If only the better argument counted for something.


Liberal Hate


To be fair, I do see a lot wrong with the progressive movement, just ask me about gun control, GMO hate, and nuclear power, but that makes a lot of sense since progressivism is forced to be a single party event in this country.

You have two general approaches to political change, the desire for something new or the desire for something old. Conservatives are by definition regressive. They wish for stasis or regression. Progressives are the other side, they wish for change and progress towards something new.

The problem is that there are many possible futures but only one past. It makes sense to have a single conservative party, but in order to counter that you need a concerted effort to balance it, but again that’s a problem because progressives can’t agree as easily as conservatives because many possible futures.

For example, I want to see a future with nuclear reactors and the freedom to own weapons. My reasoning isn’t relevant to this comment.

My point is to prove that it isn’t logical to lump “liberals” together like it is to do so with conservatives, because of the shared past, divergent future, dichotomy. Admitting there are general differences between two groups thus making total equality impossible or nonsensical is ironically something also relevant at the gender level. It’s insane for example to ask for breast equality among the genders and we all understand that. The difference in breasts is not an oppressive conspiracy.

8765786076That said, if any party is more guilty of ignoring facts it’s the conservative party since there are reasons we abandoned elements of the past when we did so. Granted not all of them were valid and good reasons but for the most part we had good cause, at least at the time.

The right wing in this country is completely fact immune on a whole slew of issues ranging from economics to climatology to sociology. When they aren’t simply lying for power on behalf of their 1% owners.

Basically we need a depth of process reform that simply isn’t going to happen prior to the singularity. And what I am hoping for is internal changes to the one party that overtly stands for change. Since currently the ship of state is headed for a waterfall.

1336153857475Letting the 1% try to keep ALL the money is just insane. It will destroy the country. Though of course they can just fly away. Realizing that they are a pathology at the systemic level is the first step towards finding an ethical cure.

As opposed to merely executing them, French revolution style, which is perfectly possible given how few people we’re talking about here. And I should also point out that if this ever becomes the position of the government, there’s no where to run as our drone strikes have shown.

Social Security Works Email: 2015-07-04 1226 PM

Resharing because I agree, and because the original was an email.

From: http://www.socialsecurityworks.org/

There are two kinds of people who want to cut Social Security—liars, and people who believe the lies. They’ve heard the conservative talking points. “Social Security is going broke.” “Social Security won’t be there for me when I retire.” “The only way to save Social Security is to cut benefits.”

Unfortunately, these Wall Street funded lies have gotten plenty of traction in recent years. So much so that a recent survey shows that 43 percent of young people believe that Social Security won’t be there for them when they retire—no matter how much that same survey shows that these same young people want it to.

It’s time to set the record straight. This 4th of July weekend, when you’re speaking with your Chris Christie-loving cousin at the family BBQ, you have the facts on your side:

  • Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible person for nearly two decades. After that, even if we do nothing, it will pay out approximately 80% of benefits owed for the next 75 years.
  • Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit because it is independently funded by the FICA payroll tax.
  • Proposed “tweaks” to Social Security would hurt seniors, disabled veterans and people with disabilities.
  • All we need is to ask millionaires and billionaires to start paying into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us and we not only extend the life of the Social Security trust fund, but we can expand benefits to the majority of Americans.

With the facts on our side, we have begun to see a dramatic shift in the national conversation around Social Security. It wasn’t that long ago that we were still fighting a “chained CPI” benefit cut being proposed by President Obama, all Republicans and some Democrats in Congress. Today, 44 out of 46 Senate Democrats and 116 out of 188 House Democrats have gone on record supporting expansion. And 79% of likely voters – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – support expansion!

Why I don’t care about DRM.

The DRM debate to me is like the gay marriage debate: A dangerous diversion from a deeper more widespread, and more pressing problem.

(In the case of gay marriage the deeper issue is why we permit the state to regulate what is essentially a religious ritual in the first place. Marriage should not exist in any official capacity. It should not be an official status any more than the state of your baptism. I should not get a tax break or hike for participating in any religious ritual.)

In the case of DRM the deeper problem is intellectual property law (IPL) itself. DRM is part and parcel with IPL. The reason the anti-drm groups look frankly small time and a bit whacked out fringe is because of where they are attacking the logic chain. To the pro DRM crowd they are the enemy, and to the abolitionist crowd they seem like collaborators or traitors of some stripe. The anti-DRM movement seem to be a walking contradiction because if you assert or imply that IPL itself is ok, then the logic of DRM is quite sound. If on the other hand you assume that logic is bogus, then why are you limiting yourself to opposing DRM?

