I'm glad we could find this common ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Printable View
I'm glad we could find this common ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
i literalol'dQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
tbh it was cathartic but mainly just lolzy for me
Seems to me like this sentiment perfectly captures the poetry under discussion, which is examining the meaning and process of greatness.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I'd say that I did, too, but literalol seems redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Don't search for meaning, the moment you do that you've missed it's value. Just feel. Then forget everything but the feeling.
Oh, so you like drugs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF34N4gJAKE
I honestly don't know who is more the genius... Bonobo or Cyriak. Cheers for that Boost, I haven't seen this for some time.
omg I love cyriak and I love Bonobo. That is awesome.
That was amazing!
So yeah there's a thousand billion billion billion different chess positions for every atom in the observable universe.
I think I'm going to spend the rest of my life trying to get my head around that.
it willl be funny if liz's last words areQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"My kingdom for a hearse"
"Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly;
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more."
"O, why should wrath be mute, and fury dumb?
I am no baby, I, that with base prayers
I should repent the evils I have done:
Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did
Would I perform, if I might have my will;
If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul."
Titus Andronicus ftw
I've wondered since school: if that way of writing isn't pretentious shit, why doesn't anybody write like that anymore?
hahahaha that video rocks boost
@oskar You've obviously not read many music reviews on the internet recently...
Well, first of all, it was considered in poor taste if you didn't write in iambic pentameter, so that shapes the rhythms that dominate Shakespeare.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Probably most of the rest is just that language and pronunciation has evolved.
This link isn't terrible.
http://www.bardweb.net/language.html
Shakespeare is a giant case study of hypnotism
wow. really wow.
Reminds me of how I play WW.
This AMA stuff is going pretty well.
Then why do you feel the need to continuously plug it?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
evolution of tastes in style, obv.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
To be fair, part of the point was being pretentiousQuote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
Pre-capitalism art was almost entirely by aristocrats, for aristocrats. They had noting to do other than show how proper they were. When we think of Victorian England, for example, we tend to think everybody was like that, but really it was just the aristocrats. The regular folk were far more normal, yet they had very little art. Modern society is a stark contrast to this. There are no aristocrats anymore, and art is for everybody. But we have almost entirely forgotten that the art we look to in the past was inherently much different than what we think of as art today.
Frankly I hated Shakespeare until I realized his M.O. was to troll the aristocracy. Now I don't know what to think since a good chunk of his literature is simply bad. But if the point was trolling, then that could have been by design. Here's an example:
Doubt thou the stars are fire,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,
But never doubt I love.
We can see what the point is -- that things that are considered true are less true than his love -- yet when scrutinized, the passage contradicts itself. The first two lines are fine, but the third is the opposite of the theme, and normally this would need to be rewritten so as to make basic sense. At first I thought this was an example of Shakespeare's general suckage, but now I think it was deliberate trolling of the ridiculous aristocratic rules, to see what silliness he could get them to call brilliant
Are you sure? You didn't have much choice back then, did you? If Ice Road Truckers was on you couldn't just rewatch Breaking Bad on Netflilx. It might have been entertaining by comparison, but there wasn't much else going on, right? (Shakespeare is Ice Road Truckers in this analogy)Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
i dunno. i can't really comment on shakespeare so much because i can't claim to understand it at all, or to have studied it enough. i just fear that poeple might be writing it off as crap written to please aristocracy just as an easy way out. one could say the same about the music of haydn or mozart, bah it's just music to please people in the courts. but that would be unfair seeing that if you were an amazing musician, and didn't want to starve, you had little choice but to try to get the court to appoint you. it's just a job, really.
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/24/167716...taland-diaries
Pretty impressed by this David Sedaris character.
There's a black joke here somewhere. Yes I'm indicating that I know who said that for your amusement.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Because it's going so well.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I remember when I got out of finals when a bunch of white people got shot.
