Re:a text C&P from the article
on
HDR Video a Reality
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So, HDR video would help make movies look like... video games??? Is it just me or does that video (that parent linked to) look amazingly like a (post-HalfLife2) game? I guess this should be a fantastic clue for game programmers who usually try to go the other way;). Lack of HDR = more "realistic" video? (where realistic is defined by what people are used to). Find an algorithm to intelligently degrade the dynamic range in a rendering and CGI becomes more photorealistic.
Sorry, neglected to state my main point. Because of that difference I pointed out, the hard sciences tend to have much more stable equilibria. You need BOTH (1) a perceived problem with the current consensus and (2) an actual alternative to supplant it with. The latter is extraordinarily difficult to come by as time goes on (and differences between rival worldviews get more and more subtle). This is why encyclopedias of science (i.e. the basic principles according to consensus) remain current much longer than others. Even when there are feverish battles for consensus, it is more in the vein of two princes dueling it out while the old king stays on the throne until there's a clear winner.
Indeed. But you happened to pinpoint the precise difference between the two. A convergence, if you will, in the hard sciences and a lack of it in philosophy and the softer sciences (mind you, this is in no way meant to be an indictment of these fields, sometimes a lack of hardness is exactly what's called for).
My meaning should become clear when you consider that once a paradigm is overthrown, you don't get physicists or biologists or chemists dredging up the overthrown stuff and claiming that those old paradigms are actually better suited to explaining reality. You won't have any sane person claiming that Socrates had a better grasp of kinematics than Galileo (or that Newtonian mechanics has more predictive and explanatory power than SR (and so on to GR).
You see the directionality? It's the difference between a damped oscillator (that eventually relaxes to an equilibrium) and an undamped one (for softer fields) or even a negatively dampled one (for things like politics - where the disagreements just keep on amplifying;)).
That's a rather clear example. When you put it like that, it (unfortunately) rings true. I believe I came across this kind of issue (though not in a publication context) when I read about "synthesis" vs "analysis" as a kid (re: writing proofs). If I understood correctly, this was the difference between the "forward" and "backward" analyses (exactly the two ways you described). You're right that pedagogically speaking, this is a piss-poor way of doing things.
I guess I'd just hesitate to attribute it simply to trying to impress people simply because in my own field (physics), journals usually have extremely tight page limits. As an experimentalist, I frequently run up against many blind alleys (in extremely technical ways that frequently have nothing to do with the physics). That sort of detail is best left to PhD theses - a publication usually needs to be as clear as possible (I guess this is where our examples drift apart, since there would be a LOT of significant information lost in your missing items). Also, we frequently have to restrain ourselves from being too detailed since experimentalists as a bunch are more in the line of "Damn, we tried this 6 different ways (and here they are in gory detail), but only this one worked and ain't it all just so fucking cool?:)". It may be a more visceral "us vs. nature" and we're eager to show our battle scars (SUCH a juvenile metaphor but it's the truth - at least for me:)) - dunno if that makes sense to anyone else.
Conversely, when I run into similar papers that are cleanly presented, I assume from the get-go (as do the people in your field I suppose) that the actual process was nowhere near as clean. An honest academic (and I have yet to meet someone who isn't honest, in this context; though I have no doubt such people do exist - the Fonzis of the academic world:)) will gladly describe (in conversation or through other means) the additional difficulties, circuitous routes and dead ends that are out of place in a publication. Of course, any such detours that are related to the actual physics should be at least alluded to (say in a final discussion section).
To summarize (sorry for rambling on so) - your point is very well taken. Thought I'd give an example from my own field with a slightly different perspective.
By the way, I just realized that my reply to you was embarrassingly snarky and there was no call for that on my part - I apologize. Please ignore the snark but I think the underlying questions are still valid - I'd love to continue that discussion.
Ah, I see now. Still, you see my point. Apparently, philosophers themselves do not see any question as laid to rest in any sense of the phrase. THAT is the problem here. If anything can be brought up for debate and any idea considered worthy regardless of its status in other areas of inquiry (such as resolved problems in the sciences), how could honest consensus ever be established? It can't, except thru fiat (the victory of "schools of thought" through mere agglomeration). All that is (I think) the reason behind the rejection of the 5-year rule you mentioned.
