I think that’s a still from Green Room, a very good and very disturbing film with none other than Sir Patrick Stewart as a Nazi/replacement theory Svengali-type character. The joke being the band in the movie is booked unaware into a straight up nazi punk club, and end up singing that song. Things develop from there. I hope I got that right, but that’s my memory.
I didn’t know he played in a real band. Cool beans!
Dear Nitwit,
A reduced faith in science might, hear me out here, ••might•• have something to do with science, ya know, killing the planet and what not. You wanna get some faith back? Maybe apply these new technologies to human happiness, or even, who knows human survival.
One more thing, nimrod. The real risk averse culture? It ain’t your unwashed “zero-sum thinking Millennials” No, it’s your hyper capitalist who’s rigged the system to the point where taking financial risk is erased by government bailouts. They’re the ones who want to eliminate risk.
And it’s that, plus their increased control of what is and is not researched in practised science that leads to our dismay. See above: “planet dying” Imagine something like pencillin, developed entirely within an academic risky environment, getting made today.
There’s risk in true critical thinking, instead of lazy “Kids Today” hand-wringing. So, in future, take a fucking risk.
Great article, with lots of historical explanations on the theory of how these lenses work, and how optics works in general. Learned a bit today. Thanks!
Is anyone else using invidio.us type Firefox plug-ins to deal with this? I don’t know if it’s better for privacy, but I like the illusion of sticking it to the man. And the lack of ads.
Thank you.
So sorry, I didn’t see if the article worked. I’m an idiot.
Archived version: https://archive.is/0eou1
Archived page here.
If you liked that, you’re going to love this. It’s almost exactly the price tag to switch - completely - to renewables.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-global-price-tag-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-73-trillion
I know, I know, many studies, many different amounts, but come on! Let’s try!
Great article, definitely need to be thinking more about how to communicate, rather than just saying what’s happening. Which is not really working.
Upvoted for correct use of word ‘grok’, but definitely want to learn more about agent-based modelling. If for no other reason than truth inoculation is one of the more vital battles of our time.
Haven’t read that, sounds like an interesting take. Thanks for that. I love anything about how ‘order’ was established, since it seems like a given today, but it definitely isn’t.
I wrote a great reply that was brilliant and generous and had all the clever bits, and then Lemmy deleted it.
You’re right, clan-based practices have had and continue to have struggles both with modernisation and basic human rights. They are not idealised Rousseauean societies.
But the author is basically saying that this shift in marriage practices is the sole contributor to Western science. It’s a stretch to be sure, and it doesn’t even have the evidence right.
Here’s a critique with quotes from people way smarter than me.
The article talks about how "the men of the family stayed in their places of birth for life, while the women left the family to live with other groups. "
I thought this was interesting because I recently heard a radio 4 broadcast about how the ban on cousin marriage by the Catholic Church led to the Western world of technology, advancement and individualism. It seemed bogus since I knew about some tribes in the Americas that practiced exactly this kind of pairing outside the tribe, and this study confirms that. So it wasn’t just bogus because it mistook correlation for causation, it was bogus on the evidence as well!
Link to podcast of programme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sh8z
Wiki on book, The WEIRDest People in the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_World
“Inactivist”, that’s a term that really captures the spirit of this kind of non-denial denial.
I confess, I had no idea what the film was about when I saw it in the theatre, but something about it compelled me to watch it again. And my controversial take is that the film’s story is really quite clear. Even though, again, I no idea what it was about when I first saw it.
It’s about the effects of art. The stories are in no way disconnected, but all connected by a story, a work, a piece of music, etc. And each one carries forward, often in ways the author(s), inpirations, etc. had no way of understanding.
I’m a writer of very little renown, but I use the film to keep going. Because even if you’re not an artist, your life will have an effect in way you can’t know. And I love that idea.
Also, it was a crime that this film did not get any nominations for editing. It is, purely from a technical point of view, a masterclass. The beats of six separate stories cut together according to their lows and highs, and cutting away when you really want to know what’s happening. If you don’t like the film, that’s entirely reasonable. But how it was put together is something to behold.