maegul (he/they)

A little bit of neuroscience and a little bit of computing

  • 40 Posts
  • 464 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • As a nerd, I don’t like the end of the article where she says we need to get revenge on the nerds.

    I hear you, as many would I think. But realistically, I think calling tech culture into question, even beyond its manifestation in the psychotic tech CEO types, is worth while. It’s really had a dominant run both materially and culturally (a revenge as many would see it), and I think it’s worthwhile questioning the value of a lot of it, in a way I don’t think many nerds and tech people are capable of (sadly IMO).

    There may be an inclination to separate the capitalism and nerdy parts. But as an industry/profession/whatever that generally tends to care a lot about itself in various ways … I think tech is disturbingly uninterested in caring about the quality of its profession beyond the bike shedding stuff let alone acting on it in any collective way. There are reasons for this, but given the dominance tech now has in the world, pushing back in the culture wholesale is justified I think.


  • They’ve been defederated from lemmy.ml, lemmygrad and hexbear for much longer though.

    They’re not defederated from lemmy.ml

    I’m not sure what your point here regarding Beehaw is though.

    That they’re defederated from lemmy.world, a centrist/mainstream/reddit-like whatever instance, which plenty of others have trouble with too, indicating things aren’t as simple as “left instances are trouble”.

    What right-wing-ish instances are we talking about?

    It’s apparently historical, so prob 2020 or so.

    “Demanding open source users” is a nice way of framing community demands negatively. lol

    Well it can cut both ways I think. That open source burn out is real and that open source has attained a strangely consumerist culture is real. If you’re not aware you may not be plugged in enough. That of course is no excuse to neglect your community, I’d likely agree with you that the lemmy devs could do significantly better on that front. I think I’ve even seen them admit as much.


  • While the political friction is very real, my perspective on the whole dynamic is that the anticipation of or focus on the friction is one of the biggest source of problems.

    For instance, you cite beehaw and state that it’s the extreme leftist instances that are the most troublesome … when beehaw famously defederated from lemmy.world ages ago, as well as sh.itjust.works, while the admin of lemm.ee has said, controversially for some of their users I believe, that they don’t really understand all of the fuss over hexbear. Meanwhile, lemmy.ml tries to stay widely federated AFAICT, and from what I’ve gathered, the admins have even gotten in hot water with their lefty users for not defederating from more right-wing-ish instances earlier, and then are often criticised for their active moderation on their own instance.

    Point being that it’s all probably a bit of a mess that doesn’t neatly align with left v right.

    I’d bet that the biggest problems with the core devs approach to moderation tooling is that they have like making them and don’t like what they perceive to be a culture of demanding open source users (which I’ve come to understand over time actually).






  • Oh god … this happened?!

    non-trans person sharing their perhaps invalid and uninformed opinions

    As someone who was calling for easing up on dogpiling on nutomic in that thread, banning beaver here, and the instance, is IMO not ok, at all.

    Nutomic, you were probably pissed off about the leaking, I think most would get that. But as an admin here and a core dev, I think you have to do way way better than use your admin rights here as a weapon against someone you no longer like and who posted on another instance. If you think there’s a situation to sort out, it’s gotta be done more openly than this.

    Rule 1 of this instance (against transphobia) probably applies.

    No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.

    As in, this moderation action was likely against instance rules. How else is a minority community to combat their oppressors than post about what ever communication they receive? To punish them for that communication however inappropriate it would have been from a less oppressed person is therefore punishing them and then coming under rule 1.

    There were plenty of other ways to handle this. Banning a user looks a lot like petty and unreliable admin-ing. Especially when the issue of whether you are a transphobe is on the table and instead of addressing that you’ve chosen use your power against the transgender community here.

    I get that leaking personal chats is always a dodgy thing, but in this case, I really hope the lemmy ml admins sort this out.