Ahahahahaha dude this is even better: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...s_request.html
I also remember having weed out classes. God damn am I glad for my education.
lol @ white savior girl
If you need an extension, (wo)man up and talk to your professor individually.
I asked for an extension once as I was bed-ridden ill from basically after the final class of material on Tuesday til the test on Thursday. I sent an email Wednesday explaining that I was in dire straits and could use an extension, he emailed me back Thursday just before class saying "students are expected to take aspirins and attend the exam."
Only math test I ever failed.
Harsh. My liberal arts professors have all been incredibly lenient and kind with me when I needed it. But my degree is very different from, say, an engineering degree -- there's more leeway for being a little gentler and understanding. It makes sense though. If you're going to be an engineer or a doctor or something like that, you have to be 110% on top of your game. If you can't be, that sucks, but the degree isn't right for you at that point in time.
Just like in every field, there are def. physicists and engineers who scraped by and barely passed.
I graduated a semester behind schedule because I slept through the final for Anthropology 101. I freaking failed a senior year gimme 'A' class. :(
I begged and begged the professor to let me take the final under any circumstances, but he was a total dick. That shit cost me a whole semester's tuition.
I had a drug habit that cost me an entire year. Then, on my second attempt at my final year, my gf of 5 yrs dumped me 2 days before my final exams. I scraped through anyway. Couldn't see anyone being lenient on those grounds so just didn't mention it.
I just noticed the timestamps on this, makes it even more lulzyQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
instruction and exam structure in education is abysmal. anybody could pull a more functional system out of their ass. dont want to be a broken drum, but it's like this because of its perpetual subsidies
I didn't mean to blame it on the aristocracy so much as claim that the aristocracy engendered a narrow-minded view of art. The cult of art for most of the existence of art was frankly uncreative and obsessed with propriety. The aristocracy's idea of creativity was to see what nifty things that could be done within the bounds of tons and tons of rules. Modern art is pretty much the only art to break free of these chains. Of course, that brings its own problems, like how everybody and their brother thinks they're poets, but I think it's a major step in the right direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
I think Shakespeare's importance is less about his supposed literary brilliance and more about his subversion of the rigid silliness of what was defined as art in his day.
I learned an important lesson: No one gives a shit. Your work needs to be done by the deadline.
It would be a terrible lesson to pass on that you can get out of anything with a grand enough excuse.
PS is FTR acting strange for anyone else? I've logged in about 15 times to make this post.
just to clarify liberal arts professors don't necessarily coddle (although yes, if any prof is going to be that type, they're more likely to be liberal arts profs lol, i've definitely had some astonishingly kind professors, to the point where i felt like their kindness was a weakness), there's just more room to work with people if they're dealing with intense shit.
of course this comparison stems directly from my liberal arts imagination. it's not like i've ever went for a degree in anything pragmatic and stable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://33.media.tumblr.com/f2d20652...28tpo1_500.jpg
ShhhhhhhhQuote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
MY THOUGHTS MATTER STOP OPPRESSING ME
http://41.media.tumblr.com/0d4d33adf...wi0o1_1280.jpg
Some motherfuckers just know how to ball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE
I'm drunk.
Where's the drunk thread?
Fuck you all.
I love you all.
I'm on acid in Texas taking a dump.
Where's the taking a dump in Texas on acid thread?
I'm posting on FTR.
Where's the posting on FTR thread?
jack daniels and weed, feeling festive as fuck right now
As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person before you to post about both dumping and tripping at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
And I hope your experience was more positive than that which I posted about.
I was so determined to pay to watch the Interview. And for the past 30 min. that's what I've been trying to do. Give Sony money. According to http://www.theinterview-movie.com/ you can get it on Youtube, Google Play, Xbox Live and a site ironically named seetheinterview.com where you CANNOT SEE THE INTERVIEW. Youtube: doesn't carry it. Google Play: no luck either. Xbox Live: do not have an Xbox, probably doesn't carry it either, because these services ingeniously detect that I am not connecting from america, so they do not sell it to me. Who can honestly complain about how much the industry is suffering from piracy with this shit going on? If you're not privileged enough to be canadian or american you have to wait, sometimes up to a year for a movie to be released in your country, if at all. Back when they had to literally float the celluloid across the atlantic, maybe there was some justification for this, but for a digital release? This blows my mind. What a colossal fuck up.
