Pro Augustis

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pro Augustis

  • Rank
  1. I am trying to get back into dating after moving to Shiny New City ended my last relationship half a year or so ago. Since online dating worked decently last time, and since everyone I know here is a colleague, I downloaded Bumble, had a few immediate matches that then never messaged, and nothing since. I am now resuscitating my okc profile, though I forgot just how awkward and nerve-wracking it is to come up with a tolerable opening message. This may take a while...
  2. Didn't we see the writer go into the room formerly full of decommissioned hosts only to find it empty? As for the location of Westworld that is a good point. How little we know of the outside world is part of why I wonder how they are going to set up a satisfying narrative of the hosts interacting with it. Though I guess that the lack of knowledge does nicely parallel the viewer and the hosts.
  3. I am still trying to decide how I feel about that. The reveal of the MiB certainly felt rather less spectacular after having been reading about it for so long. Then again, the speculation is a lot of what made people so interested.
  4. Overall I quite liked the finale. The best moment, I think, was the MiB's smile (or so I took it at least) right at the end, though every moment of Ford was also spectacular. Everything came together sufficiently well to satisfy me. The interlocking timelines and general mystique of the show worked very well, so well that I rather wish this were the end, as I have no idea how a second season could generate the same weight after (seemingly) discarding the vast majority of what was set up. I assumed that the security officer's ambush was to stop him from pursuing his concerns about Bernard, assuming that Ford noticed them and/or Bernard reported those concerns at some point. As for Maeve, my best guess is that she was supposed to take the train and track down/kill Abernathy, lest humans on the outside can recreate the hosts. Her turning back then would have been breaking that loop/programming.
  5. Last night seems to have shown that many of the things journalists thought crucial to a campaign don't actually matter: truth, ground game, endorsements, the conventions of American politics, and perhaps above all money. Clinton outspent Trump to a stunning degree in states like North Carolina, all to no evident effect. As a proper liberal I feel like I should be glad about that last one, except that if I absolutely must pick a puppet master I would far prefer a corporate overlord to an evangelical one or one made of all the racism and sexism of redneck America. Alas.
  6. Mea culpa on my earlier post about Stein and Florida. Looking at the numbers now it doesn't work at all. I assume the NYT live blog posted that before all the tallies came in.
  7. If they wouldn't do it when he was a contestant in the primary saying mean things on television, the odds of them doing it when he is president seem rather low.
  8. I feel that as well... I am presently in graduate school in Texas. One of the other places I applied was in Canada. Perhaps I focused my attention on the wrong schools...
  9. Fox has called WI for Trump, and looking at the numbers that seems rather reasonable. I think that's that then.
  10. According to the NYT live blog, Trump's margin in Florida was smaller than the number of Stein voters.
  11. Because 538 is just basing theirs off of called states, while MI and WI look very dicey for Clinton, and if she loses one of them it's pretty much over.
  12. This is absolutely terrifying.
  13. It's hardly impossible. I know one or two people who have never had a drink and don't intend to.
  14. A lot of what is being cited as evidence of Rome's decline was present throughout. Rome was a deeply conservative culture, and its art and ideals always looked to the past. For some Late Republic/Early Empire indications of this, look at the examples from earlier history in Cicero, Horace's poems about a golden age, and the moralistic/adulatory depiction of Rome's bygone heroes in Livy. This also does not fit the large-scale arc of Roman civilization. Graeco-Roman civilization, when contrasted with other ancient peoples (e.g. Gaul, Spain, etc) was highly urbanized and spread that urbanization with them wherever they had dominion. Remember that Rome was the largest city in the ancient world for hundreds and hundreds of years. As antiquity drew to a close, however, the trend of urbanization began to reverse. Rome's population in the fifth century was a shadow of what it once was. The Greek city of Aphrodisias also shows a pretty clear arc of expanding and then contracting in urban population over the course of the Classical age. As for athletes, it's worth noting that the adulation of athletics didn't start with later Rome—it went back to the Olympic winners, who achieved great status and wealth in Classical Greece and throughout antiquity. More fundamentally, I am leery that history is really so linear that decline over several centuries can be a meaningful concept. Rome did not simply descend from AD 1 to AD 450 or whatever metric we choose. Moreover, that misses how many high points existed in those times—the run of "good emperors" in the mid second century that Gibbon (arch-proponent of the whole decline idea in the first place) referred to as the best time to be alive, the astonishing military power of Septimius Severus or Diocletian, philosophers like Plotinus and (though from a very different tradition) Augustine, and writers of fiction and history like Apuleius and Ammianus Marcellinus.
  15. What this misses, so far as I can tell, is the likelihood that the gamble will succeed. If it was reasonably likely then sure, go for broke. But it isn't. The US is vast enough that denying your vote to the democratic party is overwhelmingly likely to have zero impact besides making a Republican win infinitesimally more likely. Furthermore, assuming that somehow you are the straw that broke the democratic donkey's back and caused some sort of revolution (not totally sure about the mechanism here), that still leaves the question for both your and Altherion's view of violent change -> something better: who says that something better has to come out of upheaval? Most bloody revolutions and internal conflicts led to something getting much worse, not better.