appleorchard46

That man is playing Galaga!

Moving to the coast made me feel like I finally woke up, after growing up perpetually stuffy and sniffly. Turns out I'm not a mouth breather after all!

Sigh. It's like one of those clickbait YouTube videos (10 Reasons Why Modern Movies SUCK!) but with big words and literary citations to make it seem more respectable. The author completely disregards historical and traditional storytelling to squeeze every possible type of story into a vague narrative of commercialism.

> Franchises, sequels and box-set formats are extending stories in multiple directions to eke out ever more revenue, bringing to mind Musk’s intergalactic ambitions, which imply there’s a franchise option for human life: late capitalism, it would seem, respects neither narrative nor planetary boundaries. ‘It’s outrageous, really,’ Yorke says of endless sequels. ‘If you think of it in basic terms, a story is a question and answer, dramatised. And when the question is answered, there is nowhere else to go.’

Arthurian legend, Robin Hood, the Greek pantheon, Sun Wukong, Coyote? Trash. No, shared worlds are a modern invention by commercial entities looking to make a quick buck. A story is a question and an answer after all.

> Annabel ends the day much as she started it, the essay incomplete (although Brown does not reject story structure altogether: Annabel relaxing her grip on her timetable is an enlightenment of sorts).

> [...]

> Even art-house films that self-consciously depart from the three-act structure nonetheless define themselves against it.

So we're using 'three act structure' to mean 'something changes between the beginning and end'. By that definition, yes, movies do tend to be pretty samey in structure.

> Being told a story is to be infantilised, somewhat: to suspend one’s critical faculties. In contrast to polemic, stories are covertly persuasive. Even if their message is good for us, the sugaring of the pill represents a lowering of intellectual expectations.

I don't have a snarky comment for that bit, it's funny enough on its own.

It's hard to make a substantive and non-nitpicky comment on the article because there is no cohesive point being made here. It's a random collection of vague ideas that don't mean anything at all when put together, using criticism of modern film as a loose framework - yet written by someone who clearly is not interested in exploring the wide world of film and its fringes where the interesting stuff accumulates.

It's a good thing this isn't a formal debate then, because neither I nor the paper claim equality is good nor am I debating the assertion otherwise.

Thank you for the clarification, your position makes more sense now. It sounds like you're not saying there's something inherently bad about equality, but rather that the practical cost of enforcing absolute equality top-down makes it actually a net negative in well-being for the population of a state?

(I can't help but point out that if there's someone with the power to enforce it, things are very far from equal - but I'm guessing you mean 'equality' more in a monetary / real goods sense)

OP asserted that equality amongst humans is not necessarily a good thing. I am not trying to argue otherwise - not yet, at least - I am asking them to expand upon and clarify the claim as to understand better.

Because I do assume equality to be a good thing; if that is an incorrect assumption I would like to know.

Well yes, I do assume inequality is bad. In what situations / with what values is inequality a good thing?

I'm in the same boat, friend. Being exposed to so much has its upsides but ability to make lasting relationships is not one of them.

This is off-topic but I just wanted to say I appreciate your presence on HN. I see your name pop up often, and your comments are always insightful and clear. You consistently identify the root of complex topics (and disagreements/misapprehensions surrounding them) and are able to distill them in a non-argumentative way. Thanks for helping make this site a nicer place.

Thank you.

That's what the article answers.

Clue did something like this in 1985. It has a few different endings which were shown randomly in theaters, no indication of it either. It didn't go over well though.

Could someone explain the metaphor? I'm struggling to see the connection between AI and the rest of the post.