TheActualDevil

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, that's the concept, and it's a problem. But that's not what the name "Human Resources" means. That's like saying the office of Veteran Affairs is implying that veterans are themselves affairs. The title is obviously meant to imply resources for humans. It's a lie, but that's what those words are supposed to mean. It's not called "Humans are Resources."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You're allowed not to pay your taxes to fund socialist programs. There is a consequence of jail, but you have that choice. How is it different?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure that's a major part of it, but I also wouldn't want to live in a world where we could only get aspirin from willow bark. We either wouldn't have enough aspirin or we wouldn't have any more willow trees. Medicines derived from the actual source aren't possible on a global scale in most cases.

Capitalism is a blight on society and has lead to countless deaths. But in a utopia where money doesn't exist and people create medicine for the world only to help people with no profit they still need to synthesize it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Have you ever watched a movie? Were you blown away by all the execs they added in the credits and assumed they must have had thousands of others under them not mentioned? Or do you not typically assume every other industry follows the same standard as yours?

What you said is akin to me saying "Why are they expecting their name on things? The restaurant I work at doesn't put my name on the menu when I'm cooking that night."

It's a different industry and I would be foolish to assume the standards in mine definitely should translate to others, and then confidently comment publicly about it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"It's a very true dichotomy!"

Proceeds to make up an imagined scenario with a ridiculous fake name to prove it's reality.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, sure, you can blame this batch on the internet and necessary SEO, but good artists being skipped over is nothing new. There were days before the internet (and even after it's implementation, but before the ecosystem you are talking about existed) where artists and band with immense talent were lost to time because things didn't line up just right for them to be successful. Bands played gig after gig, sending their singles to record companies and nothing happened. Just being good at a thing has never been enough. That's just step 1. Often, the right person has to see you, and that person has to be in the position to elevate you at the time. Maybe that industry guy was just in a bad mood that day and wasn't enjoying any music and you just got a bad night.

And we have examples of visual artists dying in obscurity only for their art to hit it big after their death. It's a whole trope in the art world. Van Gogh is probably the most famous. He died penniless having only sold a single painting while alive, and that was to his brother, a frickin art dealer! He even had a guy on the inside and couldn't make it. Impressionism was a new school, but not exactly empty. As a genre it basically got it's own museum in the Musée d'Orsay, and still, one of the greatest artists in the genre (and probably all art) couldn't get a fucking break. Talent is often not enough. Luck and timing have always been more important.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, easier? Sure. But I don't think most people would find it easy to just say go torture a guy. At least I hope so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I've genuinely been trying to understand how people like the movie so much. The first time I watched it, I thought it was bad. So I came back to it a little while later and give it a second shot. Maybe I was just in a bad mood that day? Everyone seems to love it. Nope, still bad. Even gave it a third shot a few weeks ago and it felt even worse.

I read the first 3 books a few times, but I always try to put aside the source material when it moves to a new media. And the movie seemed to me like it was just a string of barely connected scenes, tied together solely because they shared characters. It was almost entirely just book references without trying to make a story out of them. It was entirely spectacle, and they still couldn't really get the scale right, which I think bugs me more than anything. It shows these giant buildings and ships that hint at vast crowds of people, and we only ever see a handful at a time on screen. Even "crowd" scenes are sparse. It feels like they're trying to make Arrakis feel giant and daunting to show the difference between the expansive dessert dwarfing crowds, then realized they didn't have the money for crowds so they just zoomed in on 4 people.

And they should have ended the story sooner. End with the climax battle and them getting to safety and save everything after for the next movie. Use that new time to actually get me invested in the characters, or the setting, or the story... anything. Make the first movie about palace intrigue as they know they're in danger and not sure who they can trust and gaining allies. Instead, all of that got like, one scene each and only makes sense if you've read the book. The best thing I can say is they put a tiny bit more effort in to showing Paul using the Voice before it's relevant to the story. So at least they cared enough about grounding that. Just not about literally anything else.

I desperately want someone to win me over and tell me what makes this a good movie. I feel like I'm missing something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

On the other hand, other fabrials, such as Soulcasters, the Sibling, and Oathgates, are still visible in Shadesmar despite having a Physical presence

It's also possible that their functionality requires them existing with a foot in both worlds, so to speak. They're not dead spren nor typical living spren. They're willfully imprisoned in some special way. Like, the Oathgate spren are the Oathgates, and seem like they're more responsive, but we know it's the same process as the Soulcasters and they're basically inert. Sanderson has said they're something like Shardblades, but he doesn't say they're just like Shardblades. They do act differently and affect things differently. Presumably they just work differently.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

For point 2: I always got the impression that they did blip out when summoned. There's hundreds of them out there, but they've had thousands of years. And while we view it as imprisoned, they say they're keeping them safe (and from hurting themselves possibly I think, but I may be misremembering that bit). So they're stopping them from wandering around by keeping them locked up, but it's not trying to keep them all there forever. They just feel honor bound to take care of them. That's their ultimate goal, not to round them up.

On top of that, I'm not sure, like Syl when she's just being her little blue self hanging out with Kaladin is also in Shadesmar at the same time. I don't think it's like with lower spren where we're getting a peek at them on the other side. I think they're all the way over. Otherwise, in Oathbringer we probably would have seen Timbre, Ivory, and maybe Wyndle and Glys just hanging out on the cognitive side around Theylan City when Kaladin and the gang showed up. But it hasn't been verified, so who knows? Sanderson is pretty good at coming up with good reasons for stuff in retrospect.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

My poor understanding of this situation is that, of the team working on it, one guy was like "We need to hold off on publishing until we're 100% sure." Then another guy was like "lol, gonna publish anyway and leave you off the paper." The hesitant guy gets wind and rushes to publish (with everyone included) so as to at least be included in the process.

Also, there's a thing about the first published one only had 3 people on it, making it eligible for a Nobel, but more than that does not qualify.

But overall, I agree! It's not like it being publicized stops them from working on it. They will still be working on it, and it's definitely a step towards progress. Technological process tends to be lots of small improvements to the same system over time until someone comes up with a huge leap. Then the process begins again by constantly improving on that new technology. Hopefully, this is that next huge leap in energy.

Plus, with their process so far published, more people are able to work on it without starting from scratch. It would suck for the original scientists, but be a net good overall if the early publication led to someone else being able to move farther then them because they now have access to it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›