Joined the Mayqueeze.

  • 5 Posts
  • 1.34K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle





  • Strange New Worlds is en exercise of writers writing themselves into exceedingly narrow corners if in the end they want to connect to TOS. They had a descendant of Khan on the crew, half the crew dated her, yet none of that comes up when they meet the actual Khan. I wonder how they will connect that story point.

    During the wedding episode, nobody sees Trelane as Trelane. They see other people he inhabits. In the daily soap ep, only Pike sees him, and he isn’t around later. So they kind of got that right, I think.

    The first coherent space opera was Babylon 5 where one creative mind oversaw everything and in the end wrote all the scripts. The reboot Galactica is another example. You could tell The Expanse was all made up by these two guys. I’m sure I’m forgetting something, a Stargate possibly. But Trek and also Doctor Who all change with their changing writers and over the decades. There are periods where certain people are in charge and there is stability in story and focus. But then their tenure ends and somebody else comes in. And if it all made sense and everybody loved it the same way we’d have nothing to bitch about.





  • The “I find it fucking disgusting, bro!” fraction probably isn’t here. Or if they are, they are probably smart enough not to walk into this wood chipper.

    There is a strong correlation between shame people feel for having tried it before or for not being able to admit to themselves that they feel this way and then how loud they get. Pair that with religiosity or just a very conservative environment and upbringing and you get the aforementioned bros. It’s more about how they feel, how insecure they are, than about anything physically off-putting. And as somebody who once reacted poorly to being hit on by a lovely Aussie, I think it’s also the somewhat unexpected element of it. We are pattern recognisers. Heterosexual is the majority. We can easily get freaked out by something that’s different. And a lot of the LGBTQ+ folks are still not living their romance in public (if there is some and they also want to) because they avoid wood chippers society has an unfortunately abundant supply of for them.



  • This is about timelines. In the short-term it’s a win, in the medium-term it’s a threat, in the long-term it’s potentially catastrophic. They need money now.

    This sort of scenario assumes that these companies will always be in a stronger position. I don’t think that’s a given. The companies that plundered all data everywhere, torrented what was available, and reluctantly bought what couldn’t be stolen to train their models are being passed on the right by companies that just look to steal or copy their stuff (e.g. China is inferencing the hell out of them). The hostility towards data centers also forces more development away from centralised servers onto local environments. At the same time, stuff is also being released as open source. I think there is a big chance that the big companies and their models today will be mentioned in the first chapter on the history of this technology but will fall by the wayside rather quickly. Their market position is underpinned by a belief that in the future they will be raking in the dough on subscription fees once they get the dirty work of being started here financed, no matter how. That’s a mighty big bet. Not only is a bubble economy a problem, there is no guarantee to protect their “IP.” It’s really like investing in very expensive tulip bulbs.

    Also, we don’t fully understand this technology. A lot of the experts don’t either. Anybody who says they’re pretty sure they know where this road will take us in the next five years has ulterior motives.









  • I don’t have an example for you. I see another left hook coming your way unexpectedly and that is from the term “genocide.” It’s fairly new. It was coined during WW2. And people still argue about the definition. We have killed each other for time immemorial but we didn’t have that label that stuck to slap onto the most egregious cases. So anything before the Holocaust is given the label after the fact. And that will have some historians at the ready contesting it. So most genocides are contested not because they don’t want to admit a lot of killing was going on. But because they cannot agree on what genocide means.

    They hold ten-year trials in The Hague to figure out if a Milosevic or similar asshole is guilty of it. There is wiggle room in the definition. Were enough people killed? Was it targeted enough? And other distasteful questions.

    We talk about genocide like it’s a fixed term and everybody knows what it means. But it’s more in that “I know it when I see it” category and the resulting wiggle room will make any argument you’re having harder. You can’t get to the slam dunk of your argument when your opponent withdraws from it on this technicality.