periphrasis

From Federalist 10

"The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principal, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote."

Madison goes on to discuss the difficulty of the situation in which faction encompasses the majority, which is likely what you're referring to. But he is VERY explicit that majority rule is one of the primary weapons against faction, and the discussion of the failures of articles of confederation and historical leagues and confederacies that occupies multiple papers makes clear that lack of majority rule is one of the great enablers of faction.

edit: The guard against majority faction does NOT come from minority rule or supermajority requirements. It comes from representation, rather than direct assembly, and a large population that is geographically and politically diverse. Those are the mitigations Madison proposes in Federalist 10 for the dangers of majority faction. He's quite clear that majority rule is the only way to run a popular government and any danger it poses must be mitigated by other means, namely representation and large geographic extent.

> instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances)

This is not the argument of the federalist papers. They argue for a government with powers commensurate to its objects. They discuss at great length the dangers of a government being too weak, namely that it forces a series of usurpations because its the only way to get anything done.

> They warned of tyranny of the majority

Nor is this the argument of the federalist papers, for much the same reasons above. Madison and Hamilton are quite explicit that majority rule is the only way to have a functional government, and that the alternative will only lead to dysfunction and the need to seize more power to break the resulting logjams.

The text of Federalist 10 shows that this is not a useful distinction in our contemporary context. Madison defines the "republican principle" as majority rule, and further defines "pure democracy" as direct government by an assembly of the citizen body, i.e. Ancient Athenian Democracy, something which does not exist at any scale in the contemporary world. A republic, as Madison defines it, is one in which the citizen body elects representatives, who then carry on the work of government. In modern parlance we call this a representative democracy. Further, Madison emphasizes the vital importance of majority rule in a republic as a guard against faction, so much so that he call majority rule the "republican principle" as noted above.

The bottomline is that the essential features of what Madison calls a "republic" is what the contemporary world calls a "democracy" or more specifically a "representative democracy". Insisting on calling American government a republic and not a democracy, when Madison's definition matches what we think of as a representative democracy, just obfuscates what's being discussed.

> Or, if he wants to eventually become the President of the US, then that's an alternative explanation (of why he cared)?

That would require a constitutional amendment in order for him to be eligible. He’s revealed himself to be pretty dumb, but even I give him enough credit to not be so stupid as to think he will one day he President.

When the weather gets nice in nyc, the bike lanes fill up with people slowly meandering about the lane as they cycle one-handed, eyes glued to their cellphones.

My unscientific, purely vibes based take is that the ubiquity of the smartphone has created such widespread severe dopamine addiction that basic human judgment and even self preservation instinct is increasingly impaired.

I don’t disagree about the artistic merit or lack thereof of most “content”. Will AI produced content be worse than 98% of what’s on Netflix? Probably not! But this will drastically change the economics of content creation, such that something that has the chance to be actual art will be dramatically more expensive than that which can benignly occupy a user’s attention as they alternate between staring at a screen and flipping through their phone. Give it a generation, or even just a decade (look at how rapidly audience tastes have degenerated since 2014 or so) and no one will be able to conceive of “content” being anything else. Who is going to sign on to fund popular entertainment with artistic ambition, eg The Fabelmans, or art house fare, eg Tar, in such a world? Such a future, a world without popular or even middle brow art, is dystopian to its core (and indeed it may already be our present) which is why I fail to conceal my contempt for the aesthetic values of anyone who would eagerly embrace it.

I was referring to the genre fiction versus literary fiction distinction, something which would be very evident if your understanding of the term wasn’t limited to the first hit of a google search.

So literally generic content replacing art? Just tell the machine what you expect and like and then your expectations can be satisfied on-demand! Sounds like cultural oblivion and I will hold my tongue on the quality of your aesthetic judgment.

And because the passage of time implies progress, this will be inherently better than what came before. /s

This decision is correct, given all the incorrect strategic decisions he made leading up to it. The markets have clearly lost a lot of confidence in his leadership, and I would have to imagine the remaining employees have too. Stepping down would be a drastic step, but merely stating “I take responsibility” is unlikely on its own to restore confidence in his ability to right the ship either.

Imagine thinking securities fraud is the profession of the superior man: instead, he is merely a slave to his desires, namely greed, debasing himself in order to vainly feed the insatiable beast inside. Truly pitiable and truly servile.

You certainly can recreate something very similar in post, although that’s a bit like saying chiaroscuro lighting is achievable in charcoal, oil paint, and photography: the effect is still going to be distinct depending on the medium. Digital has a whole host of unique qualities and even some distinct advantages over film. But the image of film has a different quality to it as compared to digital: it simply looks different than digital projection or home video, even if you had a pristine, flawless film print. The difference in image is subtle, but your brain recognizes it the moment the projector starts: “oh, yeah, this is how movies used to look.” Just as photography hasn’t superseded all other 2d visual arts, I think it would be a mistake to treat film as unnecessary in the age of digital. I can certainly understand why a director and DP would choose to work with digital for the average case project these days though.

As an example, I recently saw Full Metal Jacket on 35mm. The last Boot Camp scene, the one in the bathroom, while unsettling in any context becomes positively haunting in 35mm. The lower light conditions introduce artifacting even in digital, but the slightly wobbly frame motion and the scratches and dust marks exaggerate that artifacting further. The resulting image is almost expressionistic, as though reality has become so horrifying our very perception of it is starting to breakdown. The same sort of effect recurs with the sniper at the end of the film. In between, the rougher, less pristine frames create a sense of grittiness that amplifies the mood of the film. In short, I thought seeing Full Metal Jacket on 35mm was a fully superior experience over watching it on digital (although I’ve only seen digital presentations of it at home and not in a theater).

I’m not sure avoiding sub vocalisation is an advantage unless your only priority is speed. If you’re reading poetry or rhetorical writing, i.e. a speech, and if you’re neither sub vocalizing nor reading aloud, then you’re missing most of what’s on offer: the careful arrangement of rhythm and sound to create literary effect.