Youtube comments of Kevin Street (@Kevin_Street).
-
2500
-
1700
-
1000
-
635
-
553
-
411
-
270
-
249
-
240
-
180
-
159
-
140
-
138
-
137
-
122
-
118
-
110
-
106
-
89
-
83
-
80
-
78
-
78
-
73
-
71
-
69
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
63
-
I liked this show. It was a lot of fun, and it really felt like the characters accomplished something when it ended. You go on a journey with them.
Here's a few things that amused/surprised me:
John Cena, of course. He really can act, and not just in the projecting a persona way that most wrestlers-turned-actors do. Peacemaker is a character very different from Cena's wrestling persona, and he's convincing in the part. Sometimes he's incredibly competent, sometimes he's a bully, and sometimes he's making ridiculous mistakes, but you always understand him.
Peacemaker makes the situation much worse by keeping the butterfly leader alive, and dozens of people needlessly die as a result. It's amusing that neither he nor anyone else ever realizes this. But keeping a murderous alien alive as a pet feels like the sort of thing he'd do.
Adebayo and Harcourt. They both feel like real people, and they have moments that establish their respective characters well. Adebayo is the child of nepotism who doesn't want to do the job, but ends up doing it anyway because she feels a connection to her coworkers. She made a major life decision after being inspired by seeing an eagle hug a man, and in the end she's the one who torpedoes helplessly into the body of the alien cow. That's a unique character. Harcourt starts out cooly professional and murderous, but she's also the one who takes the picture of the "11th street Kids" and emails it to everyone, which bonds them as a team.
The only character on the show who doesn't really fit is Judomaster. His fights with the other characters were fun to watch, but he always seemed to be on the outside of the main storylines, and his character doesn't grow like the others.
58
-
56
-
53
-
52
-
47
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Your viewers will remember. Thank you for another amazing, fascinating video! The stories you focus on are so interesting and free of the standard YouTube clickbait, I love it.
If I was Taiwan I'd be very careful right now. This is good news for them, but the way they react to it will be extremely important for their future. As you put it:
"...And with that change, China's adversaries in East Asia and across the global West now have an opportunity to either take some breathing room on defense, or otherwise shore up global alliances, pacts, and military capabilities in a way that sees China hemmed in for good."
Not sure I'd say the objective is to "hem in" China. More like fortify their potential adversaries to make war with China less likely (what they call "extended deterrence"), but anyway...
Taiwan currently spends less on defense than one might think. Back in the 80's they poured about 5% of GDP into defense, and now it's about 2.1%. Yes, that's a smaller slice of a bigger pie, but the overall trend is downward. And a lot of what they do spend is put into things like submarines that simply wouldn't be numerous enough to be a threat to the PLA Navy.
What Taiwan needs to do is put more money into defense, especially their army. They need to literally fortify their coast more effectively with things like gun positions and artillery zeroed-in on the most likely coastal landing spots. The army needs to be bigger and better trained, so they can effectively resist a Chinese landing. And they need to have more effective reserve forces, so there's somebody left to guard the urban areas when the army is concentrating on the coast. If Taiwan can make a Chinese invasion more costly, it makes the decision to invade Taiwan less likely on China's part.
It would be very tempting to take this as an opportunity to get some "breathing room" and avoid the hard, expensive job of fortifying Taiwan. But if they do that it makes invasion more likely, regardless of the state of China's forces.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Wow, thank you for this video! It's such an amazing and comprehensive roundup of stability issues in the world today. I'm so glad your channel exists.
In the spirit of your video, based on nothing and in a comment no one will see, here are some of my geopolitical predictions for 2024. Or at least the near future, maybe not just next year.
1. Ukraine. I think Ukraine will ultimately "win" the war, in the strict sense that it will grind away at the Russian war machine to the point where Russia can no longer hold their captured territories. But it will be a hard won victory. Unfortunately there's a lot of fighting still ahead and a great many people now alive will be dead before the war is over. At the moment it looks like the most likely course of events is Ukraine expanding their beachhead on the left bank of the Dnipro into a full invasion of the remainder of Kherson oblast, and then a drive into Crimea. After that it's a matter of wearing down the Russians in the east, and the winner will be the side that can hold themselves together the longest. The loser will collapse first.