Anti-DRM groups by their very nature seem to imply a compromise. They suggest that the phenomenon of selling copies, selling strings of numbers, patenting numbers, is ok. They seem to say it’s just that how those laws are enforced that’s the problem.

They seem a little insane in their level of compromise. Whether or not that compromise is practical and wise politically is a separate issue. It would be like segregation era black arguing that the policy isn’t the problem, just the police violence that occurs when its enforced.

And if you think for one second this issue is trivial because games and movies, I remind you that these exact same laws apply to drugs and the food supply. Where do you think the drug companies got the legal framework that lets them charge what they want to whomever they want? Where do you think Monsanto got the idea of a terminator gene?

Compare anti DRM efforts with the people attacking the correct root, the hardcore abolitionists and the full on pirate party types who assert that the whole business model is unjust and more than a little insane. They somehow seem more serious, more credible. And there’s a whole lot more of them.

The reason a conservative 1% rules the world is because their opposition is by definition fragmented. There is only one status quo, one way it is, and there are a million different directions we can progress in.

That will always be the case, but you could at least get the progressives of whatever strike to be more effective if you could get it across to them that root problems are the ones worth curing.

DRM: Disabling the disabled

Reblogged from: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/disabling-the-disabled

DRM: Disabling the disabled

This is a guest post by Storm Dragon and Kyle (co-writer), two blind anti-DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) activists. It focuses on the problems facing blind readers in the US, but much of it is applicable to other countries as well.

DRM affects almost everyone on a daily basis, but in the blind community it is a problem of epic proportions. Usually when people want something to read, they go to a library, pick up a book, and check it out. Blind people in the US can use the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped in almost the same way—except for one major difference: coming from the NLSBPH, books are usually audiobooks, stored in a specialized format encumbered with DRM.

DRM restricts audiobooks so that they can only play on specialized hardware: either a rather large and cumbersome device provided by the library or other specialized players that are extremely overpriced, starting at around $350 to $400 USD. If you want to listen to the book on your computer, your digital audio player, or your Android smartphone, too bad; although the stated intent of DRM is to prevent non-blind people from using the NSLBPH’s books, it actually prevents blind people from using them on unsanctioned devices. A notable exception is Apple products, which allow sharing between devices, but only at the unacceptable cost of using particularly restrictive proprietary operating systems.

Attempting to read an audiobook from the NLSBPH in the US is comparable to going to the library and sitting down with a good book, only to find out that reading it requires a licensed pair of glasses, produced by only two or three vendors, available at checkout or purchased at a premium from authorized dealers.

DRM not only affects the accessibility of material to people with visual impairment, but also places an undue burden on the taxpayer, whose money the government uses to design the NSLBPH’s needless DRM constraints. This tax money could be much better spent providing off-the-shelf players installed with free software, which would be capable of playing audiobooks in more compact formats, such as the Opus audio standard. Such free players could even be adapted to read a new generation of time-indexed markup, which would allow skipping backward and forward through a book by multiple levels of divisions, like sentences and chapters. This level of control over the reading experience, widely available to sighted people, is still mostly out of reach for the blind.

As a blind reader, I have had my own moral struggle with the problem of digital restrictions on the books I read. At this point, my only choices are to read books from LibriVox, which has a large selection, but very little new literature, or to find more questionable ways of obtaining books that do not suffer from restrictions that prevent me from reading them. Out of these choices, LibriVox is definitely the better option, even though it limits my selection of books to those in the public domain, or those which otherwise have no copyright restrictions of any kind. Although no copyright restrictions would be the ideal state of things for me, the fact remains that there are still very few new entries into the public domain, and that is not likely to change any time soon. So when someone tells me that they have read a really good book, I end up having to tell them that I am unable to read it, because although I have access to the file, it limits my ability to play it on the device I want to use, undercutting my freedom to read it.

Because digital restrictions are especially hard on people with disabilities, I urge everyone in the US to contact the National Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, as well as their senators and representatives, to make them aware of the seriousness of the problem.

The US library is not the only one that suffers from these problems. I encourage anyone in any other country to find out what restrictions are on books that local blind and visually impaired people read. If they have the same digital restrictions, attempt to have laws changed in your country as well, “that all may read,” as the US library so eloquently, but currently falsely, puts it.

In order to contact us or discuss this article, follow @storm@social.stormdragon.tk and @kyle@shoutit.ga from your favorite GNU social site. The authors also have Web sites at https://stormdragon.tk and http://kyle.tk/.

To the extent possible under law, Storm Dragon and Kyle has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to DRM: Disabling the disabled. This work is published from: United States.

Interstellar (2014) Review

This is a scene by scene generally glowing review of Interstellar.


