You could simply look this up on the internet, but for those of us who are exceptionally lazy, here goes:
Every now and then, say every hour, or whenever you think of it, look around you. Try to check if what you see is real. Are things floating around and is gravity not working as expected? When you look over your shoulder and back, did the room change color, and did the table just turn into a tree? Try to touch something with your hand. Do you not feel any resistance when your hand drops through the couch? If so, you are probably dreaming.
> The images and videos including necrophilia, bestiality and self-harm caused some moderators to faint, vomit, scream and run away from their desks, the filings allege.
You might have heard the saying, common in policy and mechanism design: "Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcome."
If you want to reduce spam, you increase the marginal cost of posting spam until it stops. In general if you introduce a small cost to any activity or service, the mere existence of the cost is often a sufficient disincentive to misuse.
But, you can think through implications for yourself, no? You don't need me to explain how to think about cause and effect? You can, say, think about examples in real life, or in your own town or building, where a service is free to use compared to one that has a small fee attached, and look at who uses what and how.
Foldimate has gone bankrupt in 2021 [1], and the domain referral from foldimate.com to a 404 page at miele.com, suggests that it was Miele who bought up the remains, not a sketchy company with a ".website" top-level domain.
We are certainly getting close! In 2010, watching PR2 fold some unseen towels is similar to watching paint dry [1], but we can now enjoy robots attain lazy student-level laundry folding in real-time, as demonstrated by π₀[2].
Everyone talks about TikTok having some valuable algorithm, but I keep running into the most dimwitted nonsense every time I try it.
Then again, perhaps this is the algorithm's way of scaring me away to save precious bandwidth, knowing full well that I will never buy products from online ads anyway?
I am happy for your launch and wish you a good deal of luck.
Personally I am really disappointed with the idea of requiring a subscription for a home robot, though. When I was younger I envisioned a home robot to have a brain inside itself, or at least in the home. Alas, it seems the world is developing in another way.
I understand, and trust me it bums me too, but it's just that the compute required to do everything onboard is not there.
Once it is, we'll be able to get rid of it and do everything on edge. In theory it's already possible, but the time it takes to run large models would make the robot look inactive most of the time, and not even remotely reactive enough to handle the real world.
Yet, I observe what appears to be consistency and rules. Randomness happening to manifest in a way that mimics consistency and rules is very very unlikely, probably more unlikely than there actually being consistency and rules.
For a long time, I wondered why a remake of The Shining was made in 1997 [1]. Now the internet simply explains that this was due to the author of the original novel being dissatisfied with Kubrik's adaptation. So much for mystery.
I have read King's novel, and I have watched Kubrick's movie (many, many times). I am not usually a friend of novel adaptations, but the movie simply is in another league than the book. It is much, much better. King's novel is a relatively straightforward horror story / thriller, with some elements that go a little bit over the top. Kubrick's movie is a postmodern masterpiece, with layers upon layers upon layers of meaning. After 20 years of re-watching both of them I have come to the conclusion that Shining cuts even deeper than 2001. And it also works as an entertaining (and frightening) horror movie. In my opinion, it is Kubrick's singular masterpiece. And, above all, it is still quite faithful to the original novel. Many dialogues from the book appear virtually unchanged in the screenplay.
That being said, I understand why King the author doesn't like it. Kubrick carved something out of this novel which really wasn't there in the first place, he only needed the story as a vehicle of meaning. To King, this may have appeared as an arrogant (or even condescending) abuse of his story.
I've never been able to get into The Shining — or much of King's writing — so in that sense I agree with you, and feel like maybe we're in the minority.
You might ultimately be right about why King was unhappy with Kubrick's film, but my understanding is that at least ostensibly King's fundamental concern is that the the film wasn't as sympathetic to Jack as he intended it to be. King meant for Jack to be a diseased but sympathetic victim of the hotel, and feels that the film portrayed Jack as a villain who is an interwoven part of the hotel's menace. I always assumed he felt attached to this issue because of his own struggles with substance use earlier in his life, with The Shining being part of his recovery and rehabilitation, and Jack being a sort of projection of how he felt.
That's just my general impressions though. I'm not either a King or Kubrick devotee, although I respect both a lot as artists. I do feel that the film in particular is a masterpiece, and have always felt a certain discrepancy between how I feel about the novel and the film, so I've probably read more about it than most film adaptations of books. I could easily be missing something important, or misunderstanding something.
> King's novel is a relatively straightforward horror story / thriller, with some elements that go a little bit over the top.
Interesting how we could see it so differently. I think the book does an amazing job of showing the struggle of alcoholism, and more generally, how good people can do evil things. How we can be a good person that cares for and love others, and how circumstance, inner demons, and our choices can lead us to hurt the ones we love. Jack in the book clearly loves his family, but struggles with anger issues, impulse control, and alcoholism, mostly stemming from the abuse he endured at the hands of his violent, alcoholic father.
The ability to be inside Jack’s head, and King’s great writing, show Jack to be a man desperately trying overcome his trauma for his family that he deeply loves. His struggles to build trust that are undone in a moment of uncontrolled anger, while extreme, are very relatable and feel real. The Overlook is a supernatural externalization of inner demons. The ghosts poisoning his mind against his family represents paranoid thinking and trust issues that come from childhood trauma. He loved his father and all his father did was hurt him, and so eventually Wendy and Danny would hurt him too.
The movie did not explore any of this. Movie Jack barely tolerates his family from the beginning, and it isn’t much of a struggle to make him hate them. The movie takes the same basic story and uses it to explore very different things. I think the book and the movie are excellent and I don’t even really try to compare them, since they aren’t even trying to do the same thing.
I'm reading Carrie, good book so far, reminds me of high school (in Maine) but more the stories recounted by teachers. It reads basically as historical fiction in the little details (jocks and seamstresses and such), while also seeming sadly in line with some recent events. In the early '70s it seems like it was cool to conform, as King explicitly asserts in the book. In the early '00s it was cool to be different. Now it seems like conformity is (was?) cool again, pretty disturbing. I'd consider making the book required reading if I were a high school English teacher.
I saw the movie in high school in the '00s, very faithful to the novel and the casting was even more amazing reading the book (which is 90% of directing, according to Scorsese (who was introduced to De Niro by De Palma)), and to me surpasses the source material. Hits harder as a linear narrative.
> based pretty loosely on the Clarke short story The Sentinel
The Sentinel provided the idea for the monolith on the moon being an alien 'intelligent life detector' (i.e. to detect when humans had achieved spaceflight). But it has no man-apes, no Jupiter mission, no HAL, no star-gate sequence. The bulk of the plot came from the Clarke-Kubrick collaboration, which had numerous other inputs [0]
Every now and then, say every hour, or whenever you think of it, look around you. Try to check if what you see is real. Are things floating around and is gravity not working as expected? When you look over your shoulder and back, did the room change color, and did the table just turn into a tree? Try to touch something with your hand. Do you not feel any resistance when your hand drops through the couch? If so, you are probably dreaming.
reply