2. The biggest geopolitical story right now is the decline of Russia as both a military and an economic power. I think there's a countdown timer on Putin. He's going to be forced out of power at some point in the near future, it's just a question of when and how it happens. The war in Ukraine is going to drag him down, because the price Russia will pay for continued aggression is just going to grow and grow until the people won't pay it any more. And Putin can't survive without a victory in Ukraine . Russia seems to have a massive ability to endure suffering, but the other side of that is the sudden and overwhelming rage when they finally reach their limit and revolt. I think something will happen in Russia fairly soon, but it's impossible to say what form that rage will take. It might be an "orderly" coup as someone else takes over from Putin, or it might be a horrible collapse that involves different groups fighting for control. Either way the stability of Russia and what happens to its weapons of mass destruction is the biggest potential security threat the world faces in the next 5-10 years.
3. The Unites States and the West. The flip side of Russia's decline is the relative rise of influence of the West, and the United States in particular. This is partially because NATO and the US have made good decisions when it comes to Ukraine, and the US has been making similar strategic decisions in the Pacific, but it's also partially accidental and comes from the rise in one's own fortunes when a rival makes a terminal mistake.
The United States in particular has been going through an era of political turmoil thanks to internal divisions, and I think at least some of the decision makers there didn't expect their country to be in such a dominant position at this point. The narrative was supposed to be an America in sad decline after twenty years of failed nation making crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan, a country with a falling standard of living that's no longer respected abroad. An America that could return to glory if it just shrugged off its malfunctioning democratic system and united behind a strong leader. But that didn't happen! Instead the people (or at least some 60% of them) have held onto their ideals, and the democratic system is very vigorously trying to fix itself.
In anyone reads this post I'll probably get the most pushback on this point, but I think what's happening in the US is a fundamentally optimistic realignment towards an era of greater democracy and rule of law. What we're seeing is the last stand of an elite that's in terminal decline. And yes, the situation mirrors what happening in Russia with Putin, but this only the collapse of one group within a nation, not the nation itself.
The end result of this will be a United States that's stronger and more internationally dominant than before, even if certain interested parties will continue to sell what happening as terminal decline. It may take a while for other nations to realize that America can still be relied upon, but they'll come around. However, this doesn't mean that America will continue to ensure global stability as before. It depends upon what happens in Russia. If that country remains stable after Putin's fall, the US may try to begin an era where it exercises more soft power and encourages other nations to defend themselves. But they've had that ambition for decades and never seem to get there. We'll see.
4. China. The decline of Russia is bad for China in some ways, but it's not a disaster. It shows that China is not as free to pursue military ambitions as it would like to be, but on the other hand Russia has become a much more valuable trade partner after they lost their ability to sell oil to the West. Many people like to hype up the idea that China is due to collapse, but that's not the case. China faces very serious demographic and economic problems, and has probably reached the apex of its geopolitical and military power, but it faces no threats to the nation itself. The Belt And Road initiative hasn't been as successful as China might like, but it's an ongoing project. If the government can successfully understand its mistakes, and successfully communicate those lessons to the leadership (not a guaranteed process in an authoritarian society), then China can continue to chart a fairly successful course through the next few years. It won't grow as much as before, but it won't decline either.
But the key here is the need for leadership that correctly understands what's happening and how to move forward. Does that describe Xi Jinping? I have no idea. I hope he fully understands that China benefits from the current state of affairs far more than it would if things changed. In particular China benefits the most from threatening other nations like Taiwan and the Philippines, but never actually taking action against them. Hopefully he maintains status quo on the military front and continues to refine China's soft power instead.
And that's it. Of course there are massive holes in my predictions, entire nations like India and most importantly Iran, that I can't even guess about. The next 5 or six years will unfortunately be full of war and crisis, but I think there is greater stability on the other side, so long as something unexpected doesn't come out of nowhere. We'll see.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I agree with you! Sorry about the exclamation mark, it's just that YouTube randomly recommended your video and I'm a bit surprised we see the issue in such a similar way. The problem is that fantasy is too expensive to make, at least the way that streamers are making it right now.