Right away we have some awesome. The blend of re-purposed dust bowl interview footage, complete with this neat upside down dishware detail, coupled with the Sci-Fi space-jet teaser opening immediately established the film as something special, with a feeling of serious intellectual attention without being pretentious. Adding in the dusty running laptop is a stroke of genius as it nicely juxtaposes the apparent technological regression with the obvious fact that we are either in the future or a contemporary parallel era, without having to resort to telling us.

Rule one of great film making: Don’t tell the viewer anything you can show them instead.


The relationship dynamic here is excellent. It shows parental frustration along with the absolute best possible response. We see respect for the girl shown as a human being which feels not as if it’s a staged (despite literally being staged) father of the year moment, but rather a snapshot into their typical interactions. Encouraging critical thinking and empowering the child by teaching her how to think, as opposed to what to think. To bad she turns out to be pathologically dim and mean as an adult. I really hope that wasn’t the point… We get enough oppress your children for their own good rhetoric in the whole rest of culture.


Pretty sure this is the first ever drone chase through a corn field in cinema history. Again with the awesome sweet and sour flavor of high tech meets backslide, with a garnish of purpose and excitement.


Another example of respect towards children by showing them (again not telling) as competent trustworthy people. True she’s later proven to be exceptionally bright from a technical standpoint, but not to a super human degree, as is often the case in other lesser movies where they have to have some supernatural excuse for kids when they act like actual humans. The son asks insightful questions as well, so again it’s not a big “check out the mutant nerd” showcase when we see a kid with an IQ north of carrot.


She asks an awesome question and gets an awesome answer. She asks why they can’t simply release the drone, as if it’s a bird. This is not presented as childish nonsense for even a millisecond. I was deeply impressed by this question. And his answer is excellent as well. He says it needs to learn to adapt like everyone else, creating a feeling of shared struggle, and mutual respect, for a machine. Let that sink in. Because it won’t be long till we have feeling machines in reality. They will be our allies but it will still be possible to victimize them. Don’t be that guy (person).


Without starting in on a massive rant about school, let me just say that in my opinion this depiction of school as little more than drones making drones, and outright lying about history for manipulative reasons is horrifyingly accurate.

And yes I picked that frame on purpose. Looking painfully, willfully, ignorant and half blind… Nailed it.

When the meat bots demonstrate total oblivity to his opposition to their indoctrination program and imply that he should somehow punish her in their behalf to stop her from thinking and stuff, he delightfully goes in the opposite direction. Again showing a parent doing at least some degree of the right thing… Opposing that odious machine, instead of feeding our kids to it like some kind of island primitives stuffing our loved ones into the volcano for (in this case literally) a better harvest.

Plug: http://underlore.com/the-tyranny-of-compulsory-schooling/


I’m guessing me and this character were born about the same time. They never say what year exactly that I noticed, but that’s the impression I get. I like the nature of his role too. He seems burnt out but still doing what he can, if fatalistically.


Here he says it’s like we’ve forgotten who we are, explorers, not caretakers. I couldn’t agree more. At some point it’s like we decided to stop willfully changing things when our ability to willfully change things is the whole reason we are alive and special.

We need to declare actual war on mosquitoes.

I love that the enemy in this film isn’t runaway technology or climate change or whatever other unabomber Luddite kind of moral, where the implied “correct” response is to go churn butter and drop our cellphones in the toilet in some futile and literally mindless effort to halt innovation. Rather the enemy appears to be the very nature of life, things evolving faster than we are, depicted as an organism called the blight which metabolizes crops, oxygen, and nitrogen. It’s a brilliant double message. Regression will kill us, and when you stand still while everything else moves forward, you might as well be killing yourself, because nature does not care about you.

Evolution is both the question and the answer. Love it.


“We used to look at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars, now we just look down, and worry about our place in the dirt.”


Again with the awesome respect shown children and diversity. That it’s ok to want different things out of life, different ways of life so long as they don’t hurt anyone. Wow. That is really an ethic we need right now for parents, and the world.

We need to stop trying to force everyone into the same life plan of immediate returns for the culture. When we developed farming, we showed patience in the short term for gains in the long term. We need to do that again with a universal basic income.

Simply water humanity and see what they yield. Don’t eat your seed stock. Have a little faith that the same creatures that invented culture will find a way to be useful to it.

Plug: http://underlore.com/one-possible-solution/


This bit is unrealistic and I’m sure virtually all of us called it.

I think I would have had her be in the house and answer him, then sneak into the back of the truck, and then have him hit a bump or something causing her to make a noise.

Having her already hidden in the cab while great for the character interaction is also a fairly hamfisted way to initiate the next scene.


