spark947

I think it definitely was a huge breakdown in academic's to adapt to new technology, and it is at the core of a lot of the societal problems we face today. Of course, a lot of the reasons for this were by design at the hands of a few corporate actors, and they share a lot of culpability.

There are philosophical underpinnings too - a lot of academics are still caught up on modernism (which would rightfully distrust new internet sources in favor of legacy sources of proven idealistic knowledge) vs. Postmodernism, which would provide a framework to recognize the truth in these systems.

One thing to keep in mind is that computers and the internet are still extremely new, and we are still figuring them out. It has only been a decade and a half where everyone has a general purpose, internet connected computer in their pocket.

Just an open source e-ink device with the build quality of a Kindle. Nothing fancy.

We gave them record profits and this is how they repay us.

This is the whole point of federation, having multiple instances, and being open source. It's also why a bunch of the people on here are Linux heads.

Keep on mind that lemmy isn't owned by a single corporation ir organization. It is a bunch of individually owned instances that talk to each other. This means that if you own an instance, you have contr of how it is moderated, but you have to balance that freedom with making your instance a place other instances will have to connect to. Its very democratic.

This goes all the way to the source code, which is open. So, even if the devs try to change it and exert more control, it could be forked.

Of course, you could still be a doomer and say something could come along and ruin it. But, it's at least better than private, venture funded internet platforms on paper.

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. I feel like we had all these things >10 years ago. It really feels like once they realized google+ wasn't going to win over facebook, they were done.

When was the last time Google made something objectively useful and not some ad bs?

Philistines

This gives the game away, although I'm sure you were joking.

Marty's common refrain has been "there is an emotional core to this movie - we had a meeting!"

Look, there is a business to high production films, and we have to accept that. Marty clearly has, has participated in it, and used his well earned artistic reputation to criticize it. Good stuff.

Enough money can make you think anything is true.

I'm speaking specifically about the Irishman, a movie I love btw. But do I think it is more artistically "valid" than infinity war? No.

It is less creatively "risky" than not doing another gangster film, thats simply a fact. And that's okay. On some level, it is a "lets get the gang back together for one more ride" movie. On some level, all the players involved have certainly earned the right to do that. But it is odd to criticize studios for essentially taking the exact same approach to film making, especially for movies with massive commercial success - even if you argue that the quality of the art produced isn't the same.

Pacino's role is a good example. He practically admitted that he was too old for the role off Jimmy Hoffa after filming, in multiple different interviews. So why was he chosen? You said it yourself - people want to see one of the most beloved Italian American gangster actors get directed by one one most beloved Italian American gangster directors. And you are a fanboy over it. And that is okay. I "forgive" you or whatever. I am too.

It goes to show that formula film making can produce great films, and that the MCU movies that are bad (for many are fine films) aren't bad because they are based on comic books, or because there is multiple of them. Comic books that were extremely artistic and considered important works of 20th century science fiction in their own right (talking about Jack Kirby specifically). I would argue that eventually the MCU did become a very cynical excercise that is determined more by studio number crunching. That happens for all sorts of reasons in Hollywood.

I mean yeah. Idk why people pre-ordered it, but they did, that's their whole funding. Now they owe a copy to all their "backers", and it's hard to see how releasing this game will bring in revenue. They are in a very big hole.

Yeah, he should just break the law and throw away years of foreign policy efforts. All for a constituency that is always going to find some reason to be mad at something else. Grow up.

Obviously he should stick to campaign promises or not make them. That's sloppy politics. But to say that the administration is exactly the same as trump, it's kind of willfully ridiculous. There are reasons why the admin does these things. You can disagree with them, but I'm tired of the take that there is only really one political party bro.

Well, he has also been criticizing them in the sense that creating these movies are not done in pursuit of a creative purpose. That there is no emotional risk. I think it is an apt criticism - but where is the great creative risk in making another gangster movie staring Robby and Joey?