I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.
–Antonio Gramsci, Letter from Prison (19 December 1929)
This person would be an awesome climber. She gets it.
I don’t surf. I wish I did, but I grew up on the ocean of the Great Plains.
Climbing is like this. Maybe moreso. Everyone fails, all the time. If you aren’t failing, you aren’t trying hard enough. Unless you are Adam Ondra or Alex Megos, you only send once in a while – unless it’s easy, in which case it might be fun but isn’t that rewarding.
If it’s rewarding, it’s hard, and the odds of success are low. Because the odds are low, it’s rewarding. You learn to embrace the failure. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
“A fracture occurred” is how the powerpoint read. Meaning that working alone on a Sunday afternoon, the contractor broke the glass, leading to another check for $500k to the contractor – cost-plus, don’t you know.
Proof again, that will be totally ignored, that working more hours doesn’t save you money – it costs you money.
Even logical scientists who take on faith dark matter and dark energy and inflation and big bang cosmology on the a string of evidence that takes years of training to be able to rationalize the Rube-Goldbergian structure of, can’t look at both simple studies, and nation-state size statistics, and accept the evidence that working more than 40 hours per week is not only not productive, but counterproductive.
“Those studies don’t apply to me! I have years of practice working more than 40 hours! Also, I can multitask, not like those other unproductive suckers.”
In other news, all of us are better-than-average drivers. And lovers. And good to drive with two drinks.
TIL: The reason I don’t have a cellular radio in my laptop is that Qualcomm bases its supposedly FRAND prices on the cost of the device their radios are put into, not the cost of the chip. Qualcomm get more for an iPhone 7 ($1000) than an iPhone SE ($500), and would get much, much more for an MBP. Thus Apple using the Intel modem as much as possible, even though it’s markedly worse than the Qualcomm chip.
That’s why you can have an iPad with WiFi, or WiFi + cellular for $130 more, or a $130 USB dongle for your MBP, but you can’t have an MBP WiFi + cellular. Because the Qualcomm tax on a $5k device would be way more than the Qualcomm tax on $130.
On the other hand, it seems like Qualcomm is leaving money on the table – virtually no laptops have cellular modems in them, and most people can’t be bothered with a dongle. There’s got to be a point where the two curves meet, and they could lower the price to where the added cost to the laptop wouldn’t be a big Nope.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
For years, decades, we’ve had only individual stories of cops shooting people. Michael Brown. Tamir Rice. Just go look.
Then one reporter decided to tabulate statistics. Get numbers. Collate data. Then what did RadioLab do? Did they analyze the data, get more data, make plots, do correlations, etc.? Any of the usual data analysis techniques that hadn’t been done before?
Nope. They ignored any big picture stuff, and decided to do two podcasts on individual stories.
Not that every individual that’s on the wrong end of an “officer-involved shooting” doesn’t deserve to have their story told! But we had that before. It’s called “the daily newspaper.”
We didn’t have statistics before.
But these guys, being 1) NPR and 2) data-ignorant, decided to not report on the data, because that’s hard, and requires thinking, and skill, and just go back to what’s easy.
Dammit. Missing the point.
Anytime I read a post in a tech blog (looking at you, /.) that talks about mining He-3 or telescopes <
Vincent Price voice>on the moon<
/Vincent Price voice>, I know I’m dealing with an idiot and I can stop paying attention.
I was sitting on a ski lift listening to the other people talk – turned out it was one former Caltech engineering student, and two current astronomy profs, and they were going on about He-3 mining on the moon. I kept my mouth shut and skied the other way. Either some other subset of us was being polite as I was, but one and perhaps three nominally smart well-educated scientific person(s) on that quad were not immune to this humbug.
Other markers are:
The Venn diagram of people who believe these things is basically this: o
Not listed: Self-driving cars could be on this list, as most of the people who rant about it being the inevitable future don’t even think of the first-order problems, much less knock-on effects. It’s not on the list because I do think we’ll suffer through a few decades of a lot of bad implementations, because it serves a larger purpose of 1) taking money from the rubes, and 2) killing public transport and the infrastructure behind it. There’s a influential cabal (TINC) for whom both will be profitable and desirable. It serves both conservatives and the same people who think the gig economy is a good idea – the end result serves both their pocketbook and their philosophy. Sometimes these are the same people, but often enough the latter serve the former unwittingly.
