[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

For sure!

My only addition to the communal dimension you highlight, in line with my previous comment, is that a communitarian dimension can certainly develop around written text. You can get to know someone by their books and writings, and if you’re game to write your thoughts too, they may know you too. Not to mention letters and other more casual written formats.

Mass media, including the internet generally, even before social media, undercuts this dynamic, I think, through a saturation of both our social and content (a word I chose over “information”) bandwidths. A giant pipe of algorithmically curated content doesn’t leave much room for even noticing the author let alone forming a communal bond. Consumerism over conversation, one could say.

Additionally, moving the causal conversational exchanges online likely disincentivises real life communal engagements around written texts, such as book clubs, fan gatherings etc.

Which is all a hand wavy way of speculating that writing before the internet may have been something different than afterward with respect to how eroded the social dimensions of oral traditions have been. Of course there are trade offs again, especially with reach and connectedness. But once doomscrolling became the norm, I feel like a real categorical shift occurred.

Anyhoo, don’t let me chew your ear off! Very much appreciate the chat!

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 20 hours ago

Yea.

The writing/reading vs oral one is interesting to me. Obviously we’re both on one side of that transition, and so biased by that experience. And I certainly would like to have been exposed to more of a traditional oral approach to knowledge. But like you I think it’s a reasonable choice on balance because it can naturally complement what came before. Writing can extend the reach of what one can gain access to and memorise and then share and engage with orally. While engaging with a text orally, by speaking it out loud or to an audience while you’re completing the writing process can likely aid the reader quality of the written text. If used correctly I suppose.

The point being that maybe there are technologies which necessarily involve more or more categorical de-skilling than others. And maybe that’s a property of technologies that can be assessed and tracked.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Totally fair.

Where I was coming from was trying to balance our consumeristic imagination with enough time to get bored by it and value something more.

Even if that’s possible, that longer life would also just feed wealth accumulation and feudalism, as you say, is a point well made.

A bigger question then seems to be whether human nature can handle technological progress. As you imply - tenuous at best!

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Enjoying the ride is perhaps all we have!

And yea, the liminal space point is very good point, part of the human condition you could say I think. Like I was saying, the potential is there, it seems, but we’re just a bit too reward seeking and lazy, as our evolutionary baggage likely dictates.

The only thing I see changing the balance is categorically longer life. If the average age of all humans at any given time was like 100yrs, that could be a massive addition of calm centerdness.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I hear you. There’s a good amount of diversity in humanity, I think, and a good amount of dynamics in the ensuing interactions. My fear is that there’s a lot of “good enough is good enough” and consumerism and materialism in humanity. Maybe not everyone, but enough. And that makes for a hungry species. Add large social structures on top, and you amplify the social trends that may be governed by only a small amount of choices or people.

I hope too, but I think I’ve concluded that humanity is just a bit of a headless chicken of a species.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

They all look pretty big to me on a map.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago

Yea, it’s the thing I find myself repeating to anti-AI peeps (of which I count myself) … you don’t realise how behind you are.

Not behind on missing out on knowing how to use AI, but on how much things have shifted and the world turned and how much heavy momentum is involved and far back the facilitating patterns go.

Same with the fediverse to be honest. It’s a reaction to the state of social media in ~2010.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

Having never visited … I’m still blown away by this being a lake (that is fresh water right?)

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

I think the threat is greater still.

Without jobs, and living off of whatever state based support, what leverage will the jobless have in society? How easy will it be to simply dismiss and ignore this economically disenfranchised cohort? To forcefully abuse them if it’s politically convenient? To completely prevent them from moving economic class. It certainly won’t be a clean jump to Star Trek “utopia”.

And beyond that of course are AI apocalypse scenarios. With machines increasingly running the world, what leverage will humanity have over it?

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago

Hmmm … what would be the evolutionary perspective on this? A Lamarckian process overlaid on a Mendelian/genetic process through epigenetic modulation, passing on modifications based on parents’ local experiences of the current environment?

To us expecting to live 80 years, it might seem silly. But for mammals hoping to just survive, it may make lots of sense.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days ago

The dirty little secret is that the education system is a conformity production line, even gate keeping wealthy society by a student’s ability to conform.

