pigeonburger
2yr ago
When I last saw pictures of him promoting the movie he looked as if he regretted not managing to kill himself in his last plane accident.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Outside of the obvious problems with it (Harrison Ford's age and following up on a train wreck of a movie that bifurcated the lore in a detrimental direction), Indiana Jones can't be remade or followed up on succesfully because Indiana Jones is a throwback to pulp adventure stories/comic books almost no one remembers now. I think the last thing to succesfully tap into nostagia for that that was The Mummy in... 1999. Now, Indiana Jones IS the reference. There's only so much you can achieve by referencing two/three beloved movies (opinions are mixed on #2).
This is a broader problem with remake/sequel culture, succesful pop culture franchises were built by drawing heavily from preceding pop culture but in a new way; a remix. Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back built a franchise through heavy inspiration from pulp sci-fi and samurai(/western) movies; mix them together, you get Star Wars. Return of the Jedi and more strongly the sequel trilogy's inspiration is... Star Wars. No significant additional inspiration was added to it, they just remixed a remix. Nothing new is created, they're just diluting the original signal. Of course, the fans would probably be disappointed if they did anything else; the prequel trilogy was mostly rejected because it was different. (Rejecting it because it wasn't very good is fine; rejecting it because it doesn't feel like Star Wars is a case of "careful what you wish for" that we can all appreciate in hindsight with the sequel trilogy).
So anyway, sorry for the meandering post to come to the shocking conclusion that remake and belated sequels are creatively bankrupt, but I just had to take the opportunity reflecting on the new Indiana Jones movie to work through why it is creatively bankrupt.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Sierra's Fast Attack is abandonware, has a decent tutorial and goes pretty far as far as cold war submarine simulations go. It should be easy to find a version packaged for Dosbox.
The current most complete cold war submarine (amongst other platforms) simulator is the opaque and aging "Dangerous Waters". It's very in-depth, and but it takes a long time to reach a point where you can have fun with it. And it's not free (though it's often cheap).
Two other popular cold war submarine games are the old Red Storm Rising and Cold Waters, though they wouldn't really be considered simulators, at least not hard simulators. They abstract away the information gathering game to a single number. They make submarine warfare to be more about dodging torpedoes like in the movies. The first one is abandonware and the second one is fairly recent (and often on sale).
WWII-era sims are possibly an easier way into submarine simulators. They are also about data gathering, but less intensely so. The Silent Hunter series is the main one; starting with 3 in particular they're worth looking at, though they're not abandonware. I hear good things about Aces of the Deep but haven't tried it yet. Not abandonware either.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
we exist to get beat
Would correct that to "we exist to get bought".
There's the stigma that Canadian companies cannot compete in a mature international industry so if one happens to be an early innovator, it'll take a foreign company buying them up to allow them to reach their proper potential. It also doesn't help that Canada, outside of Quebec, is pretty much the perfect example of an anti-nationalist country. An anti-nationalist country doesn't nurture its companies in the local market until they're able to fend off for themselves on the international market to make us proud. We'll either send them off to get slaughtered too early, or keep them on as a little protected local pet until the international market comes knocking.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
I'm sure the conservatives would all love to conquer the institutions, they're mostly wary that yet another "ally" savvy to the ways of the institutions will turn out to be an infiltrator who will betray them when the stakes get high enough. Many would rather bet on the boisterous man who makes himself an enemy of institutions at every turn. He might not be the best to convert institutions, but perhaps he will succeed at razing them or culling them (he hasn't so far, but there's also a much longer record of conservatives betraying their base).
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Recently my gaming obsession has been submarine warfare simulators. They are the best games to play to quickly grow a sense of what you're saying; submarine warfare is nothing but developing a sense of how confident you can be with limited and potentially unreliable information in an adversarial environment. Possibly the purest distillation of that insight.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
It's a shame because Reddit largely killed the standalone forum for non-ossified communities. For the passively apolitical majority, those who are okay with simply ignoring the politics or are used to hearing it as background noise and don't think there's anything weird with it, it's a Schelling point for conversations on any topic.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Fishing. I haven't been in years, I desperately yearn for it.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Pain is: a prompt for corrective action, a learning opportunity, or pointless and should be moved on from... Pain is never: an excuse to inflict misery on others, a way to increase your status, an indication of your worth as a human being...