As the old joke goes: the physicist needs a lab and tons of equipment; the mathematician needs only a chalkboard, chalk and eraser; the philosopher doesn't even need the eraser.:)
More precisely, philosophy establishes the bounds of reality.
By negation perhaps:p. I'm sorry, philosophy has many functions, but "establishing the bounds of reality" is something it has rarely (if ever) actually done.
Neuroscience does a great job of explaining how brains work, but a crappy job of explaining how humans can discuss neuroscience
That's probably true, but unless you're going to suggest (ha!) that philosophy fills that role, I fail to see how that's relevant to the matter at hand. I imagine neuroscientists (of which I am not one) are probably far more capable of speculating about such things than philosophers.
Nah, I wasn't taking it personally, though my tone did come off that way (for which I apologize). Thanks for the clarifying post though. I later read another post of yours (farther down the thread) to which I responded much more positively (without realizing it was you again). Strange how that works sometimes.
Having said that, you have yet to address the second part of your thesis: "Most academics don't write with the goal to let others learn, they write to impress fellow academicians from the same field.
While I freely acknowledge (but didn't do such a good job of pointing this out) that papers can be written badly, it does not necessarily follow (nor is the idea rooted in fact) that this is because they are "trying to impress their fellow academicians". And this is especially not true in the physical sciences (if for no other reason than that the format for those publications rarely, if ever, supports that goal). My reference to the humanities was to distinguish between it and its complement at the outset.
Ok, I have to ask - exactly where do you folks find these alleged incompetents? And why do you not do anything about it? There are department chairs, instructor evaluations and a host of other venues to complain about this. Clearly, these schools are such mountains of rot that they are accumulating these bad seed professors like flies on garbage. I appear to have been extraordinarily lucky in my choice of schools - something I'm more and more grateful for every time I see a post like yours. This isn't high school we're talking about - where the teachers are generally authoritarian pricks. This is college - where you can call out the bastards if they're wrong and they have to sit there and fucking take it!
Because (and I'm not being snarky here), philosophy is not bound by the laws of reality. The Sokal hoax (full snark ahead) should have destroyed any remaining illusions of that, eh? All that means is that philosophers are free to dredge up any old idea and treat it as if it were a matter of debate. For instance, you still have dualism-monism debates, when neuroscience has long transcended those feeble paradigms. Examples abound.
Since 99.99% of everything in academia doesn't have significant real-world implications that go beyond the salary you get at the end of the month, conflicts tend to run wild.
In other news, 99.99% of ACs are full of shit. See how easy it is to puke meaningless statistics. Next time, try to give it at least as much thought as you'd give to deciding on what to have for dinner.
If you say it is about a giant, glowing, purple duck, then you are 100% wrong.
Uh uh! When I imagined the scene where he drowns that poor girl, there was a giant, glowing, purple duck in the background, staring sadly at the spectacle (and quacking mournfully at the vicissitudes of fate =(). That oughta make me at least 2% correct =).
/Inane banter aside, I obviously agree with you =)
My experience in academia taught me that there was no such thing as the "authoritative" source.
Let me guess - you're not in the physical sciences (NTTAWWT - just bugs me when even academics aren't upfront about their field, choosing instead to say "academia". If I were in a worse mood, I'd almost suspect it's a camouflage mechanism =)). What you allude to is the one thing that I absolutely hated about the sole philosophy class I took. We talked endlessly about history - i.e. who had what ideas and when. The actual ideas are (for some reason) so revered that incorrect ones are still discussed as if they had merit (again, just a different opinion). Of course, I shouldn't be taken too seriously in this regard - perhaps they actually knock down bad ideas in higher-level courses? Just seems like a waste of paper when certain ideas have been shown (empirically) to be rubbish, to consider "opposing viewpoints" with such delicacy. *shrug*
It's the same everywhere. Most academics don't write with the goal to let others learn, they write to impress fellow academicians from the same field.
And you say this from your exhaustive experience in... every single academic field:p ? Try not to make such blanket statements - they give you away as a drive-by poster. If you've ever read a single paper in the physical sciences (also a part of "academics"), you will see how ridiculous your statement is. You may have a point in the (imo overly verbose) humanities, but since I have little personal experience with it, I will refrain from stating such a thing categorically - something you might want to think about yourself.
Perhaps it's related to the fact that I'm not in a top10 university
You're probably right:p (even though the top10 appellation is a matter of context).