So now I'm getting it from kickass.so at because that is the only way I can watch that movie if I want to watch it abroad. I wish I could just paypal Seth Rogan directly and not deal with any of this shit.
Piracy is the Lord's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Gabe Newell proved it's not about consumers wanting to get things for free, but about consumers wanting better service. Hollywood and other incumbencies have been slow to adapt. People don't pirate things they would otherwise buy. Piracy is the Lord's work because subversion of industry norms is an important driver of innovation and growth. Incumbents have a natural disadvantage since altering their business models cuts into current market share, but it has to be done.
Eventually, there will likely be no piracy because the industry will have all shifted to a Valve sort of model. Well, there would probably still be *some* piracy since there would still be those who simply don't have the money, but that's not revenue loss and is instead free advertisement.
http://i.imgur.com/H3wb4Zg.jpg
Inspired me to name my rocket launcher in TF2 "Gaben, guide my hand"
Yeah, I've long been confused by the initial theater release, followed by a delayed consumer release by way of dvd/vod. It really seems like the studios are just propping up the cinema industry at this point, because that seems like the only reason to not just release it through streaming services as soon as the last edit is done and the appropriate marketing has taken place. Am I missing something?
I think the main dynamic at play here is that incumbents have incentive to not change business models. For example, in the Walmart vs Amazon battle, many think Walmart should just go full speed ahead with online retail, but the reality is that doing so would undercut its B&M retail revenues. In a lot of ways, Walmart is better off not adapting even if it means that a decade from now Amazon crushes their market share. For Walmart to get ahead of the game, they need some seriously intelligent thinkers with iron-fisted control of the company, with no shareholders to hamstring reinvention. But they don't have this and they won't get itQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
The giant Hollywood network is neck deep in these disadvantages of incumbency. They have loads of capital and contracts invested in maintaining the status quo. They are incapable of shifting models by much due to all the varied interests, and their preferred analyses show them losing revenue even if they were to. There is definitely still money in their model. I'm pretty sure it's more than ever before. If anything, I don't think the problem is them trying to stick with their model, but in having legal backing to undercut new competition. Most intellectual property laws are outdated
As a side note, this is a big plus for theory that supports majorly wealthy individuals. Newell rules Valve with an iron-fist. He owns >50% of it, and he has the fullest capacity to enact what he thinks is right. The product of this is a revolutionary company that is about 16 steps ahead of its competitors. Valve could not do this without the king at the top because its agenda would be muddied due to multiple parties with varied interests, resulting in little creative change to keep everybody happy.
I feel like I didn't answer your questionQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
They're not jumping to VOD because there are tons of people who wish to pay a lot of money to see films first and on the big screen. A company like Netflix may eventually be able to make a killing with instant streaming new release "blockbusters", but they couldn't if they did it right now and if they did it would probably be a part of much larger model. Or it could just be that the cinema will always be the premiere experience. People will pay a lot for a small increase in value. The closer Hollywood can make its releases anticipated live events with spectacular delivery (like UFC), the better it is for them
Frankly I never liked the cinema experience. Maybe back when home systems were garbage was it fun, but now everything about the home experience is better.
Variety and freedom is what we want.
HBO can make its incredible product because it is contracted to the cable company for their premium brand. Cable companies shovel money to HBO just to keep it boutique, and this allows HBO to experiment with high-quality/low-viewership shows in ways that no other networks can.
Amazon and Netflix will probably eventually finance their own major hits and release them on their paid services even if it means they'd take a hit that they otherwise wouldn't if they released them on the big screen, because of the increased revenues for their main business the releases would generate.