As an old guy I remember when fantasy mostly came in the form of TV mini-series. They were usually between six to ten episodes, and adapted some preexisting story. There was the Arabian Knights, The Odyssey, Peter Pan, Stephen King, The Wizard of Oz and about five hundred different versions of fairy tales. The results were somewhat mixed in terms of quality, but my impression is they cost about the same amount as a prime time drama series, or maybe slightly more. But not six million an episode!
I agree with you that animation is the best way forward right now. Something like Wheel of Time could be adapted in animated form far more faithfully than in live action, for less money. Netflix's "The Dragon Prince" shows that it could even be done on a streamer. It's more a matter of adjusting audience expectations than any kind of technical or financial barrier.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you for another great video! This does relate to economics, so it seems quite on-brand for your channel.
I've used the phrase "The Tragedy of The Commons," but until now I'd never heard of Garrett Hardin, much less Lin Ostrom. But it sounds like Ostrom's research could be extremely helpful for us today. Maybe she should be much better known, along with her conclusions.
It seems we're going about fixing the planet in a messy, every direction at once fashion, with top-down legislation and bottom-up initiatives happening simultaneously. What really interests me (at this moment sitting in front of the computer) is why so many people who utterly rely upon the environment haven't been cooperating with each other and self-regulating like Ostrom says they should.
Maybe it's because until now all the people who use the ocean or the atmosphere or the forests haven't thought of themselves as a community. In her early research on the Las Angeles watershed, the people she was studying really did live next to each other, and they made decisions about water use that had immediate observable impact on their neighbors. Maybe that's why they managed to work out a compromise that didn't overextend the resource.
When someone throws a piece of trash in the ocean, they're not thinking of the ocean as a shared resource. They're thinking of it as an infinite sink, and their little contribution seems so small it just disappears. There's no thought that their specific bit of trash might get swallowed by a turtle or wash up on a beach thousands of miles away. The turtles and the people who live on distant islands don't feel like members of our community, they feel like inhabitants of other worlds.
Maybe it's that sense of the environment as an infinite sink, and the belief that people in different nations have competing and not shared interests that has stopped us from working together and making bottom-up rules. Until now, that is.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you for this most interesting (and somewhat scary) video!
"...If these images become commonplace, easily scattered across the Internet, constantly in your newsfeed, what happens? Just like the instant access of the Internet has dulled our attention spans and kept us hungry for the next novel thing, will this devalue our own imaginations, because we can create without consequence or without effort?"
That's a darn good question. I wish I could just say no, this kind of AI will help us use our imaginations in ways we normally don't use them now because it's too difficult or costs too much - but that's just some people, the ones who are already creatively motivated to express themselves. What about the rest of us, the majority who are just consuming information? Will we lose interest in art itself, because "anybody can do that?"
Wish I knew the answer to your question.
"In training an AI we are teaching it about our world. If we aren't careful we'll imprint the imperfections of our society into the brain of that AI. You're only as good as the examples you learn from, which is true both for people as well as for artificial intelligence."
This is another extremely fascinating subject. I'm not sure I agree with the statement "you're only as good as the examples you learn from," but I agree you only start out as good as the examples you've learned from. Humans can learn on their own by rational deduction, detecting our implicit biases and overcoming them. It isn't easy, in fact it's one of the hardest things we can do, and it seems to get harder with age. But surely an AI could do the same thing. I used to think there was no way a computer could paint an original picture, but here we are.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It's interesting. I really like your video and I'm impressed by the chain of reasoning behind it, but for the first time I can't agree with the conclusion. My honest belief is closer to what you say at 12:47, although I know you don't find that idea compelling or explanatory.
Regardless, it's clear that our thoughts are influenced by the physical condition of our brains. When our brains are injured or diseased we can't think clearly. If the corpus callosum is severed one side of the brain appears to be unaware of what the other side perceives. When learning a new skill we can actually measure how our neurons become more efficient, requiring less activity to perform the same task. And something subtle happens as brains age - our thoughts become more settled and we tend to be less and less open to new ideas, perhaps because of an age related loss of brain plasticity. So at some level thought must emerge from the physical processes of our brain, at least in part.