    It’s really bad to weaponise admin powers against an oppressed minority. Certainly makes me question my membership here and the admins values. And is a particularly bad look for an instance many are criticising for having power crazy admins, most of which is red scare crap but totally justified in this case I suspect.



  • Yea, well it tracks with the deferred ethics of the whole dynamic/system.

    My favourite was the opening, which set the tone and had me double take to make sure I read it correctly: “You can slice someone’s throat and still love them.” Of course you can, so long as you respect them and remain mindful of the circle of life.

    I don’t engage in any vegan arguments at the moment … but I’d imagine the real razor would be whether anyone has actually killed the kind of animals they’re eating and would be happy to do that every time they ate (the corresponding amount of meat, just to be “fair”). I have, through scientific research seen and participated in animal killing, and watched how others digest the process. I’m pretty most moderately thoughtful people would not be up for it at all.






  • Oh I’ve got nothing against the portrayal or actor or even the inclusion of Kirk in the show … I just think the amount of TOS stuff (including Scotty) got distracting in S2, and that treating the show as a TOS prequel, which seems to be the case given what the showrunners have said, isn’t going to be healthy for the show in the long run.

    In general, my take on season 2 is that I’ve mentally prepared myself for it to mark the point at which it went bad or stopped being actually good. We’ll have to see, and I’m obviously hoping that I’m paranoid … but I do not trust Kurtzman or paramount or the temptation some executives must be salivating over to just reboot the original series.







  • Mostly with you (and others so far in this thread). There’s a good core of a movie in there, but some mistakes and fumbles and confused purpose IMO.

    It felt like Nolan wanted to be faithful to the biography and hadn’t himself reached some personal artistic insight about Oppenheimer the person or story himself on his own. And so, as well made as the film is, it’s basically an biography put to film with great acting and Nolan’s “trademark” non-linearity. Though, I wouldn’t be surprised if on closer analysis (I’ve only seen it once) one could conclude that the non-linearity actually masks how empty most of the film is. As an illustration, having seen it a while ago now, I can’t get past the fact that Nolan put the “destroyer of worlds” line in an awkward sex scene. It betrays, IMO, that there was a lack of a complete grasp from Nolan on what he was trying to do. If he didn’t want the line to be dramatic etc, don’t put it in the film. The sex scene was obviously contrived and made no sense.

    For me the middle is where it shines, where you see Oppenheimer in action on the edge between guilt and ambitious vision, and Nolan does very well here with his naturalistic and dramatic choices. But the opening and closing acts of the film … really not sure why exactly they are there and stand out as awkward fumbling to me (on which I honestly hope I’m missing something as to how essential the closing trail thingy had to be there).

    Ultimately, the ambition of the film is to focus on Oppenheimer the person, but, however impossible a task it is illuminate his character and story, I don’t think Nolan really had much to contribute on that front and so I’m not sure the film can justify itself against the alternative of making a film more focused on the broader project and context of the Manhatten project etc, where, against a broader context, Oppenheimer’s inscrutable nature but also huge importance may have been more clear and interesting. For instance, my understanding is that part of his value as the lead of the project was that he was uniquely capable of understanding any of the science as quickly as anyone else as well has understanding people well enough to get what he needed out of them. This is hinted at in the film, but not made clear at all.

    Now, since Dunkirk, Nolan has made Tenet and Oppenheimer which are IMO his two weakest adjacent films and career wise he’s probably fallen into a bit of a slump (with maybe Interstellar and Dunkirk going down as his career highpoint?). Going all the way back to Interstellar, I don’t think he’s been able to construct a good closing act in 3 of his last 4 films (Interstellar’s last act is probably polarising … but I also think the closing act of Inception was off in ways too).

    Beyond all of that … I happened to end up seeing Barbie as well (well after having seen Oppenheimer) and shouldn’t couldn’t shake the feeling that though Oppenheimer was more “high brow”, Barbie is probably the better and more important film of the two … which I did not expect at all as a Nolan fan.