Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AgelessDrifter

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1319
Spamalot / Re: cinesift
« on: July 31, 2016, 10:49:25 PM »
I appreciate that they went for recreating that ragtag kids vibe we all remember from the 80s so fondly, but given that that's the focus I honestly don't feel much chemistry between the kids, or really anyone on the show. No one's character is particularly memorable, none of the dialog really stands out (tangentially neither does really anything that has happened in the show). The humor is pretty limited and is shouldered almost entirely by the toothless kid. It just doesn't have a lot of charm to it--particularly when you compare it to the kinds of films it seems to exist almost entirely for the purpose of paying homage to, which is hard not to do because it leans on that aesthetic so hard.

When people look back on, say, Goonies, they say "aw man, remember that part where.." and regurgitate all their favorite lines, etc. You can sit and chat with your friends about a movie like that for an hour and not run out of things to say. In two years when people bring up this show it'll be like "remember Stranger Things?" "Oh yeah, I fucking loved that show. I liked the part where it took place in the 80s and had a cool opening theme also reminiscent of the 80s." "Yeah I liked that it made me remember other similar things that I enjoyed previously."

Spamalot / Re: cinesift
« on: July 31, 2016, 07:08:08 PM »
stranger things was overrated

I'm on episode 5 and starting to feel like that's how I'll come away feeling too (also if it wasn't clear this is the show I was referring to in my previous post)

it is what it is and it aint bad but it's been hyped up a lot and it's not particularly memorable so far

I'm really stuck on how disappointing the effects are. Like it's fucking 2016, how many more times are we going to be subject to the shiny (bc bad cgi) translucent pale gray skinned monster (bonus for mouth that looks like a piranha plant but with teeth that go all the way down its throat)  aesthetic with generic squishing sound effects

dammit Egg I'm drunk and very disappointed we didn't have another rendezvous in Tokyo before I left

It suddenly occured to me that skars hasn't posted like, the whole election cycle. Did he decide it was too easy  even for him and seppuku or something?

Spamalot / Re: cinesift
« on: July 30, 2016, 11:27:07 AM »
watched the first episode

like the aesthetic but I was disappointed in the CGI for the monster related stuff. Since they're going 80s they should've gone analog like the effects used for The Thing unless they had the budget to do something interesting with the CG. What they've shown so far is pretty generic looking.

Was good otherwise but not so gripping that I feel compelled (yet) to binge it

General Discussion / Re: Netflix: good morning call
« on: July 29, 2016, 09:29:25 PM »
I need Japanese language things to watch and even Japanese people think most Japanese movies, TV and music are shit so I'll probably get back to you with a soft pat on the shoulder, a handkercheif and a carton of ben and Jerry's in about a month or so

Spamalot / Re: Oh baby
« on: July 28, 2016, 09:13:47 PM »

The whole Trump-Russia thing is getting handled pretty poorly by the media, assuming any of the people writing about it want anything other than clicks. People are talking about it like the only two possibilities are that Trump is in on it or the whole thing is purely tinfoil fantasy.

I strongly doubt that Trump is a willing or witting participant in any plot out of Moscow, and I'd be pretty surprised if whatever plot there is or isn't extends past

Hillary bad for Putin
Trump bad for America, Europe
Nudge the election toward Trump however possible.


But at the same time I think it's a big jump to rule out all possibility that Russia has done/is doing/has the ability to do anything to influence the election.

I guess as a journalist it makes some kind of sense to at least probe the possibility that it goes beyond that, but unless something pretty substantial crops up to actually implicate Trump, it's silly to focus so much attention on grilling him over those emails. Given the infinitesimal likelihood that our election cycle has actually been infiltrated by an actual puppet candidate of fucking Russia in 2016, what should be getting emphasized here is not questions to Trump with obvious answers about whether he knows anything about the hack-job. What should be getting focused on is: Trump's top advisor/campaign manager *is* a friend of Putin who helped elect Putin's puppetman in Ukraine. Trump *did* say he might ignore the NATO pact if Russia invaded eastern Europe. Putin *has* steered the national media in Russia full-bore into supporting Trump. Chinese and Russian hackers *do* routinely hack into campaign databases during election cycles.

Just because Trump isn't actually a foreign plant with a mic in his ear and a direct line to the Kremlin doesn't mean we shouldn't be nervous about a presidential candidate receiving so much as the moral support of an establishedly unscrupled head of state from a country with whom we are unambiguously bumping heads regularly on the global stage and that has a long history of undermining stable governments.