This robot design is brave and awesome. More to follow. At first it looked silly to me, like a guy in a silver cardboard box, but that impression did not last. And while possibly being a nice nod to the monolith (especially in the very final frame of the movie) I think it also served as an instant and obvious disclaimer of the AI-as-menace trope.


Brilliant film making here. They knew not to show us his face. They did point him out though. So we know he’s going to be significant later, but we don’t know in what way. He could merely be plot context, or he could be a person. Showing us a face would tell us. Not showing us a face, kind of tells us too though, since they showed the faces of other team members, but it’s subtle and I missed it the first time.


I’m glad they cast this guy, he has deserved better roles for a long time. His agent must suck, he gets the worst roles. (Like Blackheart, omg the poor guy.)


“Everybody good? Plenty of slaves for my robot colony?” lol4r Seriously that just makes me giggle. “I have a cue light I can use when I’m joking if you like. (Human accepts offer.) Yeah, you can use it to find your way back to the ship after I blow you out the airlock. (Cue light comes on.)” ~TARS

Instantly likable. I haven’t liked a human sourced robot in a near future space movie this much since AMEE. And I have a feeling TARS/CASE/KIPP could whomp AMEE.


Docking in other movies is kind of a throw away thing but in this movie I think they treat it as properly harrowing. Imagine trying to poke a hole in your last two balloons full of oxygen and hook them together at the hole. That’s basically how amazing docking actually is when you think about it and how important it is not to screw up.


I seriously love this robot design. It screams utility.


“Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

I could not agree more. Though this movie does take a dump on people who like living individually. But hey, that’s pandemic Pro-aging trance for you.



I strongly disagree with her notion of nature not being evil. Setting aside the fact that nature clearly loves her. (She’s the prettiest woman in Hollywood imo, and thus very probably this whole fictional universe. Also apparently she’s an astronaut-grade save humanity genius, on the first lifeboat off the dying rock, one of the handful spared out of the billions with their lives coming to an end, so yeah, of course she’s thinks nature’s cool. She’s never left the pleasure garden until now.

Even she admits she wasn’t ready for reality when she gets back from planet tsunami.

To those of us with some perspective, the universe is quite obviously evil by every objective measure.

The shockingly vast majority of it is instantly lethal for a start, and on top of that there’s entropy and an obvious and complete lack of empathy. Simply see all arguments against intelligent design.

Ironically, this truth is actually good news because it means we are completely justified, when not outright compelled, to do what we need or want to do with it.

It only deserves, and only responds, to our actions. It doesn’t care about our feelings one way or the other, and it doesn’t care what we do to it or with it either. This makes all sentient life so precious, and everything else entirely ours. That is completely beautiful to me.

“Is a lion evil because it rips a gazelle to shreds?” ~Dr. Privileged

Uhh, yes actually. And so are we for permitting it. Indeed it’s infinitely more evil than some teenager torturing strays to death because at least the teen will out grow it or get stopped eventually, and can’t measure its victims by the million, and it didn’t create a self replicating machine that requires wholesale daily execution of torture and murder simply to keep breathing.

I mean think of the staggering malevolence of that. These prey animals are functionally toddlers, and even without lions, their life is hellish, and that’s just a tiny segment of the torture factory called life.

No, we need to cure this planet, not prolong its sickness and lethality. Nature is evil, and we need to face that fact, and we will or we’ll die, expressly because of that evil.


I love how he instantly jumps at the chance to free Murph of her school slavery. He made the decision faster than he could take the breath it took to convey the fact that he had made it.


His explanation of why the wormhole is spherical is both informative and elegant. The hole in the paper thing happens in other films, but this is the best version so far because it explicitly explains how a wormhole is faster.


The wormhole travel scene is just marvelous. Doing it all with morphing and lens effects (as in image transformations, not like camera lens effects) is just brilliance.


This concept of “the bulk” (space beyond our three dimensions) is nicely depicted here, but I imagine the real thing would look far more nonsensical, where as this looks like roughly the inside of a crumpled ball painted with moving star fields.

I think the inside of such a thing would defy visual processing for us and would look nonsensical and pretty much like an image processing artifact collection. Distance and depth perception for example would probably be very broken.

Thinking about that makes me think of the concept of truly toxic information. Like the trope in stories where seeing something from beyond can drive you mad. Well, if our senses are inputs, and our minds are processors, it should be possible to crash that processor with input only.


Beautiful. Also, is anyone else reminded of the laughing man logo? 😛 “I thought what I’d do is pretend to be one of those black holes for awhile.” 😛





CASE being super cool :) I love how their whole body is dynamic like that. Sharper and narrower, reconfigured as needed. Simply beautiful.

