People knew what they thought of this show before they saw it. As they increasingly know what to say about any topic before they've thought about it; they even know the exact language to use.
Social media have proven to be the greatest agent of social conformity in history.
You think you can force people into STEM and they'll all turn out to be good at it?
I think we can look at Indian IT workers to see how that will go. India has its share of talented people, and because India is huge that translates to a lot of very talented people. But the demand for IT talent there has produced three classes of people:
(1) People who have a natural talent for the work. (2) People who by dint of effort have learned to be good at the work. (3) People who by dint of effort have learned to be good at passing tests.
The harder you push, the further down this list you reach.
And flood the STEM fields with people with neither talent nor affinity for them.
Let me tell you the problem with education, which is that we have this model of higher education that dates from the time where the doubling time for the volume of human knowledge was measured in centuries. A medieval gentleman could attend a university and obtain a pretty good grounding of everything that his culture knew, then go home with a cart full of books (if he could afford them) to start a library that a hundred years later would hardly need any new works at all.
Today the rate of doubling of knowledge is measured in decades. That programming course you took twenty years ago is hopelessly obsolete, as is the statistics course very likely. STEM requires a new life long commitment to learning. And this by the way works well for liberal arts classes, which are very useful, but not so useful for twenty-year-olds. It's not that young people don't have insights into the human condition, but those insights are not fully formed yet, and in fact never will be.
can someone tldr it for me and tell me if short sleep gives you less more or the same number of waking hours before we die.
Actually, adequate sleep does not significantly prolong your lifespan, so you unequivocally get more time by cheating yourself on sleep.
Here's the relevant bit:
An adult sleeping only 6.75 hours a night would be predicted to live only to their early 60s without medical intervention.
Note that the life expectancy in Britain is 82 years, so the good news is that modern medicine can keep you going with your sleep-deprivation induced senile dementia, obesity, diabetes and hypertension for decades. And the low productivity, depression, ADHD symptoms, and general crappy mood you'll have for 40 years prior to that is a small price to pay for 75 minutes extra a day to enjoy them in.
I agree, but Discovery was affected by visual excess in a way that no Trek pilot ever has been -- unless you count ST:TMP, which oddly enough my film-professor brother-in-law loves.
You miss my point: the problem isn't subtitles per se, but the fact that dialog in Klingon doesn't carry the expressiveness that even a foreign natural human language does. Compare the Discovery Klingon scenes to this one from Throne of Blood. It's in Japanese with subtitles, but between the actor's facial and vocal performances you're getting a lot more out of it, I guarantee you.
Openings are often awkard, but The Cage was a lot better than The Vulcan Hello as storytelling.
The Cage even has a Trekian theme, which is the creative tension between primitive emotion and intellect. The Talosians have evolved beyond primitive emotions, only to find that an evolutionary dead-end.
Well, Lloyd's make-up was less ambitious, and he didn't have to deliver his lines like a first year French student asking the way to the library. You'll note that in the movie the character Kruge uses Klingon in the movie only for battle scenes, and then seamlessly switches to English for scenes of dramatic conflict. This is how storytelling works, you require the audience's participation to make the magic. You establish that the characters are speaking Klingon and then you switch to English for scenes that require emotional nuance, and the audience goes along with it. In fact most don't even give the illogicality of the change a second thought.
I get what the Discovery writers were trying to do with Klingons. They were trying to say that Klingons are individuals who differ from each other in both their interpretation of and devotion to Klingon cultural ideals. But in order to make a version of the Klingons that looked more convincing than any yet put on screen, they took away the actors' most important tools in portraying individuality.
I appreciate the series attempting to add to and rationalize disparities in the Klingon mythos created by generations of writers and makeup artists. But to carry that off they needed strong performances, ideally great ones. But you can't do that this way. You could put Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan in that make-up and made them deliver their lines in Klingon, and the scene would fall flat.