It’s also not on the list because I still enjoy pointing out the flaws in the thinking of people who are smart-enough in other domains but somehow can’t think beyond I’ll-sit-in-the-back-and-read-an-ebook. They really, really, really want self-driving cars! And to a large extent they’re already driving Prius to save the planet. No cognitive dissonance there. ObGeorgeCarlin: the planet will be just fine without us.
What does it say that Elon Musk is behind a lot of these?
The so-called liberal MSM  hires another conservative from the WSJ to write op-eds.
His greatest hit? Stop hitting yourself!
Reason #423 in a list of thousands why the NYT will never receive another dime from me…
 There is no such thing of course. All the Sunday newsprograms are dominated by conservatives, all the daily newspapers op-eds are also conservative with a sprinkling of go-along/get-along (with the conservatives! Bernie is far too liberal to be taken seriously) “centrists” (meaning Reagan conservatives), and NPR interviews far more conservatives, far more kindly, than big-L Liberals.
You might think that’s ok then, but up until now, every new version of the MBP that I’ve had has been a solid joy over the last version. A “yep, glad I bought that.”
This one? I would have been just as happy to keep the old one had I not spilled coffee on the keyboard (and why hasn’t that problem been solved yet?). No worse than the last one isn’t a win.
Some of those aren’t pros as much as not as bad as expected.
On the downside:
To be fair, no one solves this complaint I’ve had for years. And it’s not just overseas – Motel 6, great pet policy, lousy fucking wifi.
So much for it being smaller, if I have to carry around a keyboard and a mouse…
But not the mind-bending SF movie I was led to expect. Just a bit above meh. Will not rewatch. And I like time-bending movies! Primer! Memento! Fuck with my mind, and I’ll watch it over and over, unless it’s got Leo in it.
I had a hard time buying the whole world-going-to-attack-the-aliens-from-another-star premise. We are dumb people (cough, Drumpf, Brexit, cough) but these folks came from the stars so maybe we are out of their league or maybe it’s at least a question that you don’t want to find out the answer to. Kinda like whether that guy in the Gracie t-shirt knows anything. Anyway, that thought was in my head through the whole movie so maybe it should have been addressed.
As an exploration of the ultimate extensions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, it didn’t go very far. Aliens think differently than we do – alluded to, not much explored. As an exploration of the effects contact would have, not convincing.
The original M7 (and the Kurosawa from which it was stolen) had humor, anti-racism, multi-culturalism (well, a German guy playing a Hispanic guy) aside from some colonialism in depicting the villagers), and Steve McQueen’s hat stealing every scene. Excellent character actors – Vaughn, Bronson, Coburn. Great chemistry between McQueen and Brynner, even though I understand the latter spent the whole movie being pissed at the former about that hat. Eli Wallach as an unsympathetic but understandable villain. Understandable motives, I mean.
The new one? The new villain is just maximally evil for no reason – the movie attempts to write it all off to Capitalism, which I’m fine for blaming for lots of evils, but rarely did Andrew Carnegie just shoot people in the streets himself. He had the Pinkertons do it. I’m okay with force-of-nature evil, like Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men (although that’s more over the top than necessary, compared to Woody Harrelson’s more believable mundane evil). Bad Bart’s capitalist evil is just unbelievable and unnecessary.
What’s criminal here is the waste of Vincent D’Onofrio. Denzel is just Denzel. There’s a complete lack of chemistry between anyone. The Coburn character is played by a Chinese man, and there’s a whole opportunity to explore a little-known-to-Hollywood theme lost there. It’s more reflexive how-can-we-sell-this-in-China than yes-there-were-Chinese-in-the-West (Deadwood got this but I can’t think of anything else).
Just how do you take something that was so good, right down to the iconic theme, and fuck it up so badly at every single level? I wish I could wash my brain so that I could see the original (Hollywood version) again without ever thinking of this one. And honestly, the 1960 version, like Full Metal Jacket, is only half a great movie. Both I will stop and watch every time until it gets to town/gets to Vietnam. Also, FMJ has killer Vincent D’Onofrio – this is how you use VD’O.