Sadly, the death and lost years because of this are due to refusal to obey orders, and really it’s unrealistic. The effects of the time dilation should have been anticipated, and the cached data would have made it obvious.

It’s harrowing and moving and important, but also an example of the idiot ball trope. How did CASE not notice and mention the waves? How did the telemetry not make the situation obvious? Do these things not have black boxes? It strains credulity.

CASE says “The data Doyle received was just the initial status, echoing endlessly.” And they didn’t notice the identical timestamps? The data didn’t have timestamps? Please.

Still, rule of cool applies, because holy crap waves, robot running/rolling, drama, etc.


Nope, you were never ready for reality. And frankly I’m pretty pissed that CASE didn’t simply throw her in the airlock and then grab Doyle. I think he would have. I think this is humanity injecting that typical sexist crap of male life being worthless intrinsically. Pretty sure plot wise CASE would have made a better effort to save both of them had they both be Anne Hathaway.

Anyway, they get back and they’re told they’ve got years of messages stored, but that apparently means like 4 messages total… Kinda skimped on this part too. I guess filming all those messages would have been like filming another movie. Still, this problem should have, could have, been averted at the script level.


Another problem with the messages thing is that they are insane and ignorant. From the farm guy I can kind of understand but from the physicist girl who literally lives at nasa? No. Also Doyle said they already knew what to expect navigationally, so they had to know about Gargantua. Someone in the years at nasa during the silence should have said “Hey you know, maybe it’s a relativity thing, what with wormholes and all.”

Coddling anger in perpetuity is another sexist problem in culture. It’s like at no point does society universally say to a girl “get over it” but is says that crap to guys Virtually instantly.

Like if I were in her position, if my dad were in space like that, and there was any chance he’d ever see the messages, I would transmit every week at least till I was dead for exactly the reason that time is relative. It’s wildly unrealistic that they didn’t psychologically, or at the very least betrays literally mind numbing pathology.

But again, it makes for good drama I guess.


I thought that they were going to play with the idea that time while paramount, is also meaningless. Though the movie didn’t go as far as I’m thinking, it definitely came far far closer to an actual understanding. (Kpax, Primer, and the HG wells the time machine remake touched on this indirectly.)

What I at first interpreted as a eureka moment, was actually her (finally) seeing through the greatest intellectual scam of all time and a classic argument against secrecy in any agency with decision making authority. There is no way he’d have kept everyone running in circles with a bogus math problem if more than like 10 people saw it.

This goes back to her not being a mutant. She’s smart but obviously not that smart. You can’t spend decades teaching a smart person how to be a carpenter and then sell them on the notion that a table just won’t work because you don’t know how to measure to get the legs even.


I like this idea that subjectivity matters. She said it in a kind of flowery monogamy rhetoric way for a scientist, but hey, writers are writers, and the point got across.

I like the idea that subjectivity has a merit that science ignores because it is by nature blind to it. The idea that the line between experience and events has some degree of meaning above and beyond what is the equivalent of an arbitrary decision or a delusion.

The impact isn’t enough to justify any dogmatic thinking, since prayer obviously doesn’t do anything to reality. But still, I have this nagging feeling that there is something to the notion that subjectivity is real in some way beyond ethics and experience and compassion.

She notes and asks that we love people who have died, where’s the social utility in that. The movie treats this like a good argument, but it totally isn’t.

Death worship is an evolution of basic corpse disposal. A disgust response leading to adaptive hygiene tradition.

Also it was critical for the development of culture, which is ultimately a shared behavior and perpetual memory system. Think about what we do with the dead. We idealize them. We in essence raid their experience for mistakes to avoid and successes to replicate. This is the nature of what we call legacy. Loving the dead makes perfect sense.

But the core point that love and presumably other emotional links to consciousness and qualia of experience have some objective future meaning stands as a possibility.



More petulant, literally incredible, narcissistic, thoughtlessness. To believe that her character could believe her father knew, when she herself missed it for 20+ years is completely insane. She would simply not actually think that way without a brain tumor or schizophrenia.


They speak of relativity and quantum mechanics being irreconcilable, again, I remember thinking that some future plot twist was going to be an assertion for time being an illusion and that you can reconcile them so long as you take time off the table.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I plan to one day have the AIs subtract time completely from the math of both and see if they can be merged as so many have tried to do after having done so.

I think our failure to sufficiently automate math is directly responsible for us not having the computational power and software flexibility to attempt this.

This is something all humanity should be given the tools to play with, without having to be lifetime code and sycophantic ivory tower specialists. The code is complicated, the ideas are not.