Find exams dumb and pointless and never get a good justification for their significance and so struggle to care and perform well at them? Sorry, you’re out of the pipeline.

Which doesn’t mean learning and assessment are useless. It’s just clear that the emphasis of the system is very mechanical.

5

After watching ep 6, I was wondering …

SpoilersIt seems that like with the Oklahoma bombing parallel, they’ve set up a war on terror or 9/11 parallel with the Mars uprising. The depiction of the president and how they received the information seems fairly obvious I think.

The interesting part, I wonder, is that the whole season has been about Mars and all its characters making us sympathetic to them. So I wonder if they’ve just snuck in a war on terror allegory from the terrorist’s perspective with the US as the clear enemy by slowly building up the sympathy with Mars over time and then flipping the switch in ep 6. Feels quite bold and interesting to me! I imagine the conclusion to the dynamic won’t say too much that’s clearly politically controversial, but it seems like the idea is there - just how easy it can be to find yourself a “terrorist” against a super power.

22
submitted 1 month ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

Just remembered that this was a thing.

If you don’t know who Bill Joy is, AFAIK, basically a grey beard who made vi (predecessor to vim), contributed to early BSD and founded Sun microsystems.

The actual article is paywalled. Here’s an internet archive capture (pre paywall): https://web.archive.org/web/20160107134319/https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/

14
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/movies@lemm.ee

I wanted to like it for basically everything going for it - premise, Pattinson, Bong, sci-fi, “original” film - but came out pretty much as bitter as I have ever after a film. I’m not one to do it, but I was close to walking out on it.

There are some touches of what the film could have been, some moments maybe. But on the whole it felt like a train wreck where I’d bet that people knew on set that it just wasn’t going to work.

At some point I noticed there was a good amount of yelling from the actors (I’m wondering if that’s just me) and can’t help but suspect it was the director or actors trying to find energy in scenes that were struggling. Or maybe that happened in the edit. Then there’s Ruffulo and Collette’s satirical characters that just didn’t land and felt dumb and amateur (along with Poor Things, I’m thinking Ruffulo is just not good and “original” film makers would do well to stay away)

All up, I think it’s embarrassingly bad, or “objectively” bad. No real depth, no coherence or pacing or well directed momentum, much of the comedy doesn’t land, characters and plot often feel like afterthoughts, and it got boring too.

I think this movie review (from a pleasantly non-hype yt channel) says it better than I can.

What’s funny is I think a lot of people want this to be good. For the sake of original, fun, quirky, satirical films (and honestly, me too). But are stuck confronting a film that’s only making that situation worse not better and which represents the risks that studios need to accept not the successes they don’t understand).

Am I off here? I was pleased to find the review I linked as it seemed to match my thoughts.

EDIT - epilogue

And on the point about the fate of films … I saw this in the cinema (somewhat in support of original films) and dragged a friend too.

It was expensive. There was bad behaviour in the cinema (people taking photos with flash of each other!). And the film was bad, IMO, in a way that I feel people should have been more honest about (like I said, I think people wanted this to be good). Plus my friend doesn’t trust my choice in movies any more.

It’s really put me off going to the cinemas TBH. I’ll see how I end up feeling over time, but I think this might have been the straw that broke my back on the whole cinema thing. In part, sadly, because I don’t get how the film was that bad.

8
submitted 1 year ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/music@lemmy.world

Jinjer knocked it out of the park with this track (off of their latest album)! Love it!

35
submitted 1 year ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/science@lemmy.world
28
submitted 1 year ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/showsandmovies@lemm.ee

Oooff. That’s had me stressed!

Season 2 had me kinda down. I adored season 1 but it seemed like season 2 didn’t quite know what it was doing. Too slow and underdeveloped.

As it ramped up at the end though I’m really happy with it. And I appreciate the pacing having finished it. Really nice season of TV and I’m totally ready for season 3.

I’ve not read the books, so I don’t know where it’s going.

