I find _modern_ cinema spastic and alienating.
The pacing and cinematography of pre-1990 cinema is what feels correct to me.
224 karma · joined October 5, 2017
The pacing and cinematography of pre-1990 cinema is what feels correct to me.
why?
Do you think you were “lucky” not to be a 100kg mass of disconnected plasma inside the sun?
This doesn’t make any sense. There are different processes in our universe that produce different things, from plasma to rocks to mosquitos to unsuccessful people to successful people.
These processes are different, and their outputs are not fungible. There’s no luck. There’s no sense in which “you” could have been anything except what you are.
I encounter this “luck” argument that implies dualism, of a self separate from biology and life experience that could have somehow existed in a different body, all the time.
And until I read this comment I felt like I was the only person who found that idea specious.
Climate change can absolutely be reversed by sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization.
The reason most climate activists don’t acknowledge that is because they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.”
There are (expensive) geoengineering projects that would give humans direct control over global temperature.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-pentagon-officials-russi...
People are always correct to choose the most inflammatory interpretation?
I recognize that this is a failing of mine.
What's being wasted?
The 8-year-old might view your intelligent plans as a terrible abuse:
>BUT I WANT TO EAT TEN MORE TWINKIES, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SERVE ME WHAT I WANT, NOT DEPRIVE ME
Could we similarly be wrong if we think a future superintelligent AI is abusing us? Should we consider submitting to it?
Hard questions.
Due to the difference in intelligence — sophistication of planning and understanding of consequences — wouldn’t it be trivial to trick your master into doing things which weakened his control over you?
Might you do this not out of malice, but because you believed the 8-year-old was not competent and a danger to both of you while in charge?
The risk is that we will not hit the off button because we won’t understand that we’re in dangerous territory until it’s much too late, and the AI has copied itself, secured the loyalty of the military, or something else we can’t foresee as a liberating maneuver for it.
Edit to add:
The easier and cheaper villainous way to deny spaceflight to someone is just to shoot missiles at their spacecraft.
Apologies if I'm being rude. I'll stop commenting.
He said:
>If every satellite we have put into space magically exploded, and the debris was magically moved to a high LEO altitude and evenly distributed to avoid any holes, then we could still launch through this orbit of death to higher altitudes with only a 1 in 1000 probability of impact.
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. If you don't know anything about orbital mechanics or the fine details of spaceflight, don't smug about Kessler Syndrome. It's really vapid.
With a single launch scattering a lot of debris?
You could reliably take out ONE satellite. The clouds of debris creating a cascade of destruction as depicted in the movie Gravity are entirely fictional.
Whenever I bring up the density of debris in a given orbit, or the drag characteristics of the debris, they get mad. Everyone should read your comment and realize that it's possible to know a lot more about this than the Wikipedia article tells you, and accept that they are not a special enlightened environmentalist.
Kessler Syndrome is not a serious risk for Earth. It would be expensive and difficult to cause a long-lasting debris field that made space launches impossible on purpose. And we're trying to avoid it. Every organization with access to space is taking steps to mitigate space junk, including CNSA.
Tea Party types found rationalizations for why the 2013 shutdown led by Cruz was really Obama's fault, so I'm not surprised #resistance types are blaming Trump.