Don’t know much about Stein, but most of what I’ve heard from Sanders sounds like the kind of sanity that the asylum riots to resist. The USA has no Left.

(👉👈)

I’m around 50:50, I read a lot of them but am prone to cynical hot takes on occasion. I’m particularly interested in social community and feeling like I’m at least present with others. Physical disability and in my case, the social isolation it causes–sucks. I’m here when I’m not able to do much else and need to escape. So that is my excuse for the times I’m not reading and the overly cynical hot takes.

There’s nothing wrong with disconnecting and enjoying simple things. I love watching some kids movies too. The observation is more nuanced and refers to the way we tend to fail to see our interpersonal growth over time. We tend to see nostalgia without the influence of how we matured. It is like our memory of the thing has matured in imperceptible ways.

I struggle for the words to really describe it outright now that I try. I’m coming from the mindset of writing my own hard science fiction universe and the perspective it has given me, especially when it comes to underlying storytelling frameworks, social/political structures, and defining what is fantasy magic.

Like is a solar ring structure used to make antimatter safely to one way interstellar generation ships magic? It is for the scale of human economy today. Is it fantasy to imagine self replicating drones? I think it is just a matter of time and scale, where I am willing to say at kilometers scale it is possible. It is basically packaging an industrial complex in space. So that seems reasonable. However I find moving faster than causality and space navies childish nonsense. I see exceptionalism as the doctrine of a neo feudal oligarchy, and a story of inevitable tyranny of an authoritarian monster repulsive.

I had no clue about these themes as a child, but now I can’t unsee them. I dob not think most people have or care about this kind of defined awareness, but I think these undertones exist just outside of their awareness.

Outside of the philosophical, just telling a congruent story is critical, and those failures are egregious in any story.

Puff puff pass bro

pass

bro…

Doritos or Taco Bell?

I think a lot of that is a product of the bottleneck of information and media back then. People went to the movies because there wasn’t as much to do or sources of information. There were not a dozen films competing for your patronage in the same way as in more recent times. The world moved more conservatively slowly where calculating risk was very different. Also ratings were kinda a new and less relevant thing I think, but that was long before I was ever born.

The California culture of risk with enormous funds and technology at the time was also huge and had a big impact on SW that was forging that bleeding edge and melding the old with the new. We’re in an upheaval era of promise right now too, but it is orders of magnitude more expensive and complicated than it was in the 1970’s-1980’s. Even adjusting for inflation there is no comparison between the cost of a silicon chip fab and edge technology between then and now. The price of novel innovation has changed from someone adapting a new idea to someone contracting established firms.

The old ways cost enormous labor. It is fine and manageable when that cost is normalized across society in the cost of living. It is impossible to return to that paradigm once that normalization is lost. Society would collapse if the necessary changes were made to make mass labor viable at the scales of the past. So, the risk changes and so must the media.

It was a paraphrased quote of Lukas himself that said he made the first films for 10 year olds and the second series for 5 year olds. You need to see it from the perspective of someone willing to risk losing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in a gamble that is never a sure thing. The artistry is a very minor often overlooked aspect when this kind of money is in play. I’ve had a job spending a couple of million dollars a year where my mistakes could cost a chain of businesses closing and around three dozen jobs. Buying high end bicycles at that scale requires me to completely disconnect my opinion and style biases and become an account first and foremost. People do not take risks to tell stories, they tell stories that follow an interpretation of statistical metrics.

The targeted movie rating is key to demographic and without a demographic there are no numbers to make a financial argument for the risk. Films are made TO fit, not made AND fit. The risk is never blind.

The target age demographic is always at most (PG-) 13. Because this target does not change, if the viewer matures, the nostalgia of youth will never align with the expectations of the matured mind. It is the entire tenured ratings system and standardized ultra simplistic morality culture that prevent capitalization on an evolving demographic. Instead, everyone consuming this media is incentivised to remain adolescent of mind or complain about how elements of their childhood fail to align with their evolved and matured expectations.

Ignorance is basically lazy indifference

The cynicism of reality;

the full spectrum of self awareness;

the layers upon layers of conflicting correct perspectives;

an understanding of the duality of order and chaos;

the crippling nature of battling a skilled Platonic sophist;

unmasking sadism;

the constant internal revisionism of curiosity and self growth;

the abstractions of the philosopher must come at a cost, and one must ask what is the price of thought.

I don’t think it is truly possible to lack an opinion. Indifference is the opposite of caring, and therefore the opposite of both love and hate at the same time. Indifference is an acceptable state of mind, but it is still an opinion. I will postulate, as silly as it is in extreme abstraction, that the opposite of opinion is only possible in death. Existence itself implies a state of awareness and opinion on abstracted levels of consciousness.