Speaking from experience, here are the 3 extremes: If you want great teachers at the undergrad level, go to a good (but not top) liberal arts school with no research program. If you want excellent peers who can challenge you and who you can learn from, go to a big research/liberal arts school (doesn't matter which one, they both attract the kind of people you might find intellectually stimulating). If you want research experience, go to a big research school.
In reality, you'll want to balance these three aspects (according to your own needs - level of independence, motivation, interests) to pick the "top10" school for you.
Also, regarding parent's main point - no, I have not found "95%" of teachers (imo you quotified the wrong thing:p) in physics and math like that. Did my undergrad in physics at a relatively obscure midwestern liberal arts school - excellent teachers, in every sense of the word. Piss-poor peers (hey, it rhymes!). Doing my PhD at a huge-ass top-tier school on the west coast. Again, excellent teachers. I have found time and again that teachers in lower level courses frequently get rated much higher than those in upper level courses when the student body is mediocre and vice-versa when the student body is what an average person would call "overachieving" (whatever that means *eyeroll*). Parent appears to have been singularly unlucky (or non-objective - I don't really know him/her) to have found such a high percentage of mediocre teachers.
That's fascinating. I wonder why that is though. Perhaps on some basic level, weather patterns are like the classic Feigenbaum diagram - well-defined cycles in some regions and utter, battshiat chaos in others. I wonder you happen to live smack in the middle of a chaotic window:). *sigh* I wouldn't mind that at all.
Levity aside, I'm definitely gonna look into whether this sort of glaring difference in predictability has been studied (it surely must have been!).
Since I would intuitively expect such regions of order/chaos to be functions of phase space variables (rather than merely geographic location), I suspect (a wild speculation I agree) these regions might actually be moving around so that if you looked at historical records for Cambridge, the degree of regularity of the weather changes over time.
I agree (about my last line). I completely forgot about the unwilling victims in this tragedy - the poor kids of these idiot parents. As if I wasn't mad enough already:( *retch*
Unfortunately, the people who swear by faith-based medicine are also the world's biggest hypocrites. They will surreptitiously resort to conventional medicine to cure their hemorrhoids and publicly laud the success of their "crystal-enriched dildo" or whatever new piece of garbage is making the rounds these days:p.
As a side-effect, this helps keep Darwin's hand at bay and these cancerous beliefs alive and thriving as a festering sore in the face of civilization.
Yeah, I know. The last line sounded too Flash Gordonesque. Just makes me so MAD >:(
Or were you perchance referring to this huckster? (in which case I agree). I'd like to tell these idiots where to stick their zero-point wands:p. Though, I guess, to be fair, they are quite smart. The idiots are the gullible sheep who continue to make them money by the truckload:(
Weather forecasting seems to work most of the time (at least well enough that I know what to wear and whether to carry an umbrella that day). Back when I lived in Cleveland, the snow predictions were eerily (and unfortunately) accurate to a reasonable enough degree. Since the arrival of doppler radar, it's become even more useful.
Considering that it's based on probabilistic models and no one is stupid enough to insist that it's based on magical crystal balls that always work:p, I'd say people are far too harsh on the poor ol' weatherman:p. And no, I'm about as far removed from the profession as anyone could possibly be - just stating facts.
Oh, and here's the obligatory "ha ha, that's funny" to forestall the inevitable "whoosh" from some drive-by moron (gawd those cretins are annoying:p).
Are you seriously telling me you've watched Star Wars and read Dune and haven't realized that huge elements of Star Wars were ripped off from it?
And are you seriously telling me that you gleaned this little gem of hilarity from what I wrote? Sure you weren't drunk-posting:p ? And anyway, what does plagiarism have to do with anything either I or GP was talking about o.O ?
Anyway, I'm going to disagree with your argument. There is now widely held to be a genre of "science fantasy" which is outside of both science fiction and fantasy; Star Wars and Dune both fit into this genre rather than either of the others.
[citation needed] and even if there was such a thing, it would be a ridiculously amusing category meant solely for housing the poor little works from either genre castoff by angry fanboys.
