7mo ago
Using race and gender as the overriding factors feels icky to me as well.
Shouldn't it feel icky? It's open racism and sexism, no different than the old days of "XXX need not apply" job postings. Not to mention it would literally be illegal for a private company to hire this way. What's weird to me is that Dem elites are so immersed in identity politics that this doesn't feel icky to any of them.
SnapDragon
7mo ago
I'm a Putnam winner, and I don't think it's all that rarefied a category. I certainly don't dismiss out of hand the idea that Elon might be smarter than me. I'm probably better than him at math/programming, but I devoted my life to it and Elon didn't. If he'd had a different set of obsessions, maybe he'd have topped some other category instead of "richest man on Earth". (Heck, I wonder how many pro gaming champions might have been Elon - or a Fields Medalist - with a slightly different set of priorities...)
SnapDragon
10mo ago
I'd be ambivalent if it was just a few instances, but it really feels like he's exploiting the system. I wouldn't come to themotte if every other top-level post was one person soapboxing about da joos. HBD was similar: Yes, this is (intended to be) one of the few places on the Internet you can freely debate it, but it shouldn't be the only topic of discussion...
SnapDragon
9mo ago
Uh, you might be confusing income with personal wealth, or you have very strange standards. Having $1.6M doesn't make you particularly rich. Earning $1.6M per year definitely does. Unless you just think that schmoes like George W. Bush (net worth of ~$40M) aren't "rich or elite in a meaningful way".
SnapDragon
11mo ago
Eh. I gave him some respect back when he was simply arguing that timelines could be short and the consequences of being wrong could be disastrous, so we should be spending more resources on alignment. This was a correct if not particularly hard argument to make (note that he certainly was not the one who invented AI Safety, despite his hallucinatory claim in "List of Lethalities"), but he did a good job popularizing it.
Then he wrote his April Fool's post and it's all been downhill from here. Now he's an utter embarrassment, and frankly I try my best not to talk about him for the same reason I'd prefer that media outlets stop naming school shooters. The less exposure he gets, the better off we all are.
BTW, as for his "conceptualization of intelligence", it went beyond the tautological "generalized reasoning power" that is, um, kind of the definition. He strongly pushed the Orthogonality Hypothesis (one layer of the tower of assumptions his vision of the future is based around), which is that the space of possible intelligences is vast and AGIs are likely to be completely alien to us, with no hope of mutual understanding. Which is at least a non-trivial claim, but is not doing so hot in the age of LLMs.
SnapDragon
3mo ago
Any layman can tell you that the airplane flies.
And that's the point. That's the one, last, important step that (much of) science is lacking. Have you built something that works AT ALL? It's not that engineering doesn't suck. It's that modern "science" is even worse, because so much of its product (random unreplicated research papers, written on esoteric subjects, skimmed by friendly peer reviewers and read by nobody else) never needs to pass that final filter.
SnapDragon
3mo ago
I agree, when I worked at Google I remember their security measures being extremely well-thought-out - so much better than the lax approach most tech companies take. However, I DON'T trust their ideological capture. They won't abuse people's information by accident, but I will not be surprised if they start doing it on purpose to their outgroup. And they have the tools to do it en masse.
SnapDragon
9mo ago
This show is absolutely one of the greatest things the BBC ever created. But it's 40 years old, and I often wonder where the next generation's Yes, Minister is. I don't watch a lot of TV (I've seen some of The West Wing, none of Veep or House of Cards), but as far as I know no modern show is worthy of claiming its mantle. Why? Is this the sort of show that can only come from a no-longer-existent world of low BBC budgets, niche high-brow appeal, and writers' willingness to skewer everyone's sacred cow rather than push a one-sided agenda?
SnapDragon
1yr ago
Yudkowsky's ideas are repulsive because the "father of rationality" isn't applying any rationality at all. He claims absolute certainty over an unknowable domain. He makes no testable predictions. He never updates his stance based on new information (as if Yud circa 2013 already knew exactly what 2023 AI would look like, but didn't deign to tell us). Is there a single example of Yudkowsky admitting he got something wrong about AI safety (except in the thousand-Stalins sense of "things are even worse than I thought")?
In a post-April-Fool's-post world I have no idea why people still listen to this guy.
SnapDragon
1yr ago
The idea of accepting election results was uncontroversial on both sides until Trump talked. The benefits of polarization.
This seems like a strange claim to me. Would you classify the two-year investigation of "Russian interference" by a Special Prosecutor as "accepting election results"? "Not My President"? Hillary - the actual losing candidate - calling Trump an illegitimate President? Sadly, the civilized norms had already been well eroded by 2020.
SnapDragon
4mo ago
Lockdowns aren't on the pareto frontier of policy options for even diseases significantly deadlier than covid imo, just because rapid development and distribution of technological solutions is possible, but ... covid killed one million people in the united states. Yes, mostly old people, but we're talking about protecting old people here. No reason to pretend otherwise.
