horangi

Right and I believe in the Netflix version the ETO refer to the Centauran system in passing. When I was reading the book with some friends, we debated which system it was and had bypassed Alpha Centauri because it doesn't seem to have the orbital mechanics necessary for the plot. A and B are gravitationally bound spinning around a central point and proxima is the equivalent of a very very far off satellite of that combined system. Proxima is known to have stable planets and there's nothing to indicate the tidal forces needed to have planets swapping stellar bodies (A and B are ~35 AU apart). To be fair, the book was published before much of this was worked out, and even so, its an acceptable creative license for the plot.

Socks are about the only clothing item I am really particular about. For years my partner has been trying to ween me off of Smartwool socks (due to the price) for some 'equivalent' and its just never the same.

Noting Wert's last comment on Fallout and leaping back a couple pages into the 'Best RPG of All Time' debate, I think that its best to bound it a little by release date ranges or sub-categories that aren't predominantly linked to technological development. There seems to be a tendency to artificially give a handicap to older, ground-breaking games when, as I see it, things like graphics, sound, UI, QoL improvements should be just as important in determining 'the best of genre' lists. As a result, its not just recency bias that would lend a skew towards more 'recent' games, but the onward march of progress in gaming technology which objectively improves in fits and starts with time. Is Fallout: NV better than Fallout 4? Debatable since the advances in graphics/UI/combat mechanics may be able to compete against the differences in quality of the setting and writing. But is anyone going to say Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 4 if both were released today? You can argue Civ V is better than Civ VI due to preferences in mechanics, but Civ VI is objectively better than Civ 1. Diablo I vs IV. Warcraft I vs Startcraft II. etc. Basically, outside of a narrow category like 'retro style metroidvania' etc. or for the most die hard grognards, there shouldn't be many candidates for 'best of category' older than say 15-20 years (with those older ones being like Morrowind maintaining momentum due to their ability to be modded into more modern games). BG3 is a candidate for best of CRPG today, but I doubt that will be the case in 20 years, whereas, by then, Planescape: Torment will be a museum relic, played only by post-docs trying to understand 1980's American culture, (if we aren't there already). Or in other words, I know naught which will be the best RPG tomorrow, but the all time best RPG will be Fallout: Live Edition. ETA: After all I just said, I just built a new computer after my daughter spilled a cup of water and ended her desktop, thus 'forcing' me to giver her my previous one and suffering through having the latest tech. Going from a RTX 2060 and equivalently specced computer to a 4070 Super-based computer has, to me, been the smallest jump in appreciable gaming quality since I've been building computers (generally about once every 4-5 years). Cyberpunk looks a little better, I guess, but not really anything that has blown me away like going from Quake to Unreal in 97/98 with a dedicated gfx card. Some of the 'best of' games of the last decade may be able to hold off competition longer I would think in terms of graphics.

I'll add also to fionwe's comments that the expansion of the universe itself diminishes the ability for light and thus anything to move between points and bit by bit eliminates the ability for communication between them. With sophisticated technologies we might be able to move close to light speed, but the universe is foiling our plots by constantly expanding. The reason other galaxies aren't on the menu for our future near-light speed vessels isn't because of current distance, but because those other galaxies are moving away at nearly the same speed. Our current galaxy is probably the only petri dish we have to play in and as noted above, its as equally large as it is old.

Straying a bit from the primary thread topic, but I visited a temple in Taiwan that had the aforementioned shrines but also one to Jesus... and Pikachu. I get the impression Buddhism basically accepts whatever it takes to get you in touch with the divine (peacefully) is all good.

I'm getting it as well. Just so long as it doesn't start asking me to pick out crosswalks and fire hydrants I am OK. Because I am most definitely not a human according to that test.

Yeah that's definitely not a hate-bandwagon I'm keen to join. Fair points from you and Deadlines about the psychology of the situation, with Oppenheimer being a decent real-world comparison. It was more of a direction thing where it seemed her character was flip-flopping between episodes 5-7. I also responded to the beauty objection with similar disdain.

Wrapped up the 1st season. Overall good, I thought the pacing of episodes 6-8 (particularly 6) was a bit odd but I didn't expect them to get that far into the plot in Season 1. Season 2 will need to buff up the sfx budget for sure.

A bit of a side track but, yeah, my partner is quite attractive by fairly general (and other than my own obviously far biased) standards, and its opinions like the aforementioned that has been her biggest challenge while wrapping up her PhD in the sciences. It unfortunately seems to be particularly bad with other women who seemingly can't take the idea that someone can be attractive, fashionable, and still master cutting edge research. Getting papers published helps, but it seems beauty causes a lot of folks to mentally subtract 20 points of IQ from their expectations of a person until they know who they are talking to. Or has she has put it bluntly, being attractive in the sciences is a bad thing. On to the show, I watched the first episode and thought they did a good job of speeding up the pace without cutting too much. I was skeptical about the re-imagining of Wang Miao, but in hindsight, the characters were so thin in the books that it doesn't really diminish the plot and allows showing the human response as more of a global effort rather than the rest of the world basically tagging along behind China. I don't blame Liu Cixin for this, I am sure many western sci-fi novels come across the same. There wasn't much that required the characters to be in China during the detective story anyway.

Same here back in the day. The old castles standard sets from the 80s were D&D themed in all but name.

Even at the height of Jedi power, they have not yet promulgated such advanced technologies such as paved streets or sidewalks.

Pluto is not a planet.