Damien Chazelle and I have such different thoughts about jazz. In one movie, Buddy Rich and big band are the role models – a feeling that is held by basically no musician anywhere, but at least it’s a white guy emulating his mostly white guy role models. In this one, white guy is arguably held up as a savior of True Jazz, while real African-American musicians are proponents of Watering It Down aka Selling Out. You can argue it around that the whole point of the character is that he’s an out-of-touch jerk, but then it’s a lot of work for a supposedly fun musical. The main song pedestals (I’m making that a thing) a failed alcoholic, and was boring to boot (I nodded off – to be fair, it was at the end of the flight, but I was already bored with a predictable movie).
Aside from that, the songs were forgettable, weakly done, not a patch on the things it’s trying to emulate. The BtVS musical was way stronger, with not-much-worse dancing.
For me, the canonical LA romance is still Steve Martin’s LA Story. Also half a great movie. But these days, I’ll take half.
But that’s the point! It is all about toxic masculinity – secondarily about toxic banking culture (Woodie Guthrie wrote songs about this, so it’s nothing new. Woodie also spent a lot of time not too far from where this movie is set, and not far from where I grew up), and toxic racial culture. I grew up in this culture. I know these guys. Maybe I am one of these guys. Relatives, classmates, childhood friends.
It also speaks to the recent election – most of my liberal friends (and I’m more liberal than them) just think that if you explained things enough, the people in the Red States would just get it. And I know that I can’t explain to them that no, they wouldn’t. They don’t want it explained, the fact that you are trying to explain it in the first place is the reason they hate you and everything you stand for. It’s ridiculous. It’s laughable. And it’s there. It isn’t going to change.
Strong points for (mostly) getting the Texas accents and dialog right (“Do whut?”) – see Boston accents above. No one ever gets Texas accents right. Take away a couple points for trying to fake off the New Mexico plains for the Texas High Plains, which really probably only matters to me, take off more points for Jeff Bridges. The scenery really threw me watching it the first time around. If you want to place this in Childress and Olney and Post, there are no mountains in the background. Second time around, I got over this.
Tommy Lee Jones would have been perfect in this role, and had the right accent. I like Jeff Bridges (Fabulous Baker Boys), but just nope here, and just nope in True Grit (John Wayne’s finest role. Also another pointless remake.).
The gun thing is a bit overblown – I don’t think there are shootouts in Texas every day, not even now.
Anyway, I liked it if you couldn’t tell.
I can’t quite figure out why I wanted to watch this movie again. It kinda speaks to the mistake of treating the drug war like a real war. It even at one point addresses the futility of a drug war, without pointing out that the reason it’s a war is because drugs are illegal. In some sense you get seduced by the sense that the good guys are winning, and making the right decisions, and the person who doesn’t sign up is the weak link holding it back. But what if the good guys aren’t so nice, and don’t play by any rules?
There’s one false move that completely pulled me out both times. Emily Blunt’s character finally twigs to what’s going on (her more-experienced partner (who is continually denigrated as a less-experienced guy even though he served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has a law degree and knows his way around an M-4 better than EB – he should be the guy they want, instead of her, unless maybe that’s the point) has been telling her at every step along the way, to the singing along with Josh Brolin. But instead of getting out, she’s all nope, I have to see it through, I have to see what happens. There is zero character motivation for this, no explanation, no justification, just “I’ve made bad decision after bad decision even though people with more experience than me have told me either explicitly or implicitly time and again, so I’m going to stay completely in character and make another bad decision.”
Maybe that’s the character, but then it’s hard to have a lot of sympathy for her. She’s not someone doing the right thing with knowledge aforethought – the only assumption left to the watcher is that she’s an idiot, or to be kind, so far over her head that the sun is a point of light way up in the dark ocean. But then why does everyone want her, and think she’s so great? She’s a PITA, only useful as a useful idiot. Perhaps that’s the point – here is a story told through the eyes of the useful idiot. But not sympathetic. But then the only sympathetic character in the movie is her partner. Who is black, which leads to more thoughts about race and culture and politics. So either great job Dennis Villenueve for making a great movie about the drug war through the eyes of a character who doesn’t evolve nor grow, or making a really bad one. Now I’m trying to think of another movie told through the eyes of a useful idiot and so completely unsympathetic to the main character, if that’s really what this movie is. I can’t figure out if this is a great movie or one that I should dislike.
While some decisions make some sort of sense, these are a bit crazy-making:
Yeah, I’m thinking SJ would not have let these things happen.
How do they still even get the now-three-year-old parts for the Mac Pro, assuming anyone was stupid enough to buy one at this point? Three years is forever in computer land.