Start having some bro time with just you and the dude. See how it plays out just the two of you. You both need a good repore, common ground, established boundaries, good communication, and a plan for how to handle conflict. If you cannot build that bridge, things will likely go badly when you are at a disadvantage such as this circumstance.

The gesture of paying hints that he wants to build that bridge too.

sources? Sounds like leading a lead into leading… an issue without an issue for a subscription

Always tread the high ground. You do not need to make any statements or push any sentimental or ideological perspective.

If you are into it, read The God Emperor of Dune for a great example of exploring complexity of characters and how to tackle the subject.

Leto II is extremely dominant and authoritarian to he point of instability and terrorism and yet at the same time he is also the most altruistic and kind person in the Dune universe. Duncan is the lover ladies man and ideologue but also foolish and impulsive. Siona is a strong women and on of the main characters and yet there is not even the slightest hint of some feminist agenda even though this was written in the 1960’s to 1970’s. Hwi is a beautiful smart woman with depth that is torn between the love of two men. Nayla is a shallow but likable soldier with remarkable loyalty. She is part of an all women’s army called The Fish Speakers. There is even a passage where this army goes out of control and rapes men. This is the only element of the book that I felt like it was clearly delineating Frank Herbert’s stance that the women in this book were in fact a ideological choice and more than just great character building. Yet still, nothing about this was forceful, it was simply amusing in breaking preconceptions of my reality. I highly recommend the read.

In the card game, I was super familiar with this guy, but it was the only card in the game that I had no clue where it came from.

Later, I learnt that is part of a junked 1940’s Derwent jet engine. (Scott Manley)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYGQwgId-Bc

First gf. Grew up Jehovah’s Witness, loved a lovely girl in highschool with everything I had. Another later was never mentioned to family. The cult like nonsense of biased prejudice is quite disgusting in that group.

Yes

IRL social network is a major factor.

People are a product of their environment and opportunities. Genetics have nothing to do with hierarchy and display. Wealth is the dumbest and most primitive form of display that fundamentally harms and kills millions of people, enabling humans with the least ethics to peacock around. This is the behavior of subsentient unevolved imbeciles, like if publishing a scientific paper involved a gladiator death match fight with and rival publishing author. Wealth as hierarchical display is barbaric stupidity. If any alien civilization were to exist in some childish fantasy universe and somehow find us in time and space, wealth hierarchy would be seen as a primary reason why humans are if no regard as nothing more than primitive farm animals or parasites as they are unable to transcend to full sentient behavior as a species capable of acting in the best interest of all. Humans are nothing more that sentient cosplay that constantly devolve into sadistic murder orgies of war over meaningless distinction and sadistic torment over the fundamental needs of other humans at every level from relationships to neighborhood, community, region, continent, and world.

The answer is applied game theory in the present. Doing right for everyone, and systematically dismantling systems of exploitation.

Wealth hierarchy will end in a violent and tumultuous way within the next century once the first successful resource acquisition of a M-type astroid in near Earth orbit is achieved. Japan is leading that effort in the present. There is more resource wealth in a single M-type astroid than all of the Earth based resources accessed in the Holocene. That will make wealth as it is now totally irrelevant. The future is in space after we make that transition. At that point, the biggest limitation is cyclical elemental balance and heat budget. The primitive concept of wealth becomes nonsensical and totally irrelevant. Deep gravity wells and planetary differentiation due to gravitational separation are the real creators of human scarcity.

Wealth only buys connections and opportunities. It has nothing to do with merit. Multi generation wealth is a massive hindrance to humanity as it removes any connection between merit and achievement and acts as a barrier to humans of real merit. This is why you are fundamentally only a product of your environment and opportunities. Promoting true merit is healthy for humanity, however anyone that is born into wealth has proven nothing and is a destructive obstacle of progress and achievements. These are the indications of corruption exploitation and a failed system when such individuals lead. Intelligence is not genetic. You do not know of the great things Einstein’s parents or children discovered. No community produces better. No gene pool is superior. We are a reflection of the opportunities we have. Most people have very few if any opportunities in life. The rich can fail countless times and still try again and again. This is meaningless and harmful as it concentrates power and opportunity amongst the incompetent and incapable.

You know that nature programs saying “complex social hierarchy?” It is part of that. Everything we do is part of it. There are multiple forms of hierarchical display. Our primary form is the insane use of the means for fundamental survival, aka wealth. This is a very primitive and barbaric form of display. Academia and visual media arts use reputation as a form of hierarchy; sports use meritorious achievement. We are only animals determining class and rank. No one living can opt out because ostracization is still a class and rank, as is simple survival.

Writing about a very hard science fiction future pushed me into this space. Particularly, what are the implications of post scarcity if one completely discounts the argument that, ‘it is an idealist utopian fantasy,’ and tries to address the real complexity of humanity.