Slashdot Mirror
So, HDR video would help make movies look like ... video games??? Is it just me or does that video (that parent linked to) look amazingly like a (post-HalfLife2) game? I guess this should be a fantastic clue for game programmers who usually try to go the other way ;). Lack of HDR = more "realistic" video? (where realistic is defined by what people are used to). Find an algorithm to intelligently degrade the dynamic range in a rendering and CGI becomes more photorealistic.
Sorry, neglected to state my main point. Because of that difference I pointed out, the hard sciences tend to have much more stable equilibria. You need BOTH (1) a perceived problem with the current consensus and (2) an actual alternative to supplant it with. The latter is extraordinarily difficult to come by as time goes on (and differences between rival worldviews get more and more subtle). This is why encyclopedias of science (i.e. the basic principles according to consensus) remain current much longer than others. Even when there are feverish battles for consensus, it is more in the vein of two princes dueling it out while the old king stays on the throne until there's a clear winner.
Indeed. But you happened to pinpoint the precise difference between the two. A convergence, if you will, in the hard sciences and a lack of it in philosophy and the softer sciences (mind you, this is in no way meant to be an indictment of these fields, sometimes a lack of hardness is exactly what's called for).
My meaning should become clear when you consider that once a paradigm is overthrown, you don't get physicists or biologists or chemists dredging up the overthrown stuff and claiming that those old paradigms are actually better suited to explaining reality. You won't have any sane person claiming that Socrates had a better grasp of kinematics than Galileo (or that Newtonian mechanics has more predictive and explanatory power than SR (and so on to GR).
You see the directionality? It's the difference between a damped oscillator (that eventually relaxes to an equilibrium) and an undamped one (for softer fields) or even a negatively dampled one (for things like politics - where the disagreements just keep on amplifying ;)).
That's a rather clear example. When you put it like that, it (unfortunately) rings true. I believe I came across this kind of issue (though not in a publication context) when I read about "synthesis" vs "analysis" as a kid (re: writing proofs). If I understood correctly, this was the difference between the "forward" and "backward" analyses (exactly the two ways you described). You're right that pedagogically speaking, this is a piss-poor way of doing things.
I guess I'd just hesitate to attribute it simply to trying to impress people simply because in my own field (physics), journals usually have extremely tight page limits. As an experimentalist, I frequently run up against many blind alleys (in extremely technical ways that frequently have nothing to do with the physics). That sort of detail is best left to PhD theses - a publication usually needs to be as clear as possible (I guess this is where our examples drift apart, since there would be a LOT of significant information lost in your missing items). Also, we frequently have to restrain ourselves from being too detailed since experimentalists as a bunch are more in the line of "Damn, we tried this 6 different ways (and here they are in gory detail), but only this one worked and ain't it all just so fucking cool? :)". It may be a more visceral "us vs. nature" and we're eager to show our battle scars (SUCH a juvenile metaphor but it's the truth - at least for me :)) - dunno if that makes sense to anyone else.
Conversely, when I run into similar papers that are cleanly presented, I assume from the get-go (as do the people in your field I suppose) that the actual process was nowhere near as clean. An honest academic (and I have yet to meet someone who isn't honest, in this context; though I have no doubt such people do exist - the Fonzis of the academic world :)) will gladly describe (in conversation or through other means) the additional difficulties, circuitous routes and dead ends that are out of place in a publication. Of course, any such detours that are related to the actual physics should be at least alluded to (say in a final discussion section).
To summarize (sorry for rambling on so) - your point is very well taken. Thought I'd give an example from my own field with a slightly different perspective.
By the way, I just realized that my reply to you was embarrassingly snarky and there was no call for that on my part - I apologize. Please ignore the snark but I think the underlying questions are still valid - I'd love to continue that discussion.
Ah, I see now. Still, you see my point. Apparently, philosophers themselves do not see any question as laid to rest in any sense of the phrase. THAT is the problem here. If anything can be brought up for debate and any idea considered worthy regardless of its status in other areas of inquiry (such as resolved problems in the sciences), how could honest consensus ever be established? It can't, except thru fiat (the victory of "schools of thought" through mere agglomeration). All that is (I think) the reason behind the rejection of the 5-year rule you mentioned.
As the old joke goes: the physicist needs a lab and tons of equipment; the mathematician needs only a chalkboard, chalk and eraser; the philosopher doesn't even need the eraser. :)
More precisely, philosophy establishes the bounds of reality.
By negation perhaps :p. I'm sorry, philosophy has many functions, but "establishing the bounds of reality" is something it has rarely (if ever) actually done.
