I've been using invidious for a while now but I remember I had blocked all recommends and suggestions on YT so I never saw shorts anyways (I know the recommend block was thru ublock but I can't remember if I'd blocked suggestions through YT options or if that was also a ublock filter).
Also a great way to avoid mindless feed-surfing. I only watched videos from subs or that I have specifically searched for rather than getting sucked into the algo vortex.
The unfettered instrumental rationality of the techno-slob on full display. Bonus depravity-points if the multi-paragraph HN comments are also being outsourced to the Machine.
it's up to the maintainer of a particular server to moderate what goes on in said server. Now, if the Matrix.org Foundation wants to moderate their servers one way or the other, that's one thing, but to expect the protocol/spec to lay down a content policy is, with all due respect, dumb as hell.
Is there any indication that this was completely autonomous and that the agent wasn't directed by a human to respond like this to a rejected submission? That seems infinitely more likely to me, but maybe I'm just naive.
As it stands, this reads like a giant assumption on the author's part at best, and a malicious attempt to deceive at worse.
I know you're looking for "pedant points" but the specification generally take a backseat to implementation. If Message-ID is expected out here where the rubber meets the road, then you are the squeaky wheel in this scenario for not including it.
This is a bit orthogonal to the article, but Christopher Nolan gives me the willies. Almost all his films have this kind authoritarian apologia in them.
Is that the same willies as something like 1984 or Black Mirror? All they are doing is taking some idea present now, and just taking it too the darker places of it while society is currently only seeing the rosy side of things. It's stories like this that might be first time someone might actually consider other implications of ideas.
I think they take issue with how it was ultimately okay to do to catch the Joker as long as Batman didn't use it and gave power to Luscious who resigned, instead of just calling it out as terrible and not doing it. That's how I read their comment anyway. "apologia"
There's real media illiteracy in watching a character in a film do a thing and assume that means the filmmaker is endorsing that thing. This has the same vibe as the Hays Code[1] which mandated that the bad guys in film must always get their comeuppance.
> All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience, or the audience must at least be aware that such behavior is wrong, usually through "compensating moral value".
Modern cinema and cinematic critique has been so flattened by the constant accusations of filmmakers supporting some "-ism" or another by failing to have their characters directly speak out against it. It's ridiculous.
A major defect with the Hays Code is that it assumes everything illegal is unethical.
But when you have Hollywood producing this Jack Bauer trash where the protagonist is doing everything that should never be done and is still painted as our hero and champion, that's rightfully criticized as propaganda.
The problem isn't when the bad guys are seen to get away with it, the problem is when the bad guys are made out to be the good guys. If they get away with it and it doesn't leave you feeling uncomfortable then it better be because the point was that they were never really the bad guys, because the alternative is to make you sympathize with the wicked.
Batman is a vigilante using brutal violence to pursue his goals outside of any legal system. The whole concept of the comics, movies, etc. is predicated on him being a virtuous guy that you can trust will always do the right thing (mostly, I'm sure he's a villain or anti-hero in some of them). The surveillance system really isn't anything different and it was ridiculous that Luscious had a problem with it in the first place.
Most (all?) of Batman is based on the idea that sometimes you need a good guy who operates outside of the law. Given that Batman isn't real but the problems he encounters often are real, the natural conclusion is that we should make up for our low Batman levels by letting law enforcement off the chain.
But this is hardly unique to Nolan. Probably 90% of Hollywood movies that involve crime have this message in some form.
The fact that Batman is an ultra wealthy 1 % which dishes out justice with his expensive toys while hiding from most of the authorities is also quite a message.
The popular ones with extra-human abilities - Flash, Superman, Spiderman, Captain America, etc, have more normal backgrounds.
Boys with toys though - Batman, Ironman, The Atom, are the 1%. Ant Man I guess is more normal, but he stole his suit (but Hank Pym was reasonably normal too)
Well, a lot of Batman also expressly questions whether Batman is really good and emphasizes the point that he became Batman because of the trauma of seeing his parents murdered. Given that most of the villains he fights also have a tragic backstory, the suggestion is that he isn't really all that different from them.
No, it's more like the militarism in a Heinlein novel. It is, at best, an unexamined assumption and, at worst, a celebration, or sometimes a passive acceptance, of violence to enforce the status quo.
In the context of the Dark Knight/surveillance example, it comes across to me as more of a recognition that the arguments in favor of these things can easily be made compelling if you evaluate them with no tradeoffs (don't you want to catch the bad guys??).
Then again, I guess the film ends up doing the same thing by only demonstrating concrete benefits alongside theoretical, but unrealized, harms...
He also beats up the Joker while he's in custody, because you gotta stop the badguy at all costs. And then there's Cops vs Protestors brawl in the other Nolan batman.
There is, admittedly, a precedent within the basic premise of the Batman story itself (and Frank Miller, author of the Dark Knight Returns comic is a noted right-wing libertarian) so in the case of that franchise, Nolan isn't inventing whole-cloth but it's also not something that's limited to just his Dark Knight films
The Dark Knight Rises (the batman movie with Bane) seemed especially notable in this way - almost directly caricaturing the Occupy Wall St protests that were relevant at the time.
Do not mistake Nolan's ability to call out the failures of both absolute freedom and absolute control and their interaction with him advocating for any of them.
Don't get the willies from the warning, learn from it.
His brother and the writer, Jonathan Nolan, is the greatest prophet of our era.
Every single Hollywood movie has authoritarian apologia, you don't have to go to Christopher Nolan or Forrest Gump. The most recent example is One battle after another.
"Wait, There’s Torture in Zootopia?" DOI:10.1017/S1537592719005012
The whole idea about any superhero media is a special dude going on a violent spree because the authorities (in their eyes) can't do their job properly. The whole concept is anti-government and society as a whole.
Not at all. They have their roots in the projection of a defined moral trajectory that the superhero is charged to lift society along and the disagreement they have with the state is that it can't do that enough, not that it's going in the wrong direction. Modern superhero stories have completely inverted and fucked with and abandoned this narrative but the original stories were absolutely supportive of the state, fundamentally modernist.
This trend of "complexity == moar gooder" makes me itchy. Why does a vehicle display system need a whole-ass game engine? I want my high-speed death box to have utilitarian, well-tested and well-written software, not fucking Unity.
Please stop, all this does is introduce new ways for things to break.
reply