And our continued embrace of intellectual property law continues this drag on our advancement velocity.


I mean think about it. We carry around devices that can more easily plot a chunk of weather and render a false world in 3d in real time than solve for X when in point of fact the processing power could easily fit in calculator small enough to swallow.

Why? Because like my barely human cheating macro economics teacher once said: The world needs janitors too. This lack of processing democratization and automation is basically a math based religion. A dogma of what math means and who should have access to the tools to make it accessible.



I knew it was all bull the moment I saw KIPP in pieces. I don’t think any film fan failed to see that betrayal coming. More liberal use of the idiot ball to make us plebs feel smarter than the astronauts :)


They talk about having half the answer, and interestingly I think that’s somewhat close to the actual case.

I think humanity should try a brute force math attack on the theory of everything (toe.) Like decide on an arbitrary size limit on the final equation, fix the variables we know for a fact to be true, and simply generate and check equations till we get ones that fit. I find it hard to believe that humanity would be unable to check if a (or the) TOE was correct if it were printed on a tshirt from the future.

I feel like it could be done like bitcoin mining.

All meaning can be altered by context, and obviously QM and relativity aren’t actually mutually exclusive since we’re sitting here in them physically reconciled.

So then really it shouldn’t be any more complicated than generating that mathematical context, that key, that password, at random and test it until we find one that works.

Even if that definition or context adds up to the subtraction of one thing that allows GR to merge with QFT, it should still be possible to test and objectively exclude candidate solutions.

The top of the list of “passwords” I’d try is the removal of time, and the rejection of the notion of superposed states. The cat is either dead or alive. The math should proceed on the basis of it being one of the other. (Hidden Variable for the win.)



This is totally us. Altruism vs selfishness, fighting wastefully on a spec, in a frozen sea of death.


The robot at the last minute yells for the professor to step back, like only now does he detect a bomb, presumably planted by the lying scientist. (Named literally man, I might add, which is either sexist or misanthropic or both.) But why bother? Why not simply erase the incriminating data? Doctor the archives? Hell, order the robot to help you do it.

This whole thing is just silly. Frankly I think it’s because of a rather gross impulse to kill off main characters so that we can have a nice monogamous tied off “happy” ending.


TARS bookin’ it. :)


So TARS just saved all of humanity by not trusting all of humanity. Awesome :)


So this super genius astronaut is supposed to what, be so nuts that he forgot what would happen here? He remembers how to fly a space ship but forgot how sensitive docking is? Hell, even I knew and I didn’t need all the overt narrative clues.

Silly. Seems like a really simplistic way to continue the non-suicidal-men-are-bad shaming campaign. I’m tired of being told how expendable I’m supposed to think I am just because I have boy parts.


I hate when movies and people do this. When they talk about talking instead of talking.

“Listen to me” she says, but he is listening. He can’t help but listen. So instead of talking about talking why don’t you just say. “Hey psycho, you’re aware you’re about to blow yourself up and doom humanity right?”

Futility trying to reason with psychosis would have made for much better dialog. But no we have to have instance number fifty thousand of the pretty girl crying or almost crying.

This crap is not going to age well. I’m reminded of the difference between Barbara in the original vs the remake of night of the living dead.


“Docking.” Hehe. Awesome :) But if there was a second port, why not start by racing to that? I would like to assume he ran down the possibilities and concluded it wasn’t possible with opposition but given the other plot absurdities, I’m doubting anyone put that much thought into it.


“She’s got no heat shield.” Uhhh. Duh? It’s a mobile space station not a landing craft. What a dumb thing for an astronaut to say to another one.


It’s ironic that those flaps are there showing that the entire docking system could be made a lot more self aligning. It’s like the makers of this space station never saw a garden hose or air compressor quick connect, or mid air refueling interface.

The whole thing should be spinny, floaty, and self aligning to a reasonable degree. Like I said earlier, docking is already scary. We need not make it more so.


I mean come on, look at that. I can think of about a billion better ways to do that. Magnets and a steel ring come to mind. There’s no need for teeth there. Yes I’m aware of the need for torque. That can be dealt with also.


I like that she cares about the TARS’s life :) I also like that Cooper later proved to be perfectly willing to do what he is ordering the robot to do. So he’s not really being a jerk here :)

I totally fell for it too. I didn’t see it coming.


“See you on the other side…” Wait what? I finally started to suspect, a whopping 5 seconds before it happens.