It also shows Biden (indirectly) in good light trying to defuse the situation. Even if he was already dead set on the invasion by that point, Putin announcing he'd rather go play hockey at the end of the call rather than hammer out a joint statement shows just how little he was interested in maintaining the veneer of diplomacy.

Out of curiosity, have you watched the Chinese series? I thought they did a good job of sticking mostly with the book and actually improved on the characterization without dumping the science.

TBH, I am not sure how the talk show was able to make 12 minutes of content from those two mini-interviews. Its kinda smug to talk on an on about brief interviews with a yellow dog Republican and an antediluvian misogynist as if they were somehow being targeted by Biden for votes. Its not like they shared views that suggested they were compatible with the Democrat platform but were somehow being misled. These were core Republican voters, not a confused fringe.

Well think of the bright side, it saves money on kitty litter... and dog kibble.

I totally agree with this point. My contention is really with zealotry and the moral or intellectual certitude of those that have become radicalized. I personally have a very low estimation of martyrs regardless of the cause, but I can support people taking transactional moves that can be of high personal risk, particularly when the cost of inaction is direct and readily apparent. (e.g. pushing your kid out of the way of a car with a high risk of getting hit yourself.) Similarly decisiveness vs dithering isnt really an issue of moral (or other) certitude. A good leader can be decisive while still recognizing that their beliefs and assumptions could be flawed. There is a huge difference between a decisive leader taking bold action while recognizing the inherent fallibility of their assessment and even overall goals and a 'true believer' taking radical action, chief among them the ability to reverse course when it seems things are not turning out the way you expected.

I took Trackerneil's statement more to mean that no amount of redemption or change will resurrect the dead doctor. i.e. The more consequential the action, the less zealously/supremely confident one should be willing to take it.

Wow I went out of country for a week and started catching up with the US politics threads. I read through the second from the last one and accidentally jumped to this one not realizing there was a closed thread in between until page 2. That middle thread left the train station and made a giant useless loop through an intellectual wasteland to arrive back where it started. Regarding one more recent comment about the elections in 2028 and beyond being the same awful folks in charge so the US is doomed no matter what- that assumes that the Republican Party or some successor opposition to the Democrats is irrevocably doomed to continue its current trend. Now that is not, to say, prognosticating they will suddenly become a progressive beacon of light, but taking a step back from the brink of authoritarianism and having a rethink (and/or more morbidly a die off of some of its base and a forced shift to remain relevant) is not out of the cards. To me, 2024 isn't about delaying the inevitable by 4 years, its about allowing time for change. Maybe it will take more than 4, maybe its 8, or 12, or 20. When do we stop choosing the lesser evil? When it ceases to be the lesser evil, and in a two party system that means they have become the greater evil and its time to vote for the other team. That said, I can understand why those folks who have direct family members involved in today's conflicts would not be able to come around. I also certainly support those like Larry who totally dislike the situation but will pull the lever anyways- protest away, make your voice heard! If the party we have today isn't to your liking, start shaping it so its better 20 years from now, a gift to the next generation if not your own. The harsh reality is, if you are going to vote for a leader, any leader, of a major power, you are voting for someone who will be have the blood of 10s of thousands of lives on their hands, and that's a low end assuming they are a good leader trying to do well for their country.

Yeah and unfortunately they really need it. We went nearly a decade ago and loved it, particularly up in Ubud/mountains. Went back last year and it was depressingly bad. The businesses were desperate and what was once a relaxed hippyish community of tourists has been replaced significantly by young Russians fleeing conscription and felt more like being in the middle of gangland. Tattoo parlors, 'massage' parlors, and really rough looking bars everywhere.

Right! And its not just life-and-death decisions but daily Sophie's Choice decisions which you are going to be blamed for no-matter which way you go. Folks with even a shred of human empathy are going to be heavily impacted. Being a world leader means making decisions to kill people or let them die and make many more suffer. Not just the bad'uns but also good people, relatively innocent people. To not do so would be a dereliction of duty and you'd be just as responsible for inaction. Like in War Games, for a person that truly wants to live a virtuous life, the only choice is not to play (not be president). Honestly, to be a good leader at that level probably does require a certain level of sociopathic tendencies, what we want is someone who is also programed to min/max policy decisions to the benefit of the nation rather than to their own personal gains or even more nefarious goals.

While I get the sentiment, that would eliminate not only all boomers, but all GenXrs, and decent bunch of older or just precocious Millennials from office. Unless you are thinking of one of the hangers-on from Animal House, only like a third of the remainder that can vote would even meet the minimum age for President.

Wrapped up Echo and agree with the good points others have mentioned for the most part. Nice to highlight the Choctaw culture and even took a couple tongue in cheek shots at westerners fetishizing it. That said, this one does really highlight a reoccurring theme with superhero shows/movies- mass murderers are given the opportunity to see the light and receive redemption without any serious long term consequences. The difference between the 'heroes' and the 'villains' is that the former only relapse on occasion for the 'greater good', whereas the later relapse immediately. Petty henchmen however should be eliminated with impunity and without a moment of remorse. Somehow remembering your ancestors makes it OK that there are hundreds or thousands of lives shattered by your actions... and also remove any criminal evidence and outstanding warrants for your arrest!

I also wrapped up Mr & Mrs Smith and agree with the rest that Glover and Erskine played characters with real depth. The episode plots were just as ludicrous as Reacher, but they were able to sell it far better. A couple quibbles for an overall good show- the later episodes got a tad tedious as they started bickering constantly and the missions were boiled down into like 20 seconds of flashbacks.