This was quite an interesting read. It's good to hear that farming & spirituality have given you a new purpose in life, but I think this pop at Thoreau
> and no, there's no manifesto decrying the system written from a cabin in the woods
Is a bit unjustified considering you've just written an entire blog post decrying your old "meaningless" existence vs the fulfilment you have in your new life. It comes across a bit holier than thou. As if to imply you're "quietly just getting on with it", which is evidently not the case, as you still feel the need to write about it
I presume that's what the parent post is trying to get at? Seeing if, given the cutting edge scientific knowledge of the day, the LLM is able to synthesis all it into a workable theory of QM by making the necessary connections and (quantum...) leaps
Then surely the only "correct" answer is to say the second child has an indeterminate number of red balloons? Concluding it has 2 balloons is wrong imo, its an answer which is not supported by any of the information supplied in the question
I also don't understand the undying loyalty to the royal family either :) And I don't doubt that there are bad actors around, fanning the flames. But in this instance (and without really doing any further digging) I assumed I just came across a person who felt their comment was worthwhile enough to post in multiple places
Fair & valid points overall. I did hesitate to put the comment about the taxpayer bearing some of the burden for funding the monarchy because I realised I would quickly be out of my depth when someone with more insight into the numbers came along :D
But the reason I did so was to underline the point that the public have a right to attend, whatever their point of view, since its likely that a % of the cost for the proceedings will fall on the taxpayer
> What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me.
Yeah, its a crass term I will agree with you there. The public has come out in droves to support the royal family and respect the ongoing proceedings and a small number have vocally voiced their opposition to the situation and are being condemned for doing so. So, I used this charged term rather cheaply to paint with broad strokes the kind of person I imagine to lap up this unique moment.
> I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
Here I also agree with you that its nice to hear that C4 was airing voices of people with dissenting perspectives, but I don't necessarily think it should be confined to the TV or the internet as the "appropriate place" to air such views. I think going out and publicly protesting it is much more impactful
> What exactly do you want?
For people to realise that this isn't just a private occasion for immediate family to pay their respects to the recently departed. That the Royal family, for better or worse, has and continues to play a significant role in the ongoing story of this country and in having such a prominent and public position should be tolerant (even understanding?) of those who oppose, rather than to have it simply be quashed and scrubbed away
I would say both; you can oppose the procession itself for all of its pomp and archaic tradition at a time where the country is dealing with a cost of living crisis and also have that also be more broadly a protest against the monarchy in general.
A large portion of the life of the royal family is public, even funded by the taxpayer, so to me it makes sense to allow for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Perhaps you can argue that a memorial service isn't the most appropriate time (though, I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint given just how much this memorial is rammed down our throats) to protest, I do think its where its likely to generate the most coverage. There is never going to be a more appropriate time to get people to listen
Edit: Just to clarify the point further - Not all of the arrests being discussed were made in Edinburgh (where the procession took place). Its debatable how much impact a person holding a blank sign in Oxford has on the events in Edinburgh (though I would wager its infinitesimally small). Equally, holding a sign with a swearword on it doesn't really "disrupt" in any meaningful sense either. A lot of people defend the police action on the grounds that it "may" have lead to violence via provocation and the person was arrested for "their own safety", but in that case why follow through with the charge? Rather than "de-arresting" (whatever that means) afterwards
1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral"
2. It wasn't a funeral
3. If you're going to have a very public precession, parading a body through the streets with all the obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disruption this event caused on Edinburgh was pretty large...
There's wall to wall coverage of this event happening worldwide right now, we need room for the dissenting voices too. Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
Surely it's up to you now to make the case as to why it's relevant? A 2 two word answer just stating the opposite of what the previous poster said doesn't magically make it so...
I agree with other comments here that your "revolutionary" music IDE gets spammed into every discussion related to music - but the actual website you link to doesn't really give any hint as to what it really is either, just a bunch of vague sounding marketing friendly hype words.
I hope what you make truly is revolutionary & unique and I will take a look at it when it launches out of curiosity (so your relentlessness in plugging it has, it would seem, worked). But please can you explain how it is relevant to the article / discussion here?
I don't know why (maybe just years of the same pattern repeating with these types of articles) but as soon as I read the word "stormly" in the URL, despite having never heard about it before, I knew this would basically be a pitch for some other junk
It was just a person, on the internet making a 4 word reference to a famous movie... I don't know why you're intent on endlessly attacking the "lack of insight" from the poster.
Yeah, but it seems like you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you're arguing that the insights into society can be absolute garbage and on the other implying (or suggesting) that Brazil doesn't necessarily fall into this category.
So what is it then? Brazil does make interesting points about encroaching bureaucracy (and therefore the parents post is justified)? I think you took the point about Brazil a bit too literally, the poster was never suggesting that the world is suddenly exactly that way, more highlighting the parallels. I think you need to allow yourself to suspend disbelief a little more and realise the very deliberate allegorical nature of these movies...
I mean, judging by the greyed out appearance of all your posts on this topic I would say it seems you're in the minority with this kind of opinion.
So why are you criticising someone highlighting annoyance of encroaching bureaucracy referencing a work of fiction that deals with this "shared part of human experience" in a "simple way"?
No one is saying its a 1:1 guide to reality, but as a nightmare vision of a dystopia gripped by unnecessary administrative apparatus, silly or not, it is a work of fiction that takes its root from reality and then makes a farce of it.
There are reasons works like kafkaesque, orwellian, ballardian become part of the lexicon despite all dealing with fictional universes of their own making...
Um... Yes, Brazil is fiction but the dystopia it portrays is rooted in extrapolations of the times in which it was made.
Its absolute nonsense to shoot someone down on the basis that they draw parallels to movies or other artforms. Especially if those works of fiction are intended as warnings / cautionary tales.
As it is i thought the parent comments comparison to Brazil was fairly apt in this situation...
Yeah, you're right - I hadn't seen the shapes of stories video in quite a while, i was just taking the authors comment about it.
I think if you watch that Vonnegut video and come away with the conclusion that there are only "x" ways to tell the story then you've missed the point entirely, agreed with your post basically.
There is infinite space to explore within those 'story shapes' (like how we still get fresh + unique takes on the Heroes Journey for example) that it doesn't really matter