Neuroscience does a great job of explaining how brains work, but a crappy job of explaining how humans can discuss neuroscience
That's probably true, but unless you're going to suggest (ha!) that philosophy fills that role, I fail to see how that's relevant to the matter at hand. I imagine neuroscientists (of which I am not one) are probably far more capable of speculating about such things than philosophers.
Nah, I wasn't taking it personally, though my tone did come off that way (for which I apologize). Thanks for the clarifying post though. I later read another post of yours (farther down the thread) to which I responded much more positively (without realizing it was you again). Strange how that works sometimes.
Having said that, you have yet to address the second part of your thesis: "Most academics don't write with the goal to let others learn, they write to impress fellow academicians from the same field.
While I freely acknowledge (but didn't do such a good job of pointing this out) that papers can be written badly, it does not necessarily follow (nor is the idea rooted in fact) that this is because they are "trying to impress their fellow academicians". And this is especially not true in the physical sciences (if for no other reason than that the format for those publications rarely, if ever, supports that goal). My reference to the humanities was to distinguish between it and its complement at the outset.
> Piss-poor peers (hey, it rhymes!).
No, it alliterates.
Ach. My english teacher would have backhanded me for that one :p - my bad.
Ok, I have to ask - exactly where do you folks find these alleged incompetents? And why do you not do anything about it? There are department chairs, instructor evaluations and a host of other venues to complain about this. Clearly, these schools are such mountains of rot that they are accumulating these bad seed professors like flies on garbage. I appear to have been extraordinarily lucky in my choice of schools - something I'm more and more grateful for every time I see a post like yours. This isn't high school we're talking about - where the teachers are generally authoritarian pricks. This is college - where you can call out the bastards if they're wrong and they have to sit there and fucking take it!
Wish I had mod points! Excellent summary. Thread over I'd say :)
Because (and I'm not being snarky here), philosophy is not bound by the laws of reality. The Sokal hoax (full snark ahead) should have destroyed any remaining illusions of that, eh? All that means is that philosophers are free to dredge up any old idea and treat it as if it were a matter of debate. For instance, you still have dualism-monism debates, when neuroscience has long transcended those feeble paradigms. Examples abound.
Since 99.99% of everything in academia doesn't have significant real-world implications that go beyond the salary you get at the end of the month, conflicts tend to run wild.
In other news, 99.99% of ACs are full of shit. See how easy it is to puke meaningless statistics. Next time, try to give it at least as much thought as you'd give to deciding on what to have for dinner.
If you say it is about a giant, glowing, purple duck, then you are 100% wrong.
Uh uh! When I imagined the scene where he drowns that poor girl, there was a giant, glowing, purple duck in the background, staring sadly at the spectacle (and quacking mournfully at the vicissitudes of fate =(). That oughta make me at least 2% correct =).
/Inane banter aside, I obviously agree with you =)
My experience in academia taught me that there was no such thing as the "authoritative" source.
Let me guess - you're not in the physical sciences (NTTAWWT - just bugs me when even academics aren't upfront about their field, choosing instead to say "academia". If I were in a worse mood, I'd almost suspect it's a camouflage mechanism =)). What you allude to is the one thing that I absolutely hated about the sole philosophy class I took. We talked endlessly about history - i.e. who had what ideas and when. The actual ideas are (for some reason) so revered that incorrect ones are still discussed as if they had merit (again, just a different opinion). Of course, I shouldn't be taken too seriously in this regard - perhaps they actually knock down bad ideas in higher-level courses? Just seems like a waste of paper when certain ideas have been shown (empirically) to be rubbish, to consider "opposing viewpoints" with such delicacy. *shrug*
It's the same everywhere. Most academics don't write with the goal to let others learn, they write to impress fellow academicians from the same field.
And you say this from your exhaustive experience in ... every single academic field :p ? Try not to make such blanket statements - they give you away as a drive-by poster. If you've ever read a single paper in the physical sciences (also a part of "academics"), you will see how ridiculous your statement is. You may have a point in the (imo overly verbose) humanities, but since I have little personal experience with it, I will refrain from stating such a thing categorically - something you might want to think about yourself.
Perhaps it's related to the fact that I'm not in a top10 university
You're probably right :p (even though the top10 appellation is a matter of context).