It's apparently a verbatim reading of an actual hearing

General Discussion / Re: 100% clean energy couldn't save us
« on: July 26, 2016, 07:14:23 PM »

Is this DNC leak just more dirt on Hilary's campaign that can be swept under the rug?
Because to me it seems like the only thing that could fuck up her campaign would be a series of mismanaged scandals and PR debacles leading to intraparty division and faltering support for a candidate that is already lacking in voter trust.

glad it got exposed but I hope it's not paving the way for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Trump

Honestly as weird as it feels to say it in this era I think it seems naive to not take with a huge, massive grain of salt anything that we come to understand as a result of Russian intelligence. Whether they had to manipulate the information or not I think the fact they they went out of their way to find something out and emphasize it to the US public, especially during a critical time like this, means we should hesitate to react to it the same way we would if we'd just come to know it on our own.

This is maybe a bit of a long-winded exposition on something that should be fairly obvious, but it's worth noting.

Spamalot / Re: cinesift
« on: July 21, 2016, 10:34:18 PM »
I want to do HGH and watch it.

When I read this this morning I thought it said "I want to do HIGH and watch it" and that you were making a joke about out-of-touch drug verbiage

Spamalot / Re: Songs you're listening to RIGHT NOW
« on: July 20, 2016, 10:38:51 AM »
I only listen to Television every few months or so but every time I pop on the album, whether I set out to listen to the whole album or not, it's like erry time the track changes "oh yeah, damn, this song is really good too" the whole way through the album

If you gave me a ten second sample I'd think it wasn't my bag at all, but it really is a solid album, despite not fitting my usual tastes really at all

General Discussion / Re: 100% clean energy couldn't save us
« on: July 20, 2016, 09:46:38 AM »
Its exactly what I have been saying for 10-20 years.  So what if global warming is real?  You can't lower the footprint and expect government to continue to have control.  It doesn't matter if there is global warming, there isn't anything we can do about it except slow it down.  Best to start building the infrastructure to live with global warming.


I don't think it's true that all we can do is slow it down. It's true that it has an inertia such that even if we stopped producing greenhouse gas right now the earth would continue to warm for years or even decades (I don't think science is that uncertain, I just don't know the figures offhand), but it's not at all a one way process afaik. If we did stop producing green house gases today and ride out the difference for long enough I think our current understanding is that CO2 levels would stabilize if not revert (depending on deforestation etc)

Spamalot / Re: cinesift
« on: July 20, 2016, 09:39:57 AM »
Aw man W Ryder was one of my first childhood crushes, I need to see this

General Discussion / 100% clean energy couldn't save us
« on: July 20, 2016, 12:31:43 AM »

Earlier this year media outlets around the world announced that February had broken global temperature records by a shocking amount. March broke all the records, too. In June our screens were covered with surreal images of Paris flooding, the Seine bursting its banks and flowing into the streets. In London, the floods sent water pouring into the tube system right in the heart of Covent Garden. Roads in south-east London became rivers two metres deep.

With such extreme events becoming more commonplace, few deny climate change any longer. Finally, a consensus is crystallising around one all-important fact: fossil fuels are killing us. We need to switch to clean energy, and fast.

This growing awareness about the dangers of fossil fuels represents a crucial shift in our consciousness. But I can’t help but fear we’ve missed the point. As important as clean energy might be, the science is clear: it won’t save us from climate change.

What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we’re doing with fossil fuels
Let’s imagine, just for argument’s sake, that we are able to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy. There is no question this would be a vital step in the right direction, but even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to avert climate catastrophe.

Why? Because the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes. Deforestation is a big one. So is industrial agriculture, which degrades the soils to the point where they leach CO2. Then there’s industrial livestock farming which produces 90m tonnes of methane per year and most of the world’s anthropogenic nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are vastly more potent than CO2 when it comes to global warming. Livestock farming alone contributes more to global warming than all the cars, trains, planes and ships in the world. Industrial production of cement, steel, and plastic forms another major source of greenhouse gases, and then there are our landfills, which pump out huge amounts of methane – 16% of the world’s total.

When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it. What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels: raze more forests, build more meat farms, expand industrial agriculture, produce more cement, and fill more landfill sites, all of which will pump deadly amounts of greenhouse gas into the air. We will do these things because our economic system demands endless compound growth, and for some reason we have not thought to question this.