On the other hand, the idea that we have no free will seems pretty implausible. If consciousness is a purely mechanistic phenomenon, something we've evolved to explain to ourselves why we carry out actions that have already been computed somewhere in the brain, then why is human behavior so unpredictable? Why is there a need to "explain" anything at all? Why are we conscious in the first place?
In the end, I think "free will" is still a mystery. You say you can't find a place for it, so it can't exist. I say that just shows our knowledge of existence is missing something fundamental. There are still certain features of human existence like free will and our perception of the passage of time that can't be explained (and probably won't be fully explained) no matter how much we learn about how the universe works.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"...It may be that dark matter isn't what we think it is. Rather, non locality manifests in our relativistic level in that gravitational attraction gets multiplied over spread out areas because they are non locally connected, and it's really just normal matter behaving in an unfamiliar way."
That's an interesting idea. I had to write it out to really parse what you're saying. (Apologies if I made any mistakes in transcription.)
Quantum non locality is "spooky action at a distance," where quantum particles somehow "know" the state of other quantum particles, so that when one changes the other can can adjust its state to match, even when the particles are separated by great distances and there's no apparent connection between them. It's instantaneous, even appearing to go faster than the speed of light.
So, you're saying that dark matter may be some sort of particle that only interacts with regular matter through its mass, hence it reacts to and creates gravitational fields. But it's non locally connected to other dark matter particles... So it gives the impression there's a lot more of it out there than there really is? Gravitation is multiplied over spread out areas because the dark matter that's out of range of a particular gravitational field (but non locally connected to in-range dark matter) will act the same as the dark matter in range of that field?
I'm kind of fuzzy on how that could work. Seems like it would violate conservation of energy. But then, this is an idea that's square in the middle of uniting classical and quantum physics, so I guess it makes sense that it would be hard to understand.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I was skeptical when I saw your title, but those are all good ideas!
Restoring coastal ecosystems like mangrove forests and sea grass is something we should be doing anyway, so that makes sense. I'm not sure that carbon sequestration is even the best reason for replanting, since the carbon is only sequestered while the ecosystem is there. If someone decides to build a resort and wipes out a mangrove swamp, the carbon that was in it will go right back into the atmosphere. The real reason for restoring these places is maintaining biological diversity and the greater ecosystem of the oceans as a whole.
Real carbon sequestration should lock away the carbon dioxide for hundreds or thousands of years, so we can't unintentionally screw up and release it all again. That's what makes the flow reactor sound like a really good idea. It's a direct solution that sounds more tenable than other carbon capture methods I've heard, like burying dried algae. Unfortunately it shares the scale problem of other direct methods. There's just so much CO2 to remove, it will take a vast army of flow reactors running constantly to make even a dent in the problem. Could such a thing be financed through carbon credits?
The best solution of the three, if it works , is probably the olivine dumping. It directly removes the carbon by turning it into minerals, and it uses natural forces like the waves and sea creatures to magnify its effect for less cost than something like the flow reactor. It sounds like dumping a relatively small amount of olivine could have a large effect. Repeat that year after year and it might actually make a difference. And while it isn't innately profitable, if they keep combining it with beach restoration like they're doing now it should be possible to get people to pay for it.
But all three of these are good ideas, and like they said in the video, everything helps. The problem is too large for any one solution, so we need to do everything that makes any kind of sense.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thanks for taking the hit and closely examining the new Little Mermaid movie, Disparu. Most of us will never pay it that much attention, so I appreciate your taking the time to analyse it and make this video. Your observations make a lot of sense. They wanted to change Ariel's motivation by neutering the love story at the heart of the movie, but didn't replace it with anything else. No wonder the movie feels hollow for people.
The irony here is that the animated division of Disney is extremely good at taking old stories and "re-imagining" them for modern general audiences. "The Little Mermaid" from 1989 changed quite a bit from the original Hans Christian Andersen story, but always in the service of making the story less weird and more likeable. Then they did it again in 2013 with "Frozen," a loose adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen." It took years to figure out an angle that would open up the strange little fairy tale for general audiences, but they finally did it, and it was a tremendous success. The animated side of Disney has always been very good at capturing what makes a story timeless while simultaneously reproducing it in a form that appeals to modern audiences.