Speaking from experience, here are the 3 extremes: If you want great teachers at the undergrad level, go to a good (but not top) liberal arts school with no research program. If you want excellent peers who can challenge you and who you can learn from, go to a big research/liberal arts school (doesn't matter which one, they both attract the kind of people you might find intellectually stimulating). If you want research experience, go to a big research school.
In reality, you'll want to balance these three aspects (according to your own needs - level of independence, motivation, interests) to pick the "top10" school for you.
Also, regarding parent's main point - no, I have not found "95%" of teachers (imo you quotified the wrong thing :p) in physics and math like that. Did my undergrad in physics at a relatively obscure midwestern liberal arts school - excellent teachers, in every sense of the word. Piss-poor peers (hey, it rhymes!). Doing my PhD at a huge-ass top-tier school on the west coast. Again, excellent teachers. I have found time and again that teachers in lower level courses frequently get rated much higher than those in upper level courses when the student body is mediocre and vice-versa when the student body is what an average person would call "overachieving" (whatever that means *eyeroll*). Parent appears to have been singularly unlucky (or non-objective - I don't really know him/her) to have found such a high percentage of mediocre teachers.
That's fascinating. I wonder why that is though. Perhaps on some basic level, weather patterns are like the classic Feigenbaum diagram - well-defined cycles in some regions and utter, battshiat chaos in others. I wonder you happen to live smack in the middle of a chaotic window :). *sigh* I wouldn't mind that at all.
Levity aside, I'm definitely gonna look into whether this sort of glaring difference in predictability has been studied (it surely must have been!).
Since I would intuitively expect such regions of order/chaos to be functions of phase space variables (rather than merely geographic location), I suspect (a wild speculation I agree) these regions might actually be moving around so that if you looked at historical records for Cambridge, the degree of regularity of the weather changes over time.
It's so dangerous you can't even do it in science fiction!
LOL. I'd buy that on a bumper sticker ;)
I agree (about my last line). I completely forgot about the unwilling victims in this tragedy - the poor kids of these idiot parents. As if I wasn't mad enough already :( *retch*
... rewind the boring scenes ...
You're doing it wrong.
Unfortunately, the people who swear by faith-based medicine are also the world's biggest hypocrites. They will surreptitiously resort to conventional medicine to cure their hemorrhoids and publicly laud the success of their "crystal-enriched dildo" or whatever new piece of garbage is making the rounds these days :p.
As a side-effect, this helps keep Darwin's hand at bay and these cancerous beliefs alive and thriving as a festering sore in the face of civilization.
Yeah, I know. The last line sounded too Flash Gordonesque. Just makes me so MAD >:(
zero point energy
Max Planck is pissed and wants a word with you :p.
Or were you perchance referring to this huckster? (in which case I agree). I'd like to tell these idiots where to stick their zero-point wands :p. Though, I guess, to be fair, they are quite smart. The idiots are the gullible sheep who continue to make them money by the truckload :(
Weather forecasting seems to work most of the time (at least well enough that I know what to wear and whether to carry an umbrella that day). Back when I lived in Cleveland, the snow predictions were eerily (and unfortunately) accurate to a reasonable enough degree. Since the arrival of doppler radar, it's become even more useful.
Considering that it's based on probabilistic models and no one is stupid enough to insist that it's based on magical crystal balls that always work :p, I'd say people are far too harsh on the poor ol' weatherman :p. And no, I'm about as far removed from the profession as anyone could possibly be - just stating facts.
Oh, and here's the obligatory "ha ha, that's funny" to forestall the inevitable "whoosh" from some drive-by moron (gawd those cretins are annoying :p).
Are you seriously telling me you've watched Star Wars and read Dune and haven't realized that huge elements of Star Wars were ripped off from it?
And are you seriously telling me that you gleaned this little gem of hilarity from what I wrote? Sure you weren't drunk-posting :p ? And anyway, what does plagiarism have to do with anything either I or GP was talking about o.O ?
Anyway, I'm going to disagree with your argument. There is now widely held to be a genre of "science fantasy" which is outside of both science fiction and fantasy; Star Wars and Dune both fit into this genre rather than either of the others.
[citation needed] and even if there was such a thing, it would be a ridiculously amusing category meant solely for housing the poor little works from either genre castoff by angry fanboys.