Think of it this way. That 30% chunk of greenhouse gases that comes from non-fossil fuel sources isn’t static. It is adding more to the atmosphere each year. Scientists project that our tropical forests will be completely destroyed by 2050, releasing a 200bn tonne carbon bomb into the air. The world’s topsoils could be depleted within just 60 years, releasing more still. Emissions from the cement industry are growing at more than 9% per year. And our landfills are multiplying at an eye-watering pace: the by 2100 we will be producing 11m tonnes of solid waste per day, three times more than we do now. Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down.

If we keep growing at 3% a year, that means that every 20 years we need to double the size of the global economy
The climate movement made an enormous mistake. We focused all our attention on fossil fuels, when we should have been pointing to something much deeper: the basic logic of our economic operating system. After all, we’re only using fossil fuels in the first place to fuel the broader imperative of GDP growth.

The root problem is the fact that our economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption. Our politicians tell us that we need to keep the global economy growing at more than 3% each year – the minimum necessary for large firms to make aggregate profits. That means every 20 years we need to double the size of the global economy – double the cars, double the fishing, double the mining, double the McFlurries and double the iPads. And then double them again over the next 20 years from their already doubled state.

Our more optimistic pundits claim that technological innovations will help us to decouple economic growth from material throughput. But sadly there is no evidence that this is happening. Global material extraction and consumption has grown by 94% since 1980, and is still going up. Current projections show that by 2040 we will more than double the world’s shipping miles, air miles, and trucking miles – along with all the material stuff that those vehicles transport – almost exactly in keeping with the rate of GDP growth.

Clean energy, important as it is, won’t save us from this nightmare. But rethinking our economic system might. GDP growth has been sold to us as the only way to create a better world. But we now have robust evidence that it doesn’t make us any happier, it doesn’t reduce poverty, and its “externalities” produce all sorts of social ills: debt, overwork, inequality, and climate change. We need to abandon GDP growth as our primary measure of progress, and we need to do this immediately – as part and parcel of the climate agreement that will be ratified in Morocco later this year.

It’s time to pour our creative power into imagining a new global economy – one that maximises human wellbeing while actively shrinking our ecological footprint. This is not an impossible task. A number of countries have already managed to achieve high levels of human development with very low levels of consumption. In fact Daniel O’Neill, an economist at the University of Leeds, has demonstrated that even material de-growth is not incompatible with high levels of human well-being.

Our focus on fossil fuels has lulled us into thinking we can continue with the status quo so long as we switch to clean energy, but this is a dangerously simplistic assumption. If we want to stave off the coming crisis, we need to confront its underlying cause.

This week, heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable development goals (SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One Direction and Malala are on board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.

Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save the world, but beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty is the same: growth.

Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it’s not working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people living in poverty on less than $5 (£3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That’s 17 times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle-down effect.

Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us that we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the population to the poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because even at current levels of average global consumption, we’re overshooting our planet’s bio-capacity by more than 50% each year.

In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries.

Instead of pushing poor countries to 'catch up' with rich ones, we should be getting rich countries to 'catch down'
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global hectares” annually – a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their fair share.

What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living.

How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.

Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields improvements in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But even if we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of low- and middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US.

In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.

70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent consumer research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with the dominant model of economic progress and they are hungry for an alternative narrative.

The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language. They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development, which are technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to stop moving positively thorough life, to stop learning, improving, growing.

Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need to reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward quality instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.

Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organising alternative visions around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own tradition of reflection on the good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his book How Much is Enough? where they lay out the possibility of interventions such as banning advertising, a shorter working week and a basic income, all of which would improve our lives while reducing consumption.

Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is also a development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th century.

This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.

Obviously a bit pie-in-the-sky (it's one thing to point out that people in Costa Rica are happy and another thing entirely to propose convincing the developed world to revert by that much--Costa Rica sounds like a bit of a shithole based on what I've heard from friends who've gone there), but at the same time the conclusions seem almost incontrovertible on an intuitive level (ie that whether we're willing to give it up or not, the planet literally won't continue to support infinite growth).

Spamalot / Re: cinesift
« on: July 19, 2016, 11:48:28 PM »
It sounds really interesting--wish we had it on Japanese Netflix.