Speaking of government policy, I wonder how many lives were lost because we couldn't conduct challenge trials on COVID? It was almost the ideal case - a disease with a rapidly-developed, experimental new vaccine and a large cohort of people (anyone under 40) for which it wasn't threatening. If we were a serious society - genuinely trying to optimize lives saved, rather than performatively closing churches and masking toddlers - I wonder how early we could have rolled out RNA vaccines for the elderly?
SnapDragon
6mo ago
Adding to the list, there's Robert Ethan Saylor, who had Down's syndrome and suffocated after being forcibly restrained by authorities. His crime was slipping back into a theatre to watch the same movie twice. A pretty similar situation to George Floyd, except one was a career criminal on meth, and one was mentally disabled. But we know which one got the national outrage. (To be clear, both just seem like unfortunate, preventable-in-hindsight accidents to me. It's just the hypocrisy that I hate.)
SnapDragon
7mo ago
Biology and physics are old sciences compared to climate science. And the list of amazing things we've done with biology and physics over the last 200 years is insanely long. I guess you're saying that we should give climate science the same level of veneration, even without actual results and useful predictions, because it (ostensibly) uses the same processes. But even if you pretend that climate science is conducted with the same level of impartial truth-seeking - despite the incredible political pressure behind it - that's still missing the point that science is messy and often gets things wrong. Even in biology (e.g. Lamarckism) or physics (e.g. the aether). It takes hundreds of repeated experiments and validated predictions before a true "consensus" emerges (if even then). Gathering together a consensus and skipping that first step is missing the point.
And remember, skepticism is the default position of science. It's not abnormal. Heck, we had people excitedly testing the EmDrive a few years back, which would violate conservation of momentum! We didn't collectively say "excommunicate the Conservation of Momentum Deniers!"
Regardless, I'm not saying that climate science or the models are entirely useless. Like you said, the greenhouse effect itself is pretty simple and well-understood (though it only accounts for a small portion of the warming that models predict). There's good reason to believe warming will happen. Much less reason to believe it'll be catastrophic, but that's a different topic!
SnapDragon
7mo ago
So, I don't know how pleasing you'll find this answer, but the burden of proof is on the models to show their efficacy. A lot of the things you mentioned were very difficult things to do, but we know they work because we see that they work. You don't have to argue about whether Stockfish's chess model captures Truth with a capital T; you can just play 20 games with it, lose all 20, and see. (And of course plenty of things look difficult and ARE still difficult - we don't have cities on the moon yet!)
So, if we had a climate model that everyone could just rely on because its outputs were detailed and verifiably, reliably true, then sure, "this looks like it's a hard thing to do" wouldn't hold much weight. A property of good models is that it should be trivial for them to distinguish themselves from something making lucky guesses. But as far as I know, we don't have this. Instead, we use models to make 50-year predictions for a single hard-to-measure variable (global mean surface temperature) and then 5 years down the line we observe that we're still mostly within predicted error bars. This is not proof that the model represents anything close to Truth.
Now, I don't follow this too closely any more, and maybe there really is some great model that has many different and detailed outputs, with mean temperature predictions that are fairly accurate for different regions of the Earth and parts of the atmosphere and sea, and that properly predicts changes in cloud cover and albedo and humidity and ocean currents and etc. etc. If somebody had formally published accurate predictions for many of these things (NOT just backfitting to already-known data), then I'd believe we feeble humans actually had a good handle on the beast that is climate science. But I suspect this hasn't happened, since climate activists would be shouting it from the rooftops if it had.
SnapDragon
10mo ago
Well, no... "costs" and "what consumers are willing to pay" are both important factors that go into the price. If the manufacturer's costs go up, then the equilibrium price at which profits are maximized goes up too (although the manufacturer would make less absolute profit overall). That's the real misconception that I think you're pointing at: many people, including the OP, think that prices are completely determined by the seller. In reality, sellers are already maximally greedy, so they want to find this equilibrium price point that maximizes profits. This makes price a signal that they're measuring, not something that they directly control.
Minimum wage debates tend to sadden me, because there's always somebody saying "McDonald's can just compensate by charging $1 more for a burger", making this silly mistake. As if McDonald's is just leaving all that extra money on the table, until it's forced to collect it to pay wages...
Indeed, journalistic standards are loose enough that absolutely anything can be framed to make men look inferior or women victimized.
"Men are discriminated against in college admission" -> "Men aren't applying themselves in school"
"Women are saved first in emergencies" -> "Men treat women as weak and lacking agency"
"Women are admired for their beauty" -> "Women are objectified"
"Men commit violence more" -> "Men commit violence more" (no dissonance here!)
"Men are more often the victims of violence" -> "Women feel less safe than ever, study finds"
"Men die in wars" -> "Women lose their fathers, husbands, sons"
"Men commit suicide more" -> "Women attempt suicide more"
"Men literally die younger" -> "Women are forced to pay more for health insurance" (honestly, I've admired the twisted brilliance of this framing ever since the Obamacare debates)
More options
Context Copy link