Google will probably create something entirely different as Youtube becomes such a juggernaut of content that its stars create full-length features for release on Youtube in unique ways that fit its model
What I see happening with Youtube is, as some of its talents become stars rivaling the popularity and skills of Hollywood names, Google will fork over mountains of cash to keep them from leaving Youtube for Hollywood. This would open the door for Google to finance projects those stars want to do and would probably force Google to enter the industry. As it is now, they have little to gain from that, but if the path forward forces them down that road, it could be something they end up gaining from. It would be silly of them to try to enter the market prematurely.
Which gets to a point about economics that most people hate: employees should be paid what they're worth. One of the best ways to cripple a business is to overpay what its employees do not successfully negotiate for
I think even the feature length concept is borderline antiquated. The roughly 90 minute model comes from a balance between offering an extended spectacle that will get people out of their homes and in the theater, and the amount of time people will sit comfortably at length. Should the theatrical release model go by the wayside, the feature length concept will only be propped up by nostalgia and the inertia created by our expectations.
Nah, I think the youtube model is attractive enough for content creators, and doesn't require much if any additional incentive. If you listen to enough podcast, you'll hear this being talked about. The old media comes with all sorts of strings attached, success in it is terribly fleeting because of all the middle men capable of sacking your career intentionally or not, and the money is not always better, especially in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Which gets to a point about economics that most people hate: employees should be paid what they're worth. One of the best ways to cripple a business is to overpay what its employees do not successfully negotiate for
You're railing against the dangers of one extreme, but ignoring the dangers of the other and opposite.
https://www.duolingo.com
Holy shit this thing is fantastic! I never needed french since school, but the stuff this makes me remember is insane. This might be the best language learning app in existence.
I strongly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Welfare for everybodyQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Some form of disruptive proletariat movement, which could potentially be violent but would certainly be harmful to the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Oh I see what you're getting at. You're saying that if workers don't get compensated enough, they'll rebel, which will create other more serious problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Which is true, but only if we assume systematic wage suppression. Competition between market actors does the opposite. Companies can't suppress wages unless provided legal means to do so. If in a free market, a company (or a bunch of companies) attempt to suppress wages, they just end up losing talent and market share to any other company with half a brain.
Even in our current system, where the state intervenes substantially and there exist many suppressive forces from that, compensation is still increasing. It tends to not take the form of wages since high income taxes and payroll taxes incentivize it in benefits instead. This is an attempt by companies to increase productivity by increasing compensation of its employment, yet it has a deleterious side effect in distorting the market of benefits. The best example of this is probably how a significant vehicle for ramping healthcare costs is the ramping of demand for services through company benefits.
You won't find a disruptive proletariat movement outside of an authoritarian state regime. A proletariat movement is a response to a lack of competitive forces, brought on by an abundance of competition-stifling laws. The beauty of choice and competition is that it incentivizes companies to pay employees based on productivity
Right, but we don't have a free market, and in our current system labor does need to be empowered, else the balance tip too far.
On another note.. I haven't heard anything about the universal minimum income stuff that was getting buzz some time back. What are your thoughts on that? Is it possible that something of that sort could create a better society? And maybe I should rephrase that-- is it possible that a universal minimum income could be much easier to get to, compared to a true free market, but would still offer a dramatic improvement to society?
Decreasing regulations on industry does just that. I agree that labor should be empowered. I also think business and consumers should be empowered. The biggest areas of improvement we can do for all of the above is stopping the state from creating disparities. Workers' biggest enemy is the state. Unless you're talking about "Labor", which is a pseudo-monopoly granted special status by law. "Labor" and its legal backing is responsible for all sorts of awful things for workers, businesses, and consumers, like lack of competition in broadband, mountains of red tape for any projects, and high costs for the purpose of pricing non-Labor members out of the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I've posted this beforeQuote:
On another note.. I haven't heard anything about the universal minimum income stuff that was getting buzz some time back. What are your thoughts on that? Is it possible that something of that sort could create a better society? And maybe I should rephrase that-- is it possible that a universal minimum income could be much easier to get to, compared to a true free market, but would still offer a dramatic improvement to society?
