Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harold and George Destroy the World

tomclancy.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 322 posts

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#281

Post by tclancy »

danabramov wrote: post #110
Configure0251 wrote: post #9

No need to do a drive by on Predator Badlands like that, it's a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right. I agree with the author though, there's nothing nearly as emotionally deep or socio-politically engaging as One Battle After Another, and so it would make for poor choice as a double feature to run second in the pairing.

Coincidentally I just watched OBAA yesterday and found it very lacking. I’m so surprised by the positive reception. Great visual, acting and music, but I found almost no emotion in it because none of the conflicts it sets up actually resolve on screen. Characters don’t confront consequences of their choices and don’t grow.

So I feel that’s completely fair, mainly because you acknowledge Johnny’s sound design is otherworldly perfect.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#282

Post by tclancy »

donatj wrote: post #13

I have genuinely put a lot of thought into this lately. I have the sensation like older media was more expressive and thoughtful, there's at least more... interesting flavors there generally... I am happy to ponder and willingly accept this is probably just my perception. I have a couple of theories. The creators of the media are becoming more and more my age. Do they have nothing interesting to say to me as our expe…

I feel like nothing has changed in terms of art. It’s that movie studios are now owned by companies that will not risk money on non sequels.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#284

Post by tclancy »

bad_username wrote: post #200
bethekidyouwant wrote: post #45

a meta question about this. How is a short sort of musing current political landscape blog post the top on hacker news?

HN is turning into Reddit. It's noticeably worse than it was 5 years ago.

Boyo literally in the rules not to dot this.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#285

Post by eudamoniac »

eudamoniac wrote: post #174
DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #60

At the risk of sounding very old:in partial response to the nonsense starting around the 2015/2016 era I decided it was a good time to start mining the cultural vault and catch up on classic movies and books (especially) that I’d always been meaning to get around to, and kind of immersed myself in it more and more over time. Lots of older science fiction, fantasy, and just random movies I’d heard of but never got aro…

Exactly my sentiment. Someone else ITT mentioned Everything Everywhere as a thought provoking, good movie. Does anyone actually believe that movie will be discussed in ten years? Because I know The Godfather still will be. Cultural media output is absolutely in decline, and I think only someone not well-read could think otherwise about literature, and likewise for other media. It's not now a situation of cream having…

I'd like to reply to myself because I forgot about TV. TV is not one of the things in decline, so that's good. There have been a lot of high dramas in the last decade that are objectively good.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#286

Post by tclancy »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #220
eudamoniac wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my sentiment. Someone else ITT mentioned Everything Everywhere as a thought provoking, good movie. Does anyone actually believe that movie will be discussed in ten years? Because I know The Godfather still will be. Cultural media output is absolutely in decline, and I think only someone not well-read could think otherwise about literature, and likewise for other media. It's not now a situation of cream having…

The Hugo and Nebula awards in particular are shocking in what they nominate and elevate to winning. There’s no possible way these are the best sci fi/fantasy books being written every year. They’re not just bad, they’re laughably bad in every dimension. It’s incredible to witness.

Weren’t they completely undermined by exactly what I am complaining about here, Harold and George not understanding why people grew up and moved on? My memory was the Hugo awards got attacked by some pronoun warriors who did t get their “favorite” genre was smarter than them.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#287

Post by hirvi74 »

rayiner wrote: post #272
hirvi74 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Results consistent with the existence of a construct are not sufficient evidence for the existence of a construct. We can talk about statistical correlations till the Sun goes down, and I will not dispute that this ethereal 'g-factor' can infer minor to moderate predictions in some domains of people's lives at a population level. However, I have one question. What evidence is there that this 'g-factor' is actually re…

> I will not dispute that this ethereal 'g-factor' can infer minor to moderate predictions in some domains of people's lives at a population level The U.S. military won’t hire people below an 83 IQ to peel potatoes, because experience shows that such people can’t effectively be trained. So it’s more than just “minor” predictions.

One, you are conflating IQ and g, which are not the same thing. IQ is a proxy for the measurement of g, but it does not measure g directly.

Two, the military does not administer protected IQ exams, but rather, the ASVAB which correlates with IQ.

Three, our entire global society does not revolve around who can do what for the military.

Four, what can someone with an IQ of 84 do that one with an IQ of 83 cannot?

Five, the US military has plenty of uses for low scores. If one can't peel potatoes, then I'm sure the military would just send them out to stomp for land mines. However, Federal law is what disallows this, not the military: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-se...

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#288

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #223
dgsii wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what has that got to do with “IQ is also highly heritable?” which, in this context, suggests intelligence is something innate and biological, rather than recognizing an IQ test as a gauge skewed by culture and socioeconomic status.

Attacking IQ test is like vaccine denialism. People don’t like the fact that requiring individuals to cooperate can enhance health outcomes for the group as a whole. Similarly, people don’t like the idea that some individuals are just born smarter than other individuals.

Attacking IQ is nothing whatsoever like vaccine denialism. The valid/meaningful uses of IQ are widely debated in several hard science fields. That's not true of vaccines.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#289

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #217
DiscourseFan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ correlates most strongly with socioeconomic class, with members of the same ethnic group scoring higher over the decades as that ethnic group as a whole becomes wealthier.

Exactly the opposite is true. Adoption studies have been used to isolate the effect of SES itself, and the contribution of that factor is low: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... (“Proportion of variance in IQ attributable to environmentally mediated effects of parental IQs was estimated at .01… Heritability was estimated to be 0.42.”).

This is just SIBS data. It has all the standard "Minnesota" limitations: the study is tiny, the cohort isn't demographically representative, adoption isn't itself random, nothing deconfounds the prenatal environment, and the children in the cohort are also adopted at different ages.

It's one thing to call out an interesting paper; it's another to act as if the matter has been settled simply by pointing to SIBS.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#290

Post by tptacek »

jeremyjh wrote: post #181
dgsii wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what has that got to do with “IQ is also highly heritable?” which, in this context, suggests intelligence is something innate and biological, rather than recognizing an IQ test as a gauge skewed by culture and socioeconomic status.

Well, that was a different reference in GP's post. You can go read it. Heritability is definitely a thing, but far from the only thing and it isn't simple Mendelian inheritance - there are many components to intelligence that reflect differently in gene transfer and so while you can see a correlation in specific individuals and their immediate ancestors there are lots of exceptions and its probably a mirage - if seen…

I'm trying to understand your comment. You write: "heritability is definitely a thing". I think I agree? What thing is it you're saying heritability is?
Post reply on HN