A pop-culture story has to introduce it's protagonist and get you invested in his struggles quickly; until then its living on borrowed time.
This pilot wasted a lot of time and crucial early scenes, in part I think giving in to same temptation that got George Lucas on Phantom Menace: showing off what you can do with an unlimited budget. There is dialog in the ST:Discovery pilot that exists solely to to stretch out SFX shots. J.J. Abrams has said that he found Star Trek pacing slow, but I disagree; it just took a long time to get to the action scene. That time was taken up with drama. On this pilot that time is taken up with furniture.
The director also made the unfortunate decision to shoot much of the pilot in the Klingon language with English subtitles. This isn't at all like watching, say a Japanese movie with English subtitles. Japanese is a real language that evolved to fill human needs. Klingon was designed by professional linguists to sound alien, and it works well enough for saying things like "Fire all disruptors!" But it was painful to watch actors struggling to emote through heavy prosthetics while forcing their tongues to perform inhuman phonetic acrobatics. That meant that you got almost the entire sense of the scene through the subtitles. Also by overexposing the Klingons so early they seem less threatening. We know too much about what's going on (having read a lot of subtitles), but none of it adds to the suspense or drama of the story.
Altogether this is hot mess. Often TV shows have difficulty launching while spoon feeding viewers all the information they know, but despite the sumptuous visuals this one wasn't competently put together.
The usual heuristic is "low hanging fruit". You start with easy stuff and work your way up.
However the usual heuristic goes out the window when people feel there's a crisis. For example war: you don't ignore easy targets, but you don't confine yourself to them. You're much more focused on maximum value targets.
Neither of these heuristics is wrong, they're just for different situations.
Well, it's more a site for mocking people like that, but I take your meaning. But no, science stories have been a staple of the site for the past ten years; maybe less so in the early days.
Well, the US Army/Army Reserve operates aviation units in Long Island and New Jersey. They're supposed to fly around Staten Island because it makes you nervous?
They have moral responsibility, but no legal responsibility. Maybe this is not the way the world should be, but it is the was the world *is*. Where there is money to be made, people are no better than they are forced to be.
There's no surer way to kill your creativity than to try to be creative.
Now the goal for any new business is to grow; and if it grows fast enough and large enough, disruption of businesses already in that space is an inevitable side effect. But focusing on disruption itself may be a distraction, what you want to do is focus on execution and finances.
I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos wants to control the world -- commercially. He wants to own every way you have of obtaining anything. But while that's been in the cards from day one, what sets Amazon apart is execution.
As to the social consequences of what they do, it's up to government to regulate those if they're a problem.
For example there are third world countries where Coca Cola's bottled water business is sucking up the water supply that locals need to survive. It can do this because governments there care more about wealthy businesses than they do about people.
Sure. In business I've had to point this out many time: just taking any old risk is stupid. The risks you want to take arethe ones other people have overestimated, or the ones you are unusually prepared for.
Unfortunately a lot of people let slogans like "risk taking" do their thinking for them.
While what you say is true, there are people who do have a knack, like the father of one my employees who was a wealthy merchant in Karachi before partition. He didn't believe partition was really going to happen, and ended up walking from Karachi to Mumbai with nothing but the clothes on his back. A few years later, he was a wealthy merchant in Mumbai -- although obviously not Gates-level wealthy which always takes some luck.
There's an element here of nothing ventured, nothing gained. If getting rich is important to you and you put a lot of time and effort into it, it's more likely to happen to you than if you put your energy into having a social life or raising a family. There are exceptions of course, like Steve Wozniak, who just wanted to do his thing and happened to be useful to an ambitious friend.
Slashdot Mirror
They have to be primed by social media first.
People knew what they thought of this show before they saw it. As they increasingly know what to say about any topic before they've thought about it; they even know the exact language to use.
Social media have proven to be the greatest agent of social conformity in history.
If you try hard enough it will seem like forever.
You think you can force people into STEM and they'll all turn out to be good at it?
I think we can look at Indian IT workers to see how that will go. India has its share of talented people, and because India is huge that translates to a lot of very talented people. But the demand for IT talent there has produced three classes of people:
(1) People who have a natural talent for the work.
(2) People who by dint of effort have learned to be good at the work.
(3) People who by dint of effort have learned to be good at passing tests.
The harder you push, the further down this list you reach.
And flood the STEM fields with people with neither talent nor affinity for them.
Let me tell you the problem with education, which is that we have this model of higher education that dates from the time where the doubling time for the volume of human knowledge was measured in centuries. A medieval gentleman could attend a university and obtain a pretty good grounding of everything that his culture knew, then go home with a cart full of books (if he could afford them) to start a library that a hundred years later would hardly need any new works at all.
Today the rate of doubling of knowledge is measured in decades. That programming course you took twenty years ago is hopelessly obsolete, as is the statistics course very likely. STEM requires a new life long commitment to learning. And this by the way works well for liberal arts classes, which are very useful, but not so useful for twenty-year-olds. It's not that young people don't have insights into the human condition, but those insights are not fully formed yet, and in fact never will be.
Yes, you have succinctly described the "new normal": people can't stop talking about stuff they aren't really paying attention to.
can someone tldr it for me and tell me if short sleep gives you less more or the same number of waking hours before we die.
Actually, adequate sleep does not significantly prolong your lifespan, so you unequivocally get more time by cheating yourself on sleep.
Here's the relevant bit:
An adult sleeping only 6.75 hours a night would be predicted to live only to their early 60s without medical intervention.
Note that the life expectancy in Britain is 82 years, so the good news is that modern medicine can keep you going with your sleep-deprivation induced senile dementia, obesity, diabetes and hypertension for decades. And the low productivity, depression, ADHD symptoms, and general crappy mood you'll have for 40 years prior to that is a small price to pay for 75 minutes extra a day to enjoy them in.
I agree, but Discovery was affected by visual excess in a way that no Trek pilot ever has been -- unless you count ST:TMP, which oddly enough my film-professor brother-in-law loves.
You miss my point: the problem isn't subtitles per se, but the fact that dialog in Klingon doesn't carry the expressiveness that even a foreign natural human language does. Compare the Discovery Klingon scenes to this one from Throne of Blood. It's in Japanese with subtitles, but between the actor's facial and vocal performances you're getting a lot more out of it, I guarantee you.
Openings are often awkard, but The Cage was a lot better than The Vulcan Hello as storytelling.
The Cage even has a Trekian theme, which is the creative tension between primitive emotion and intellect. The Talosians have evolved beyond primitive emotions, only to find that an evolutionary dead-end.
Well, Lloyd's make-up was less ambitious, and he didn't have to deliver his lines like a first year French student asking the way to the library. You'll note that in the movie the character Kruge uses Klingon in the movie only for battle scenes, and then seamlessly switches to English for scenes of dramatic conflict. This is how storytelling works, you require the audience's participation to make the magic. You establish that the characters are speaking Klingon and then you switch to English for scenes that require emotional nuance, and the audience goes along with it. In fact most don't even give the illogicality of the change a second thought.
I get what the Discovery writers were trying to do with Klingons. They were trying to say that Klingons are individuals who differ from each other in both their interpretation of and devotion to Klingon cultural ideals. But in order to make a version of the Klingons that looked more convincing than any yet put on screen, they took away the actors' most important tools in portraying individuality.
I appreciate the series attempting to add to and rationalize disparities in the Klingon mythos created by generations of writers and makeup artists. But to carry that off they needed strong performances, ideally great ones. But you can't do that this way. You could put Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan in that make-up and made them deliver their lines in Klingon, and the scene would fall flat.
A pop-culture story has to introduce it's protagonist and get you invested in his struggles quickly; until then its living on borrowed time.
This pilot wasted a lot of time and crucial early scenes, in part I think giving in to same temptation that got George Lucas on Phantom Menace: showing off what you can do with an unlimited budget. There is dialog in the ST:Discovery pilot that exists solely to to stretch out SFX shots. J.J. Abrams has said that he found Star Trek pacing slow, but I disagree; it just took a long time to get to the action scene. That time was taken up with drama. On this pilot that time is taken up with furniture.
The director also made the unfortunate decision to shoot much of the pilot in the Klingon language with English subtitles. This isn't at all like watching, say a Japanese movie with English subtitles. Japanese is a real language that evolved to fill human needs. Klingon was designed by professional linguists to sound alien, and it works well enough for saying things like "Fire all disruptors!" But it was painful to watch actors struggling to emote through heavy prosthetics while forcing their tongues to perform inhuman phonetic acrobatics. That meant that you got almost the entire sense of the scene through the subtitles. Also by overexposing the Klingons so early they seem less threatening. We know too much about what's going on (having read a lot of subtitles), but none of it adds to the suspense or drama of the story.
Altogether this is hot mess. Often TV shows have difficulty launching while spoon feeding viewers all the information they know, but despite the sumptuous visuals this one wasn't competently put together.
I loved TOS, but it *was* just a teeny bit pretentious. But it's hard in drama to be ambitious without being a little pretentious too.
The usual heuristic is "low hanging fruit". You start with easy stuff and work your way up.
However the usual heuristic goes out the window when people feel there's a crisis. For example war: you don't ignore easy targets, but you don't confine yourself to them. You're much more focused on maximum value targets.
Neither of these heuristics is wrong, they're just for different situations.
Well, it's more a site for mocking people like that, but I take your meaning. But no, science stories have been a staple of the site for the past ten years; maybe less so in the early days.
So how are they suppose to train? To prepare and stage operations? Entirely outside the US?
Well, the US Army/Army Reserve operates aviation units in Long Island and New Jersey. They're supposed to fly around Staten Island because it makes you nervous?
Well, if you've made up your mind before watching it, you don't have to watch it.
Well I'll be damned.
I've seen how government reacts to impending crisis, The money goes to contractors, agencies are just conduits.
"National Cyber Security -- Vatican City"
Nah. That's more Dan Brown than Ian Fleming.
They have moral responsibility, but no legal responsibility. Maybe this is not the way the world should be, but it is the was the world *is*. Where there is money to be made, people are no better than they are forced to be.
There's no surer way to kill your creativity than to try to be creative.
Now the goal for any new business is to grow; and if it grows fast enough and large enough, disruption of businesses already in that space is an inevitable side effect. But focusing on disruption itself may be a distraction, what you want to do is focus on execution and finances.
I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos wants to control the world -- commercially. He wants to own every way you have of obtaining anything. But while that's been in the cards from day one, what sets Amazon apart is execution.
As to the social consequences of what they do, it's up to government to regulate those if they're a problem.
For example there are third world countries where Coca Cola's bottled water business is sucking up the water supply that locals need to survive. It can do this because governments there care more about wealthy businesses than they do about people.
Sure. In business I've had to point this out many time: just taking any old risk is stupid. The risks you want to take arethe ones other people have overestimated, or the ones you are unusually prepared for.
Unfortunately a lot of people let slogans like "risk taking" do their thinking for them.
While what you say is true, there are people who do have a knack, like the father of one my employees who was a wealthy merchant in Karachi before partition. He didn't believe partition was really going to happen, and ended up walking from Karachi to Mumbai with nothing but the clothes on his back. A few years later, he was a wealthy merchant in Mumbai -- although obviously not Gates-level wealthy which always takes some luck.
There's an element here of nothing ventured, nothing gained. If getting rich is important to you and you put a lot of time and effort into it, it's more likely to happen to you than if you put your energy into having a social life or raising a family. There are exceptions of course, like Steve Wozniak, who just wanted to do his thing and happened to be useful to an ambitious friend.