How to become a great impostor

Yeah, that happens all the time. I'm Dutch native (hence familiar with Dutch title getting translated), and I refer in my own language to La Casa De Papel with the Spanish title. I only used the English title because people here might recognize or use that term in applications such as Netflix. I understand enough Spanish to understand the Spanish title and I very much prefer native titles over translations but I do like it when behind it an understandable translation is added (even if it isn't perfect).

I keep a log (plain text file, using Vim to edit it) of all movies and series I've seen in my life. The way my log works:

Dutch -> remains Dutch as it is my primary native language.

English -> remains English as I understand it well enough.

All other -> Orig. title (English translation, regardless of how well I speak or understand the language).

If I were to start over I'd do it properly with a CSV database or Excel but yeah I didn't and merging 1500 lines I CBA.

I think the real revelation here is the absurdity of credentialism, and how shallow it is in the end.

>xkcd

I just read the article on Deconstruction and... either I am a complete philosophy/humanitary idiot or that entire area is full of con artists who just spit smart words out their mouth to bring their bread at the table. Regardless of that, I never respected anyone who doesn’t use formal definitions in serious analysis. I hated (disrespected) philosophy at school and I do it now even more, seeing how they chew the same crap for decades instead of just doing something better. Even politics is better than that.

“in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc. The first task of deconstruction would be to find and overturn these oppositions inside a text or a corpus of texts; but the final objective of deconstruction is not to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. The oppositions simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Deconstruction only points to the necessity of an unending analysis that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts”

“To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called undecidables—that is, unities of simulacrum—"false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition, but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions—resisting and organizing it—without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of Hegelian dialectics (e.g., différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing)”

I mean: words instead blanket a low-pitch synthesis and require most priorities in it to shift from a detailed to an increasingly informal scene which wraps by itself to form an atopological plane of understanding of the undecidables. Are you think so?

"Relying on textbooks and Horchin, Demara successfully treated all three – even completing the amputation of one man’s leg."

You’re inserting things into the question that weren’t there and tearing it down. Nothing was said about a “routine performance” which is certainly common enough today to that it is worth asking but is not always the case and not always common through time.

Regardless, it is never a bad thing to be overly cautious and redundant. I once heard it said that if necessity is the mother of invention, redundancy is the mother of victory. That is how I view the question.