It's no surprise the live action division of Disney is trying to do the same thing, but in reverse: taking their own animated movies and adapting them for a new era with real actors and lots of CGI. But the problem is there's nothing left for them to improve upon. The animated movies aren't dated or unappealing to modern audiences - they're as fresh and popular as ever. The animated movies did such a good job adapting the stories, any changes the live action versions can make just makes their movie feel less timeless and less universal. More like a story meant for California in 2023, as you said, and less for general audiences.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for a really interesting and informative video on a subject that's something of a hot button today. You did an admirable job of explaining the issue without getting into politics, and educating us about tariffs in a way that feels painless. I love how you say things in your videos that aren't easy to summarize, and I often have to watch the video more than once to fully get what you mean. Unlike a lot of YouTubers you consistently avoid "dumbing down" your subjects to simple, easy to remember bullet points.
That said, I very much doubt Trump will attempt to rebalance global trade in the way you describe, by making an alliance with other deficit countries. I think he'll probably try to impose the tariffs that he's promised, but then abruptly reverse course when the stock market melts down in panic. Despite this he'll somehow say it was a victory.
If Trump was smarter than he actually is and attempted to rebalance global trade in the way you described, I think he'd inevitably change course and abandon the plan, because it would lead to permanently lower prices on the NYSE. You said that foreigners own about 20% of the stocks in America, and that capital would have to be "repatriated in an orderly way" in a rebalanced world. The stock market would see that as a recession, and it might even lead to a "lost decade" of lower investment for an extended period of time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Drinker, I like and admire your videos, but I think you're totally wrong on this one. It isn't politics that led to those record low Oscar ratings, they're a direct result of the pandemic.
The new quota system is a really big problem, and if they continue enforcing quotas for Oscar nominations it will lead to a loss of relevance for the awards over time. Instead of being the best movies of the year, they'll just be the best movies that were allowed to compete. People will gradually lose interest. But I think it's too early for the full effect of the quota system to be apparent.
The Oscars got their lowest ratings ever this year because people in general are less interested in movies than ever before, and people are less interested for two reasons: there were very few good movies released in 2020, and most people saw them over streaming instead of in theaters. Both of these things are directly related to the pandemic.
2020 was just a bad year for movies. Very few new ones came out, and of the ones that were released very few of them were any good. Meanwhile streaming platforms were flooded with awful low budget garbage. If you were sitting at home and looking to see a movie a week or maybe a couple of movies a month, you probably watched some really bad ones last year. Sure all the old movies are still there, but if you're the kind of person who cares about the state of cinema right now (the kind of person who cares about the Oscars) there was very little to get excited about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've been saying this for years, but it's hardly an original insight. Way back in 1947 the science fiction writer Jack Williamson saw this coming in his novelette "With Folded Hands." That's a story about robots that are programmed to make humans happy, and how they essentially wreck the world by doing everything we can do, but better.
I think you're right that a great upheaval in perspective is coming, but it's not necessarily one where we'll realize we're not special. With all the problems we face today I don't think that idea is hard for people to grasp. The real upheaval is going to be in our conception of what the economy is for. Is the economy just a system to get things done in the most efficient way, or is it a system designed to give people something to do? Societies where AI does all the technical work and most humans are unemployed aren't going to be pleasant places to live.
Basically we're going to need to choose what kind of economy we want - either an efficient economy that does everything as cheaply and productively as possible, or an economy that offers every person a job. A human centered economy where AI is simply prohibited from doing many things will be less efficient and more expensive, but in the long run it would be a better place for human beings to live.
Edit: I forgot to add that AI would still have a place in a human centered economy, since there are jobs too complicated and/or awful for humans to do. For example, moderating YouTube comments. There's a vast sea of them posted every day, but an AI could keep up, and moderate them the way humans would. The AI could take the place of a vast army of human moderators that would be too expensive to hire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
VERY cool!
They're all really interesting. My favorite is probably "Making Soil for Space Habitats by Seeding Asteroids with Fungi." Because, c'mon, wrapping asteroids in plastic bags and seeding them with fungi to see what happens, that's about as cool as it gets.