Of course the whole probe in a black whole thing to me was crap, but I was delightfully wrong. Apparently you totally can safely enter the event horizon: http://www.quora.com/Interstellar-2014-movie/Why-does-the-concept-of-Spaghettification-not-apply-to-things-entering-the-black-hole-in-Interstellar


I wish they’d stop having her cry, it’s like the girl constantly falling while being chased through the woods. I’m not saying she shouldn’t cry. I’m saying a real woman of her context wouldn’t cry. If she was this prone to breaking down and sobbing under stress should would never have been cleared for the helmet. The math instruction alone for being what she’s supposed to be requires borderline pathological detachment. And that’s before being one of the anti-extinction team.

To be clear this whole thing wasn’t about mass, since they didn’t release the booster stages immediately before activating subsequent stages, it was about other resources I suspect, but mostly about doubling down on the quantum data hunt.

Good call imo.


I think they should have gone a different direction here. Like just silence and blackness and then wormhole. Have his whole ship (powerless if you like) trapped in the library tesseract, and he decides to EVA. There’s no plot reason to force him to eject. Frankly I think they just wanted to show him being all manly and screaming for the same reason they keep making the girl cry. Because sexist.



The library tesseract is cool. It reminds me of the idea of being trapped in a mirror.

It’s actually an awesome targeting interface for a gravity manipulation array. As neat as it is the first time, it’s really neat later thinking about it.


“…I don’t know but they constructed this three dimensional space inside their five dimensional reality to allow you to understand it…” ~TARS

Neato :)


“We brought ourselves.”

That bakes my noodle more than the vase.


He says “they” chose “her” but no. M ore likely there is no choice in play at all. More likely they realized that they had to act to fulfill their own timeline, and that action was encoded in that same time line.

It’s like a version of yourself appearing in your room from the future with plans for a time machine and instructions for when to go back and give yourself the instructions.

That’s the only kind of time travel that can work. Fulfillment actions and observation. Time doesn’t exist. What you did already happened.

“How do you know?” TARS asks, and Cooper says “Because I gave it to her.”

Like TARS said, they didn’t bring you here to change the past because there is no changing the past, the past, like the time machine, simply is. Time travel, like time itself is the illusion of power.

See also: http://underlore.com/what-if-skynet-isnt-trying-to-kill-john-connor/


What happens now is we put you where we know you end up.

Path of least resistance.


“Auto self destruct, T Minus…” “Knock Knock.” ~TARS lol4r again.

I love all these robots. I bet poor KIPP was awesome. I imagine him as being awesome at the level of GERTY.

See Also: http://archiveofourown.org/works/300083


We have “cryo sleep” and we’re letting her die? That’s murder or suicide. Pro-aging trance indeed. Logan’s Run comes to mind. Same thing ethically, admit it or not.

See also:


Wait, if no body believed her when she said he’d come back. Then why are they reacting to him that way?

They built the house shrine thing… Yet the family is like they don’t recognize him? WTF is wrong with these people?


More robot awesome.


Yeah we couldn’t possibly let him live. That might imply a non-monogamous future. Can’t have that right? So I guess those 90 kilos of eggs are going to die in the fridge while adam and eve 2.0 play nuclear family on the space rock.

Which reminds me of the inexplicable future society. How are they still orbiting Saturn? Why aren’t they through the wormhole?

I’m starting to feel like that station is the leftover cultist boat and the bulk of humanity is long gone. Or something seriously disturbing and screwed up happened before the gravity station launch.


Doesn’t look like she’s “Settling in for the long nap” to me. If so all that stuff needs to go back in the box.

P.S. Love the monolith in there :) CASE for the win :)

Selling Digital Copies is Fraud

From here: https://plus.google.com/+BrandonSergent/posts/H2bXafPq6qt

Recouping cost of production does NOT justify any future price, that’s a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

Yet thanks to coders we have an entire market sector and “intellectual property” concept based on it. IP in itself interestingly being a contradiction in terms, reminiscent (in that it is also a religious insanity) of so called “intelligent design.”

Because if we didn’t have a whole generation of aggressively acquiescent tryhard hall monitor tie-licking gamers, so used to kissing Gabe and EA ass, that they literally no longer can detect exploitative contractual terms, to the point they they argue in favor of having their legal recourse forcibly removed (http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2848908) we might have some meaningful local opposition to this bullshit, but instead we have a legion of COD players screaming rape and racial slurs into bluetooth headsets only pausing to open another redbull, pay another 50$ for what should have been free or fanmade DLC, or dogpiling in the community any voice of dissent with a warped and sexist work ethic so toxic and backwards even the tea party hasn’t yet gone that far.

Screw IPL and anyone who defends any facet of it. You should all go make meat helmets and try to patent the question mark, because you’re obviously not equipped to be making public policy decisions.