https://medium.com/@morganwarstler/g...s-1d068ac5a205
This would be infinitely better than the current system, but just about anything sensible would be better since the current system deeply discourages productivity
That said, I think no welfare is better than even the most well constructed welfare system. That means an absence of welfare in everything: education, healthcare, wage floors, a bunch of others. The reason I think this is that the primary burden on the poor in this country is high costs of these services and the high barrier to entry into employment, both of which are mainly a product of the welfare state. They're also a product of the regulatory state, with all sorts of harmful laws including licensing and zoning. It isn't that the poor suffer from a lack of revenue, but from a lack of social mobility. The left-wing thinks it understands this, which is why it pushes for more subsidization of services for the poor, but that really just increases the problem by increasing the costs of the services and making it even more difficult to get work and develop skills.
The US pays assloads for education. It is gargantuanly expensive, yet we get very little value from it. Only a fraction of what we learn in the system goes towards our overall productivity and prosperity. Not to mention it has rewired culture norms in such strange ways that we believe things like teenage rebellion is normal. Regulations and welfare in healthcare have turned something that inherently probably would cost less than food into something that costs so much it is gobbling up the economy, and almost nobody is truly getting better care.
Without going to far with it, the basis for why welfare doesn't work is that it displaces costs. It promotes overuse of a service or product, which increases its costs, which is a feedback loop that is tough to shut down. In a hypothetical system without welfare and burdensome regulations, employment and increasing skillsets would be about as easy as walking through the park. It's the attempt to eliminate this problem by throwing money at it that the problem grows even larger. The problem would be eliminated by value selection of choice, which allows a fluid cost/benefit analysis even at the poorest, most inadvertent levels
Higher education is a great example of this. Two decades ago, you didn't need a bachelors degree to get a good white collar job, but now you do. Why? Because that was when the government decided it would guarantee college loans to anybody and everybody. Now college is virtually mandatory and ridiculously expensive. Everybody is going into massive debt, losing years of productivity due to opportunity costs, and finally getting employment doing things far beneath their education levels. Education in this country is a behemoth of waste, entirely because it's welfare. College subsidies do not help the poor at all. Instead they make it that much harder for the poor to get employment and develop skills. The barrier to entry in good employment is oh so much higher because of education subsidies.
sorry for making such huge posts. i just get going and going. it should be noted im a political and policy junkie. i can go at it for days
On zoning:
What is the mechanism you propose to replace it? I am well aware of how absurd zoning can be, and I think there are tons of places for improvement, but it is absolutely necessary for a planned city. And if you think the idea of a planned city is a bad one, then I'm pretty sure you've never been to Boston, London, Bangkok, etc. And once you leave the urban areas, zoning is naturally relaxed since as properties spread out, the need for zoning decreases and the cost of enforcement goes up.
On guaranteed income:
Yeah, this plan sounds pretty awesome. Part of me does want to see a GI without any strings-- I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but I think the author of that article is imagining a world and circumstances that fit with his vision instead of fitting his vision to a more realistic world and circumstance. But maybe I'm also not imagining a robust enough rating system since he used eBay's as an example and eBay's system has been better than nothing but nonetheless abysmal since its inception.
But, yeah, while we may be on opposite ends of what we think is wrong with the proposal, we both can agree that it would be far far better than what we have now. So, if only I could bring the bleeding hearts in on this and you could convince the Atlas Shrugged thumpers that this is a great compromise...
Ebola has hit the UK (one case, in Scotland, which is as far from me in the very tip of the southwest as could be) so I feel as a responsible parent I should buy a shotgun, a few gallons of water and some tinned food just in case. I mean, this could be the beginning of the very zombie apocalypse survival adventure I've been waiting for and how stupid would I feel if I didn't prepare
Might get an axe and bow and arrow just in case, and something to dip the arrow tips in that will burn.