A kid who learns this would in my opinon be well equipped to deal with life.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Could be indirectly. Maybe the settlement pushed Fox to ask their hosts to tighten their belt and/or the leash they're kept on and that didn't sit well with Carlson.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
While I could be mistaken and it could just be a trick played on me by my filter bubble, I believe this:
The author also believes that younger generations have been trained to expect diversity in entertainment and recoil when it is not present.
is an illusion cast on us to make it seem as if it is fait accompli, so we do not resist it. My impession is that young generations, save a loud activist minority, do not care about this and would rather consume entertainment that prioritise quality over "activism" when both are on offer, which is why it seems like an imperative for people pushing this illusion that all remnants of past quality entertainment must be "remade" and tainted with activism, as its mere presence next to its modern counterparts shade it entirely. This is where I believe we differ, they must destroy the past not because they've won, but because they fear its presence will break the spell they've put on us.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Having read it, as far as I could see it doesn't use motte-and-bailey arguments, it highlights a real problem (large caritative funds are free money for a class of professional managers to invest in whatever their own pet causes are, uncoupled from any requirement of being efficient, and sometimes clearly against the intentions of individuals who provided the initial capital). The problem with the article imo is how blunt and unsophisticated the author's solution is, pretty much "just ban them". I haven't read anything else on this blog or from this author so perhaps he does not care about setting dark precedents and preserving liberalism. To those of us who do, a more elegant solution to aligning incentives and ensuring such entities either don't spring up or aren't hijacked, perhaps a more social than political solution, would be a lot more palatable.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
Yeah, maybe the person you're responding to is in the tech bubble, but "non-tech-primary organization" are a vast majority of the economy. It's not just industries with a reputation for being conservative with IT: the vast majority of businesses that aren't specifically high-tech and front line of IT sector (ie, not FAANG) are still struggling to manage the move from on-premise virtualisation to SaaS or IaaS, like 2 or 3 "paradigms" back from what we're told IT is about now, and that's WITH the boost the pandemic gave to those modernisation efforts. They are nowhere near orchestration, PaaS and infrastructure as code, if they could even envision a benefit from those.
And I think it bears repeating, it's not just IT-conservative industries like banking, hospitals, etc... It's every non-tech-startup small business. It's farms. It's almost every company at any scale that works with industrial machinery, warehouses, etc...
The main issue is that the left have been successfully propagandized to that they need both socialized medicine and UBI, and the right has been succesfully propagandized to that they need neither, ensuring no one on either side notices here that a better, perhaps the best, solution is spending as much money as is currently spent on the safety net on UBI instead, being in the process more generous in general to recipients (less money being lost in administrative matters) while at least partly preserving market incentives.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
If your social media...and hell...maybe your social experience tells you that FwB relationships are very normal, maybe in that case you think that maybe that's LESS intrusive than asking someone out on a date. I can easily see how someone would think this. Again, I still think that's bad advice, and a dumb thing to do.
Yes, I think it's very easy to get the impression FwB relationships are common and normal from the media too. Not just social media. And maybe for some groups of people outside of my filter bubble they are. But OP fucked up by jumping in without understanding the dynamics by which these relationships happen. The name isn't helping: FwB implies it is an "upgraded" friendship (friendship + sex), whereas to my understanding they're more "downgraded" dating (dating - romance and commitment). While the difference between those two definitions seems academical as the resulting status is pretty much the same, there is a meaningful difference in that it changes completely the direction you approach them from.
pigeonburger
2yr ago
I think that's probably what will keep the 90s special as far as nostalgia goes; it feels like if we could time travel back to the 90s, we could have our cake and eat it too. The differences between then and now are technically qualitative, but they don't feel like they are, and the advantages of pre-Internet age hadn't really faded away yet. We often focus on how kids used to play outside, but rainy, bad weather days were boring. Now, possibilities for entertainment don't change much despite the weather, but before video game consoles, you had to hope your parents were willing to drive to go rent a VHS, or before the VCR you had to hope something good was on TV, and before the TV, you were pretty much fucked if nothing good was on the radio, etc... In the 90s, you could have it all. If you wanted social media: BBSes, usenet, forums were there. If you wanted to speak to someone across the world, there were crude audio video chat platforms like CU-SeeMe. You could play tons of videogames of all kinds, if you were on a computer you could download them too. Of course, when we imagine ourselves in the 90s, we tend to imagine ourselves as early adopters, even though few people had computers and internet (and broadband internet). But yeah, the perks of the current years were mostly possible, even if few people took advantage of them, and the tradeoffs hadn't materialized yet.
Yes, I think it's fairly obvious they do, but they don't want to do it with their money, they want to do it with the common pot. And they get pushback because there's people suffering close to the bottom who work hard, floating just above the line where a safety net would need to catch them, who really could use the money they're forced to put into the common pot, who wonder why they shouldn't keep their money instead especially when they see others not working as much as they do being entitled to equal or more of it.
And as a result, the elites feel annoyed because they believe (and I think they truly do) that if everyone just shut up and paid taxes and didn't try to resist their plans, everyone could have a strong safety net and if they have to enact policies that explicitely fuck over the red tribers they'll see the necessity of a strong safety net, and they'll stop resisting.
So in general, they believe they have to soften up people a bit to accept ideas like UBI.
More options
Context Copy link