Following close behind is "Kilometer-Scale Space Structures from a Single Launch," or super origami, because I love the ambition. You'd probably need some extra launches to put in things like machinery and air, though. This might work together with inflatables to produce structures with interior complexity.
Other favorites are the ones that would make awesome space missions that are probably achievable, because they sound like realistic extensions of current technology. "Extrasolar Object Interceptor and Sample Return Enabled by Compact, Ultra Power Dense Radioisotope Batteries," "FarView - An In Situ Manufactured Lunar Far Side Radio Observatory," and "A Titan Sample Return Using In-Situ Propellants" would make great expansions for Kerbal Space Program.
They're all great, though. Ideas like using solar power collectors to beam energy to Lunar Rovers or putting little submarines inside a big robot submarine are genius.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The stimulus bill and vaccinations are the most important events happening in America, of course, but I think the conservatives (not just Republicans but conservative media) outmaneuvered the left on this Dr. Seuss thing, in the sense that they got people on the left arguing with each other about a non issue.
I personally don't watch Fox News or look at any right-wing websites. I learned about the Dr. Seuss story from this show and other late night shows like Colbert, and the framing you all gave it was "it's time for some Dr. Seuss books to go away." I and many other people who might be characterized as center-left objected to this because it sounded like you're okay with censorship. Like it's a good thing to prevent kids from learning some books even exist because they contain racist imagery that, like toxic chemicals, might rot out any young minds that are exposed to it.
This kind of censorship based on the emotion of disgust has been the bane of literature for centuries, although it usually comes from the right and is concerned with obscenities and religious and sexual imagery rather than racism. But that's precisely why it's so surprising to see the same impulse coming from the left. Or at least that's what I thought because that's the impression you gave.
It turns out the whole controversy is just about a publisher deciding not to publish some of its books any longer, which is the kind of decision publishers make every day. If you had framed it that way at the beginning, as Republican politicians trying to tell publishers what to do, then you could have avoided the subsequent argument about censorship. But when you said that cancel culture isn't a thing, or that we shouldn't be concerned about it, you stepped right into their trap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well I'm going to miss this show while you're gone.
The clarity of General Milley's speech certainly contrasts with the semi-incomprehensible rants that Republicans go on these days. And for me it highlights something kind of important. The Defense Department may get wrapped up in its own byzantine complexity at times, but at the end of the day they exist to do something real: defend America against actual, physical enemies. People at the top like Milley have to stay rooted in reality, because if they didn't they might lose the next war. They can't afford to get lost in fantasy land.
Meanwhile the Republican Party is pretty much the exact opposite. All they care about is conspiracy theories and fantasies generated within the right wing sphere, to the point where Republicans often don't make much sense to people who aren't immersed within that sphere. Obedience and conformity of thought are what they strive for now, because they've realized that their traditional contact with reality, the election, no longer matters. As long as they have their fanatical base and control enough state governments to engage in voter suppression and gerrymandering, they're always going to get reelected. So why bother engaging in reality at all.
That kind of thinking is farcically wrong, of course. Planet Earth is not fantasy land, and at some point the Republicans will have to face a reckoning. But they don't think it'll ever come, so long as they believe in the right things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hmm. I was all set to disagree with you on this movie, but you're right. Zack Snyder was a terrible choice to direct Superman, but he did a pretty good job with Watchmen. Dark, deconstructionist stories like this one suit his talents, and he handled the massive complexity of the script quite well.
One thing I'd add, though. It's been a long time since I saw the movie, but in the comic Rorschach never actually met The Comedian. He just shows up to investigate the murder of Edward Blake and discovers a secret compartment (that the cops did not find) containing The Comedian's costume, weapons and memorabilia. So Rorschach is discovering this history at the same time we do, although we get the convenience of flashbacks while he has to trudge around discovering evidence and interrogating people.