See also: http://torrentfreak.com/how-shall-the-artists-get-paid-isnt-a-question-its-an-insult-130818/


From: http://steamcommunity.com/app/49520/discussions/0/618456760265591662/

TLDR: I agree with the OP.


Do not confuse agenda with incompetence. As game theory teaches us, appearing irrational is often a strategic aid, so to in this case is appearing incompetent.

I already own bl2 and I get no reward for buying the dlc. In fact it’s not even possible to buy the dlc all in one go. It seems all future updates and content will be monetized as paid DLC anyway, so essentially I’m punished twice.

Firstly for having the game already as described above. Secondly for getting into a game that is apparently always going to want more money. Maybe in 20 years when finally they are done milking this cow and all the dlc is done and packed and included in a bundle. Or (god willing) we get IPL reform that guts this entire model.

Anyway, this is intentional. They are quite clearly trying to drive off potential customers that would complain or resist being continuously exploited, because economically, one monied mark is worth at least a dozen savvy/ethical buyers. (Thanks Blizzard/Jobs.)

It’s all about low hanging fruit and exploiting addicts.

So many monied people in the western economy are essentially spending other people’s money anyway by way of having exploitative jobs, so even though they are buying with wages they ostensibly earned they still have a detached quasi third person perspective with regard to the ethics of spending.

OP and others assume that getting a foot in the door is a market benefit to them but it isn’t. It’s not so much about foot in the door as it is finding the right door.

As others and OP have said, this is all essentially squeezing money out of work already done. It’s a bit like a carpenter making a chair and then plugging the chair into a chair scanner and selling plans for the chair at the same price rate he would sell whole new chairs.

Our machines build the chair, we pay for the materials and the machines and the logistics of delivering the plans, but we are prohibited from gifting the chair we just made, or modifying it, or selling it, etc etc. This is a cultural logic error. We have copyright law for data authorship, and we have property law for objects and they are different, but then we craft this weird exploitative hybrid and call it intellectual property, as if once a number gets large enough it stops being a number and starts being an object.

That’s insane really when you think about it. Take the number 5 + X for example. In the previous equation, how must the value of X be to make an apple fall out of my computer? Apparently the answer is somewhere equivalent to the check sum of the borderlands game directory. We have concluded that the number, which is borderlands, is an object that it’s fair to sell. And that it is further ethical to hit control v and send, and sell it again, and again, forever.

That is ultimately our thinking because all arguments about labor are fallacious because they represent a sunk cost fallacy. Work being hard doesn’t entitle one to anything. Just ask a career waitress or garbage man if she or he really get paid what they’re worth.

I could dig a football field deep hole in my yard with a spoon and then charge you all for pictures of it. That doesn’t mean I’m entitled to 45$ an hour for that project over and over. And it gets even more shady when you realize they essentially used a backhoe in the form of a whole culture of programming tools and development technologies to make the job easier or even possible.

They didn’t write the game from scratch in machine code, they no doubt used tons of previous technology and software. Essentially I’m saying that stuff like this is a collective public good, and that mercenary intentions aren’t the only ones. Yeah maybe if there wasn’t a profit motive this EXACT game might not exist, but I think we’d have other better things in it’s place if it were simply not legal to behave this way as a publicly operating corporation.

Principled opposition to this entire line of thinking is dog-piled off steam, at best. I expect this thread to be no different. I won’t be subscribing to this thread. I’m essentially just going on record and then leaving. Kinda like the modern version of pamphleteering. Take it or leave it.

Essentially inside the steam community at least, if not culture generally, is it not possible to engage in any behavior as a dev or publisher or distributor that would be universally considered shady.

2K and other such outfits are in fact lauded as being social Darwinist victors when they find new and clever ways to exploit and punish its customer base for profit.

Basically what I’m saying is these suggestions about what they should do, are completely pointless and missing said point. They (devs etc) know the solutions. They have rejected them by even being in this market sector. They don’t share your principles.

They know what the “right” thing to do is, but that’s not their objective. The objective is money, by any means necessary. That in some contexts means cultivating the illusion of incompetence, such that we give benefit of the doubt and open our wallets while making a suggestion while they nod, smile, take your money and say “you might have a point, I never thought of that” when in point of fact they heard it 5 minutes ago.

It’s kinda like how even the super geniuses in movies latch on to the idiot ball from time to time to make the audience feel equal to greatness. It’s a mind hack. That’s what all these sales are. It’s all essentially free money for them.

It’s like a kid selling rocks off the street for 75% off some arbitrary value. It’s pure profit objectively. We don’t owe him anything for his time spent giving it a try or learning how to pitch stone soup.




Underlore © 2013