The whole algorithm thing (that’s apparently what some subtitles have named the voice) … I’m in the fence about the idea of having an AI/algo angle on that … but I guess we still deserve to confront that sort of stuff. I very much appreciated though the structure of there being another level of manipulation. And of course, Bernard refers to them as “who” bit “it” so either he’s naive or there is another organisational element. The additional silo in the “actually there were 51” line also points in that direction. As does the fact that there’s a tunnel at the bottom of the silo … what/who is that for?!

Generally though, having a microcosm of society under duress and oppression is turning out to be a fantastic premise for a TV show willing to be patient with its development! I’m not watching that much TV but Silo and Andor are definitely my favs of the past few years!

43
submitted 1 year ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/movies@lemm.ee

Of Eggers' works, I've only seen The Northman and this, Nosferatu.

I can confidently say that I like very much what these films are and where they are coming from. I'm almost guaranteed to see Eggers' next film. And, without wanting to see Nosferatu again, I have a general longing to see a film like Nosferatu over the next few days just to dig into the vibe more (I should probably see his earlier films now).

All to say that this film basically delivers on what you'd hope, with probably some surprises and compelling parts.

But what compelled me to write this was that I walked away from Nosferatu with almost exactly the same feeling I had after The Northman ... that I really wanted to see the better version of that film, that there was something missing, something perhaps slight and subtle but also essential for making the films truly great or to at least wash away an itch that there are annoying flaws.

I'm by no means qualified to describe what these things are or to work if they're just me-problems, but I'm struck by having exactly the same feeling after both films and that Eggers is the sole writer of both films. Because what I think I struggle with probably comes down to writing choices.

Watching both films, I thought to myself that Eggers struggles to stitch the dramatic aspects of his films with their atmospheric parts, which in his hands are vital to his style. Sometimes I wondered if a scene really needed to be there or as long, or needed to interrupt the flow of what was cut from before, or couldn't have better dialogue or more focused acting. It just feels like the moment he decides to have a straight dramatic sequence, with dialogue etc, he kind of doesn't know what he's doing nearly as much, let alone how to bind those components into a cohesive whole along with the more intense and supernatural components.

I'm curious now to watch The Lighthouse, which Eggers wrote along with his brother, to see if I can pick on a difference.



Thinking more broadly, as much as I liked an enjoyed Nosferatu, and will probably watch it again at some point, I do feel it is flawed. I could imagine a directors cut being interesting.

But generally, for me, it was downhill from about the middle onwards (basically after "Orlok's Castle" sequence (which was brilliant I thought, and along with the film's opening, easily the highlights I'd look forward to on rewatch).

Thinking about it along with "The Northman", I wonder if Eggers struggled to adapt pre-existing stories. With Nosferatu, for me personally, it certainly took away from the strength of the film that I new the basic structure of the story ahead of time, which for a vibey horror film becomes a serious distraction at some point. And I don't think Eggers really had too much to bring to the final act of the story TBH (apart from that shot/frame, I guess, which if you've seen the film you can probably guess). I certainly would find it interesting if the story told were only loosly inspired by Stoker's and Murnau's prior works.



Anyone else get where I'm coming from? Anyone with a better take on it than me?

4
Diwan 2, Rachid Taha (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 2 years ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/music@lemmy.world

I’d almost forgotten about this album, rediscovered it today, and fuck I love the vibe and energy.

11
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/afl@aussie.zone

Instead we’ve the lions, power, swans and cats.

Who were premiers in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 respectively (with a cheeky eagles flag in 2006).

edit:

Or, to include repeats and losing the grand final:

The 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07 & 09 premiers, and, the 04, 06, 07 & 08 runners up are in the prelims this year.

Not one GF in 9 years that didn’t have one of these four and only two that were win by another team.

12
submitted 2 years ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/showsandmovies@lemm.ee

How are people feeling about it? I was disappointed by season 1, but happy to keep watching as I'm a die hard fan from childhood.

Season 2 had me excited at first ...

spoilers (and ranting)The first two-three episodes at least had me even a little pumped.

The dark wizard in the east very much signals to me that the stranger could be a blue wizard, along with the dark wizard, which is honestly very cool and a nice way to split the difference around Tolkien's "speculation" on what happened to them.

Getting more complex Sauron manipulation and moving the plot along too seemed nice.