Seeing how quickly the plagiarism thing is overtaking my facebook makes me wonder if it wasn't an intentional gaff in order to draw attention away from the shitshow of a 60 Minutes interview.  Between the two I think a scandal involving the potential first lady has a substantially lower chance of affecting the opinion of anyone who would consider Trump to begin with.

Maybe not as damaging to you, but think of other demographics who arne't likely to use politics as a primary judgment, but character.

As said by Josh Marhall of TPM: "Plagiarism is no "outrage." Simply another example of the grifty amateurism and slapdash Potemkin village that is everything Trump."

To be clear the reason I think Trump supporters wouldn't care is not the same as the reasons I stated for not personally caring. The issues I see are
1) "plausible" deniability--you can see the spin machine working full bore against this already. It may not be convincing to those of us who hate Trump, but it doesn't have to be very convincing for people who want to ignore it to feel ok doing so.
2) It doesn't involve Trump. You know and I know that this reflects on Trump's campaign savvy or lack thereof, but to anyone who's failed to notice what an idiot he is up to this point it's easy to write it off--assuming you give a shit at all--as just his trophy wife making a stupid mistake. I doubt they're going to judge him for picking a vapid but beautiful woman to marry--it's par for the course.
3) I doubt Trump supporters know--or value very highly if they do know--what the roll of the first lady is or how it might be important to not have someone there who has so little idea what's going on.

Seeing how quickly the plagiarism thing is overtaking my facebook makes me wonder if it wasn't an intentional gaff in order to draw attention away from the shitshow of a 60 Minutes interview.  Between the two I think a scandal involving the potential first lady has a substantially lower chance of affecting the opinion of anyone who would consider Trump to begin with.

On a personal level I give substantially less of a shit about the fact that one potential first lady's hired speech writer copied off another once-potential first lady's hired speech writer than about the man who stands to have his finger on the button saying he'd declare war and force our allies to do all the leg work before proceeding to somehow contradict himself repeatedly for the duration of the interview despite never having said anything with any information content in it to begin with.



Oh my god I finally had a chance to watch this. This can't be reality. How the hell did we get to the point where any significant portion of the country can watch that and think "yeah, that's my guy for president."?

I actually cannot wait to see him debate on the national stage again, because it's going to be such a comical shitshow. And I feel like the masses who have supported him thus far need to be shamed through it so this never happens again.

I don't think it's gonna matter or that they'll feel any shame. 99.99% of Trump's support boils down to "fuck Hillary" or "fuck brown people."

I honestly think he could fail in earnest to add 1+1 on national television without it dinging his support at this point. We just have to hope Grand's right that he doesn't actually have very much to begin with

Fucking rock on, Stephen Colbert

That pro wrestling entrance at the arNC was pretty cringeworthy as well. Idiocracy come true.

Pro wrestling confirmed not fake

Like on a gut level that all sounded really gratifying to me but actually the fact that someone was saying that shit that long ago really kinda makes me feel like it's less legitimate rather than more legitimate. To the guy that wrote that we would probably all appear to be zombies, but I imagine most of us attribute to ourselves an appreciable depth of thought and feeling. Yeah there're problems with global capitalism, but I honestly think our propensity to call each other mindless victims of the system is one of the things that prevents us from actually being able to address those real issues

General Discussion / Re: Confirmed coup underway in Turkey
« on: July 16, 2016, 04:04:46 AM »
But I mean how would that work? Are the rank and file in on it, or just the generals, or none of the above? Seems like a really difficult thing to keep under wraps

General Discussion / Re: A fear of mine
« on: July 14, 2016, 09:04:19 PM »
AD: Solving problems like a boss

wonder where AD got the powers of a boss


This took me a second  :grin:

Spamalot / Re: So this morning
« on: July 14, 2016, 11:06:36 AM »
Bumping this thread to say I really like One Punch Man. It ended kinda abruptly with all the unaddressed sideplots but I don't especially care whether they continue with it. The main arch of the season was plenty and the fairly simple recurring gag of the series would be easy to ruin/would kinda naturally drag the show down if it continued too long

General Discussion / Re: A fear of mine
« on: July 13, 2016, 12:12:56 AM »
All joking (momentarily) aside, just make a sign that says "PTSD sufferer with children in car, please be kind" or something. BLM protesters aren't out to eat your kids. I can sympathize a bit with having uncontrollably anxiety in that situation to an extent but if I were on your jury after you mowed over a half dozen protesters and never looked back I would not acquit you.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1319