Anyway, out of the many fascinating things about Watchmen, it's interesting to look at the relationship between Rorschach and The Comedian. Blake is one of the only people Rorschach actually admires. He sees the older mask as a fellow traveler, a man with unbending morality who spent his life punishing the guilty. But in the flashbacks we see the Comedian never really had any morals at all. He just became a mask as a way to indulge his dark impulses. For Blake it was all a marvelous game, not an all consuming, identity destroying obsession like with Rorschach. But Rorschach, a great detective, never sees that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for this discussion. I really appreciate your enthusiasm and the clarity of your thought. It's been a very interesting conversation.
There's a lot of value that civic planning can add to a community. Most western cities sort of coalesced from individual elements in the middle ages. (Or rather they re-coalesced, since they tended to be destroyed by disasters like fires on a regular basis.) There was no particular planning. It was a dictatorship of the masses, like you said. Buildings were stuffed wherever there was room. Streets wound in curves and frequently dead-ended unpredictably. Civic services were practically non-existent. Most of the inhabitants lived shorter, more brutal lives than people in the countryside.
Then in the 19th century urban planning became a thing, and all of the great cities were rebuilt along grid systems and straight lines. This made it possible to install the really important infrastructure of sewers, water systems, and later electric, phone and data lines. And it also made it possible to find your way around most cities without getting hopelessly lost. Populations boomed and life improved for everyone. So planning can help a lot.
But it can also be overdone. Modern cities are a sort of blank grid, like a circuit board, where individual buildings can be put anywhere that zoning allows. On a circuit board you can plug the electronic parts and wires anywhere you want, and the same thing is true of a modern city. So cities grow and change over time in response to the needs of their inhabitants. They tend to look like shapeless blobs because that's the most efficient way to minimize travel time between any points within them.
To make a city in a fixed shape is an attempt to freeze it in time and solidify any inequities within the population. In your example of the cooking machine the rich people would always live on one end of the line and the poorest people on the other end. No rich person would ever move to the poor end, because he couldn't get proper meals there, and no poor person would ever move to the rich end, because they couldn't afford to eat in that neighborhood. There would be no gentrification, no change at all, because the city wouldn't permit it. So the people in that city would be forced to live stratified lives, forced to conform to the patterns encoded in the architecture around them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for a really interesting video. I don't normally think about things like gender roles, but after watching the new Willow series I couldn't ignore the subject any more. So this video is well timed.
"Trope #1. The Death of The Stoic Man."
Don't think I can completely agree with you on this one. Or rather I don't think I can agree with the assertion that male characters were generally more stoic in the past. Stoicism is absolutely a part of the masculine identity, and some very popular characters (like Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name) have always been depicted that way, and it's their quiet confidence that made them cool. But they've never been the dominant or only type of male character.
However you're right that no one seems to write stoic characters anymore. And you're so right about the constant, self deprecating humor! That gets incredibly annoying. And yes, modern male characters always seem to wilt when they're confronted by a strong woman. Either they wilt, or they immediately resort to attempts at physical dominance and are decisively beaten down by the woman. At no point is there banter between men and women like in an old romantic comedy, because the man is never treated as an equal.
"Trope #2. The Deconstructed Hero."
Yeah, there aren't any well written heroes anymore. This wouldn't be such a problem if Hollywood wasn't compelled to go back to every successful franchise and try to restart or reboot them into never-ending story factories. So they go back to the heroes of our childhood - and hey, they all suck now. All the things they accomplished in those movies have been reset to zero so they can repeat the same character arcs over again, or pass the torch to a superior female replacement. Deconstruction was interesting in the late 80s and 90s when it was a valid response to exaggerated heroes like Rambo (just as those exaggerated heroes were a response to the more talky, vulnerable heroes of the 70s), but it long ago become a cliche of its own.
It would be nice if the next James Bond went in a different direction. We've had a more psychologically "real" Bond who's been deeply affected by his adventures, now let's go back to a more traditional and fun version of the character. It would be really interesting if they were capable of doing that.
"Trope #3. Men Are Just Dumb, I Guess."
This comes from the constant self-deprecating humor. But yeah, men are dumb in modern movies. They have nothing to teach anyone, and must have a woman to guide them. The Thor franchise starts out with a character who's arrogant and full of himself. He learns his lesson and falls in love with a human woman. Okay, that's fine. But in each movie after Dark World he becomes dumber and dumber and needs female characters to lead him around more and more. I guess that makes him "safe."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1