ExLisper

@ExLisper@linux.community

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

ExLisper,

So now they just put the entire movie in the trailer?

ExLisper,

They break the loop in the very last scene, right? The scientists is on the plane if I remember correctly.

ExLisper,

I gave up after about 30 minutes because it felt like watching someone tell me about a movie instead of watching a movie.

ExLisper,

The entire point of the movie was that they didn’t knew who started the pandemic and were travelling back in time to try and figure it out. The scientists on the plane next to the guy who created the virus means that they did figure it out now, right? Or was is supposed to just be a huge coincidence?

ExLisper,

I (same as the other user) thought that Bruce Willis manages to send a message saying that it’s not 12 Monkeys and that’s how they figure out it’s the guy on the plane.

Also, the scientists in the future wait for a message on the answering machine. The message on the machine changes based on what Bruce does in the past so it’s clearly not a perfect loop. Actions in the past influence the future so you’re back to paradoxes.

ExLisper, (edited )

With some tools open source has many advantages, with others it’s mostly about transparency. IMHO this case is the latter case. You won’t gain much by being able to fork it. I don’t like it when people criticize projects only because those don’t align with their personal philosophy. Don’t use it if you don’t like it but there’s really no good reason for others to avoid it.

Disney is gouging customers with a near doubling of subscription costs. (sh.itjust.works)

Disney is raking its customers over the coals with a 75% price hike for their annual subscription (originally $80.) People wonder why piracy is on the rise.Multiple commenters are saying I’m off base about the 75% price increase. My payment less than a year ago was $79.99. Here’s the proof.

ExLisper,

That’s not what being in a bubble means. Being in a bubble means I only have contact with some specific content and I’m not aware of the reviews and revenue Disney content gets. Knowing that people like it and still saying it’s shit just means I’m smarter than most people and can judge this content better than the masses.

ExLisper,

So every time you have an argument with someone they ‘live in a bubble’? Every time someone disagrees with you they are “living in their own world”? I don’t think this is how it works. ive in a bubble

  1. To remain physically or socially isolated from some threat.
  2. To live life completely absorbed in or insulated by one’s limited reality or life experience.
  3. To ignore, avoid, or deny reality.

No, it does not mean “reject views”. Reject views is completely different from denying reality. What we’re talking about are opinions and interpretations. Not agreeing with you about it is not ‘being in a bubble’. You’re simply using this term wrong.

But moving on. It’s easy to say ‘art is subjective’ and pretend it’s closes the topic but obviously there are better and worse movies. You have movies that explore interesting ideas in creative and daring ways and than you have Marvel type movies which are just pure entertainment without anything original or novel in them. These are no more ‘art’ than a ride on a roller coaster is. It’s fun but empty. There’s nothing subjective to it. People liking something does not make it art.

ExLisper,

But you cannot (or shouldn’t) jump from one extreme to another. There’s gate keeping like “I’m the one deciding what’s good, everyone else is stupid” (which I’m not doing, other people can like different things, that’s fine) but on the other side of the spectrum is the “everyone is equally competent to judge what’s good” which is just as wrong. Because of course not everyone is. For example if a lot of drunk/high people enjoy a silly song at a party and are having fun in the very moment, does it make the song “good” even if they wouldn’t listen to it sober? Of course not. Drunk people are not competent to judge art. There’s no “art for drunk people”, there’s just drunk people enjoying anything you show them. Not having proper knowledge or exposure to real art is similar to being drunk. You can get affected by simpler things, it’s easier to manipulate you, you don’t appreciate as much detail. Is pro Wrestling as good art as Shakespeare? Of course not. Pro Wrestling is as simplistic as it gets, it’s theatre dumbed down to it’s simple audience. It’s designed to affect people on a very basic level just like some music is designed to affect drunk and high people. It’s more simple entertainment than art. It’s really like putting someone on the roller coaster and saying that it’s as good art and the Exorcist because they got equally scared. Just because simple people enjoy simple movies and music doesn’t mean it’s good art.

ExLisper,

What makes art or media “good” is a collective agreement on what “good” is. What standards we all agree upon. This means that if you say it’s shit thats you opinion, ita not an objective fact. Its subjective. What is it they say? beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. You claim that it’s about “collective agreement” and each person’s individual opinion at the same time. Those are two different things. If it’s about personal opinion than collective agreement doesn’t matter. If it’s about collective agreement than my individual opinion doesn’t matter. Which one is it?

And I just gave you different meanings of ‘being in a bubble’. You’re simply using it wrong. But the fact that you refuse to accept that doesn’t mean that you’re in a bubble because it’s not what it means.

And yes, what is or isn’t good art or even what is or isn’t art over all is a matter of personal philosophy. You could argue that anything man made is art. You could say that every mass produced plastic toilet plunger is a work of art as long as one person in the world finds it beautiful. And my only argument against it would be my personal philosophy that there’s more to art than opinion of few individuals and that art and especially good art needs to fulfill higher standards than that. In my opinion you can objectively tell how creative, original and well executed a work of art is and by that you can judge how good it is.

ExLisper,

Morning! :)

Yes, I get what you mean. That’s a very common take. “One person likes this painting, another one doesn’t. We can´t say if it’s good, it’s subjective”. I guess I’m bad at articulating my objection to this take. I think what I misses is that a lot of people are stupid and simply wrong. A lot of people don’t have proper education and never went to a museum. They simply haven’t been exposed to proper art and now even when they see it they don’t understand it. So should we say that for example Marvel movies are good art because some schmucks that never saw a good movie in their lifes like it? I don’t think so. It can be “good” to them but we can objectively say they don’t know shit. And I’m not saying all “high” art is good and all “popular” art is shit. So called experts are also often wrong and some famous artists are overhyped. How you seen the things Marina Abramovic was doing? It’s shit but she fooled a lot of “experts” and now you can’t say it’s shit because she’s famous. And I’m also not saying only the things I like are good art. I don’t like a lot of things that are not bad, just not in my taste. But I can also tell the difference between good art and empty entertainment even if I do enjoy it. A lot of people can’t. And they are wrong.

ExLisper,

What do you mean it’s debatable if YT turns a profit? They make billions a year in ads according to their reports. You think they are lying?

ExLisper,

From a quick ddg it does. YT makes around 20 billion a year in ad revenue.

ExLisper,

Normally projects like this address real needs. If X would actually fail to provide crucial functionality on modern desktop someone would develop alternative that would cover it and people would switch in a matter or years. Instead Wayland set out to build something complex and useless for most people and now is surprised it takes a lot of time for it to gain traction.

How it should be approached is that if people need some very specific setup (like multiple displays with fractional scaling and different refresh rates and they want to play games on it and need to get 100% of their configuration) Wayland should provide them a tool to do just that with dedicated server and DE. Most people wouldn’t need any of this and would stay with X, few people would use the new DE. If more and more people would require the functionality provided by the new DE it would grow, get forked and other DE would start supporting the standard. The approach of “we build something 1% of users need, spend a lot of effort to support us” is what’s silly.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #