r9550684

when I first could afford to but before I had responsibilities, I bought a breguet classique off secondary market, which is already understated, and I wear it with an even more understated leather band. I consciously chose to wear it as a daily cary, which means that on more than one occasion I wore it through ghettos on the way to raves, including through one attempted and failed robbery. By now it's well worn in, and I prefer it to be a subtle signal: those who don't care don't notice, so it's not ostentatious, those who pay attention but don't know will figure it out through closer observation, and those who know, don't need to ask any questions. I do occasionally consciously take them off so as not to be flashing, when that would be particularly crass or foolhardy.

I've lost many watches in my life, but this one has trained me in the discipline of care and attentiveness towards my possessions, which extends to all things and not just the watch.

There was no particularly good reason for me to buy it though, except for the watch maker name's frequent mention in the 19th century literature, including a famous line from Pushkin's Onegin, "he strolls down boulevards, until a sleepless Breguet, calls out time for supper". now it's likely that Onegin specifically didn't wear an actual breguet, because that was a generic name for a chiming timepiece, but the imagery stuck. I grew up on 19th century literature, byronic heroes, this line is explicit reference to flaneur culture, a self-conscious decadent movement, associated with aimless strolling down boulevards dressed in provocative clothing, breguet fits here, and that's the joke of the line: at a time when a timepiece would be associated with a serious vocation, politics or military, it is being used for the most frivolous task of letting one man know when it's time to eat. I reflect on this point occasionally, when I look at my watch.

compare footnote 87 in pdf and 79 in html, the html version of the translation is invalid and reverses the meaning, uses transliteration instead of Cyrillic, but also where did the other 8 footnotes go? I have a feeling the html was transcribed by hand after the fact

this is a pure grift post, which is what one would expect from a former director of an adtech grift (but I repeat myself) company. it should be obvious that the goal here is not to communicate the poor state of the job market, but to exploit the narrative of the poor hiring market in order to attract attention to a subpar candidate.

I find it amusing that fedir ("ted") skyba was still the ceo of AIR this past January, when AIR reported record profits and purchased another mcn grifter "ScaleLab". google reviews and elsewhere of scalelab are hilarious "don't use! pure scammers!". the co-founders of air decided to get rid of their star ceo just as the company started turning serious profit. no honor amongst thieves!

an mcn, or a multi-channel network, is a company that helps "content creators" promote and monetize their channels. they provide additional services that are generally value add fluff. you go to an mcn in order to boost your subscriber numbers, in exchange for a cut of your profit. if the pimp analogy comes to your head, it's not unwarranted, there are giant mcns for onlyfans and other such services. an mcn becomes successful through aggressive on boarding practices, and then acts as a rainmaker: if the channel makes it on merit, an mcn takes a cut and claims it as huge success, if it doesn't the mcn still takes a cut until the content creators wises up and leaves. if you ever wonder how YouTube channels lose their souls, it's through the deals with mcns.

from this perspective fedir's inflated ego combined with, the way another commenter put it, parody-level fluff cv should not be a surprise.

I think the only reason pen's gratuitous violence stands out is because the tropes and the narrative structure are outdated. a trigger happy scrapper is played for laughs in children's cartoons today, but the joke is telegraphed so that there's no confusion. j.m. barrie instead relies on the reader's ability to keep context in long form.

I think addressing child's inner world on its own terms was attempted by the victorians to begin with, they had the whole cult of child thing, lewis carol serenading a prepubescent girl. but I think j.m. barrie did it with gusto, recognizing the symbolic and the gruesome, like you said. the grab bag of sword fights, scalps, pirates is an old time-y equivalent of going "and then the transformer shot his laser at the dinosaur, and the whole thing EXPLODED!!!"

the deliberately constructed world is essential to the various actual points of the story. it strongly delineates peter pan's world of childhood imagination and whimsy, from the various intrusions into it: Wendy as a romantic partner and a mother figure, the various lost boys accidentally growing up, etc. this is not a complicated idea, and Jim hart and nick castle have a field day with it in their Hook adaptation. like the amazing food fight scene.

I've addressed what he said for exactly one sentence in the beginning of my review: reframing fairy tales or children's tales in cynical terms is a whimsical pastime, rather than a serious literary criticism. The rest of my review is necessary, because I don't otherwise understand what would compel a grown man to engage in such an activity with a kind of serious fervor. From this perspective addressing him point by point is a waste of time, his entire approach is at fault.

Burton Weltman, the author of this article, is a humorless old man, who plays an old game of reframing whimsical and fantastical in cynical terms, but he doesn't do it for comedic effect, no he plays it straight! Mr Weltman has at least two things going against him, he's an old bore (he was a history professor for 20 years, god help his students) so his imagination and whimsy faculties have entirely atrophied, and before that he was a deputy attorney general for the state of New Jersey, so it's a safe bet he didn't have imagination and whimsy faculties to begin with. Reading this article is a literary equivalent of approaching an old man at a dinner party expecting a lively conversation, but the man starts telling you how we should outlaw kids, because they are noisy and rambunctious and make messes wherever they appear, and you think that it's a jest, until you realize with horror and pity that the man is dead serious and is in the early stages of senility. As you attempt to flee you hear his last attempts at your attention, something about hitler being a kid once.