But after episode 4, I don't know. I came away from it thinking it might have been the worst tv episode I've watched since Picard S2, which was very strange given how much interesting shit they did. Ents, Bombadil, Wizards, Hobbit origins (actually I don't care for the amount of hobbit stuff in the show at all).

But there was something just boring about it all for me.

The only way I can explain what I think I'm seeing, and why it's fundamentally flawed, is that the writers/directors want to take Tolkien seriously and even feel rather pressured to do so ... and so in many ways they're actually writing/filming that sense of seriousness rather than a well thought out adaptation style.

The clue for me is how the whole show is at once strangely grounded and somehow "elevated" at the same time. The elves, such as Galadriel and Elrond, are kinda normal people doing normal things a lot of the time (compare LoTR trilogy Galadriel basically being mind-crushing and haunting most of the time) ... but talk as though they're reading directly from the bible or Silmarillion. Same for Halbrand/Annatar/Sauron. The construction of the rings is a clue into this I think, where they've attempted to portray it as powerful and important, but there's absolutely no sense of how in the world they're magical, no indication that there's some special elven craft behind them. Just "add mithril and get powerful rings".

Bombadil's dialogue seemed the same to me. Talking about being the eldest as though he's talking about what happened last week. Now in that character this sort of approach makes the most sense. But even so, there didn't seem to be any joy, jolly or aloofness about the character to signal how old he must be to be casual about witnessing the beginning of time. And there's always the concern the show should have for making us the viewer feel what's happening on screen ... and I don't think we felt Bombadil's mysteriousness much at all. Compare with, in the LoTR books, Tolkien using a wonderful way of showing that ... the one ring had no affect no him whatsoever to the point that he could see Frodo while he was wearing it.

The only breath of fresh air so far has been the dark wizard, which clearly takes cues from Saruman. It's probably been the only sense stylistically I've gotten that we're in a lost age of a fantasy world.

One take I had from season 1 was that RoP's biggest problem might be that it's being made after Game of Thrones not before it. That GoTs is absolutely the wrong influence for a show like this and yet is likely to have one due to its pervasive success. And I feel like I may have been right about that. The Tolkien world and GoT "politics and intrigue" are not compatible. Moreover, I suspect the GoT style may have run its course somewhat. A show like RoP was a chance to try something interestingly mystical and I don't think the creators were up to the challenge, perhaps not at all.

287
submitted 2 years ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/til@lemmy.world

While territorial claims are and will likely be heated, what struck me is that the area is right near the Drake Passage, in the Weddell Sea (which is fundamental to the world's ocean currents AFAIU).

I don't know how oil drilling in the antarctic could affect the passage, but still, I'm not sure I would trust human oil hunger with a 10ft pole on that one.

Also interestingly, the discovery was made by Russia, which is a somewhat ominous clue about where the current "multi-polar" world and climate change are heading. Antarctica, being an actual continent that thrived with life up until only about 10-30 M yrs ago, is almost certainly full of resources.

67
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/movies@lemm.ee

It's funny, at time of posting, many of the YT comments are very nostalgic about how much has happened in this 8 year period ... and I can't lie, I feel it too god damn it.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 479 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It’s interesting to see Torvalds emerge as a kind of based tech hero. I’m thinking here also of his rant not long ago on social.kernel.org (a kernel devs microblog instance) that was essentially a pretty good anti-anti-leftism tirade in true Torvalds fashion.

EDIT:

Torvalds's anti-anti-left post (I was curious to read it again):

I think you might want to make sure you don’t follow me.

Because your “woke communist propaganda” comment makes me think you’re a moron of the first order.

I strongly suspect I am one of those “woke communists” you worry about. But you probably couldn’t actually explain what either of those words actually mean, could you?

I’m a card-carrying atheist, I think a woman’s right to choose is very important, I think that “well regulated militia” means that guns should be carefully licensed and not just randomly given to any moron with a pulse, and I couldn’t care less if you decided to dress up in the “wrong” clothes or decided you’d rather live your life without feeling tied to whatever plumbing you were born with.

And dammit, if that all makes me “woke”, then I think anybody who uses that word as a pejorative is a f*cking disgrace to the human race. So please just unfollow me right now.

view more: next ›

maegul

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF