Posts by _LS_

    I assume you mean @Sardonic Pickle ...?

    Neo and Trinity are both pretty wooden, there's no getting around that. It really doesn't bother me in the first movie. Sometimes people are emotionally reserved, I think it works. It's not until the second movie where they're supposed to be passionately in love when it starts to feel a little awkward.

    The other day I took a walk down to my local grocery store to pick up a couple things, and on my way back I was kinda regretting that I didn't bring my car. The stuff I bought was heavy, and my house is uphill from the grocery store. As I'm approaching the first intersection I'll have to cross, I stop to resituate the items I'm holding. As I'm doing this, I notice a young woman walking barefoot along the sidewalk. She's walking slowly. The way you might walk if you were imitating someone who was sleep walking. And something about her looked off to me. For real the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw her was "I sure hope she doesn't pull a gun out of her purse."

    As I'm adjusting my burdens, she turns to me and asks "Are you alright?" At this point I've got my groceries hefted and my path will take me right past her. I respond "Yeah, I'm fine. What about you, are you alright?" She replies "Yeah, well, I'm pissed off." I stopped to listen to her, and she starts to mumble a whole lot of stuff that I did not understand in the slightest.

    Now, there are a lot of homeless folk, and a lot of developmentally disabled folk where I live, but this woman didn't appear to be either of those things. She was well dressed and groomed, was wearing fresh makeup. Maybe 25-30 years old. She didn't have any of the mannerisms I'd expect of a disabled person (which I say as someone who works with disabled people as his profession atm). If I had to guess I'd say she was at least a moderately affluent young woman who was tripping on a whole heap of drugs at the moment.

    So I listen to her for about 8-10 minutes. During that time she mumbles a lot of stuff that is completely indecipherable. Out of the whole thing I pick out the phrases: "I'm a hot mess!" "Should I go back there?" and several mentions of a "he/him." I think. This whole time I'm trying to think of what I should / can do for this woman. I ask her if she needs me to take her to the hospital, but she doesn't seem to hear me. I probably should have been a little more forceful about it, but then again having a strange man insist that she go somewhere with him might not have been very good either.

    Ultimately she says resolutely "I'm going back!" and begins to walk briskly back in the direction she came. I wished her luck and walked in the opposite direction, towards home.

    The latter two films are a mess, for sure, but to give my thoughts:

    So did he really accomplish anything that makes any difference in the long term?

    The conceit of the latter two films is that the Matrix is cyclical. (A microcosm of the idea that all time is cyclical). Neo is not a bug in the Matrix, he is a feature. He's like an internal PenTester. He exists to show the machines how The Matrix can be broken. Then they rebuild the Matrix from the ground up, accounting for the flaws Neo revealed to them. Then they create a new Neo to test for flaws in the current version of the Matrix. Thus the Matrix is made better each time.

    Neo's accomplishment in the films is to break that cycle, and make a truce with the machines. The war, and the subjugation of humanity that followed it, are officially "over." But there's a lot of room for shit to get fucked up. War doesn't end overnight. But Neo created a chance at a new beginning for homo-machine relations.

    Who was the spiky head Neo met in the machine city?

    The leader of the machines. The biggest, smartest AI, which chose to present itself in the style of The Great and Powerful Oz.

    And what really happened in the end, and why didn't Smith foresee it?

    I'm having a bit of a hard time remembering exactly how this went down, it's been a couple years since I last watched the films.

    So Neo lets Smith assimilate him, and this causes Smith to be destroyed, right? Given how much Christian allegory there is in the third film, I'd say this represents the 3 days Jesus spent in Hell. In Christian mythology, Jesus dies on the cross, "Descended into hell," and rose from the dead 3 days later. And in doing so, he threw open the gates of heaven, and led all of the souls that had been trapped in Limbo to their eternal reward. In the same way, Neo is consumed by Smith, and in doing so, frees all of the people who had been trapped by Smith.

    In fact (and I'm completely guessing here. I don't have a copy of the movie I can check ATM), I'd bet you dollars to donuts that there's some kind of 3 beat between Neo being assimilated and Smith being destroyed. Something to stand in for the 3 days Jesus was dead. Like maybe Smith laughs 3 times or something.

    They kill a bunch of humans and somehow that's okay because of the Matrix, but they are still innocent and they still die, and real people still grieve them!

    There are a hundred thousand different ways you could interpret this.

    • Perhaps it demonstrates that humans are still the brutes who scorched the sky when we fought a war with the machines. We're willing to suffer any loss if it means winning. It begs the question of whether we even deserve the freedom we're fighting for.
    • Perhaps it asks us to empathize with a terrorist mindset. Yes, killing innocent people is bad. But when we put you into the shoes of these characters, can you see how killing innocent people might seem like a reasonable choice?
    • There's a quote from the TV show M*A*S*H that gets thrown around the Internet a lot:
      "War isn't hell. War is war and Hell is Hell, and of the two, war is a lot worse."
      "Why do you say that?"
      "Who goes to hell?"
      "Sinners, I believe."
      "Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. But war is chock full of them. Little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for a few of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander."

      In the Matrix, when you shoot at an agent, you're shooting at the enemy. But if you succeed, then the enemy doesn't die. An innocent person dies. Someone with hopes, dreams, a family, people who love them. Because that's what happens in all wars.

    I love that we're starting to see a real revival of Age of Empires 2 in recent years. The fan community, of course, has always been phenomenal. But in recent times we've actually seen not one, but TWO new expansions get official releases. That's insane!

    It makes me hopeful that we might see an Age of Empires 4. But like, one that would be more like Age of Empires 2-2. Not Age of Empires 3-2.

    It's rare to get a big budget movie that makes a serious attempt to discuss philosophy and theology seriously. The latter two films weren't as successful in that effort. They oscillated between being too obtuse, (the Architect), to too blatant (Dead Neo being carried off with his arms out as though he had been crucified). But the first film managed to discuss some complicated ideas in a poppy, engaging way, and still manage to be one of the most entertaining action movies of the decade.

    Sure it's easy now, 15 years after the fact, to look back and say "HURR, MATRUX IS 2DEEP4ME," but you gotta remember that at the time a ton of people thought the movie was difficult to understand.

    Dooooood if nothing else I mean if your computer is that old try a linux system or somethign I mean like libraries are running better versions of windows. Do you mind sharing the story as to why you're running this?

    Oh, I thought you were sassin' me.

    I was joking. That isn't actually my current desktop. That's my desktop from 2005.

    There's this fun reversal once you become an adult where suddenly your parents need you more than you need them."Boo hoo, why don't you ever call." "Because you failed to build a good relationship with me when you had the chance."

    Something to look forward to.

    You have my condolences and my sympathy. This is some rough shit.

    My first reaction to reading this is that there are two sides to this story. Given how your dad reacted, though, his side of the story doesn't really matter. Lines were crossed, child abuse happened. Nothing you could have put into a text justifies what he did. If you want to go to the police or find a lawyer, I'd imagine there are avenues for your protection open to you. Obviously I am not a lawyer, it would be irresponsible for me to offer you legal advice, or for you to take anything I say as legal advice. But if it's something you want to pursue, I believe these experiences could carry some weight. If nothing else, having a police record of the incident will prove beneficial if you feel you need to take firmer legal action in the future.

    You are a person with inalienable legal rights. What you're describing is not only assault, but it's assault of a vulnerable individual (i.e. a child). The fact that he's your father doesn't give him the right. It's not 'discipline,' it's a crime.

    All of that being said, I do get the sense that you're giving yourself unhealthy amounts of leeway based on your Asperger's diagnosis. A diagnosis should give you an idea of what you need to do to help yourself function better. It shouldn't be an excuse for bad behavior. "I have X, so I'm just always going to act this way, it can't be helped" is not a helpful or healthy way to think. The world isn't full of social wheelchair ramps for the mentally disabled. You've gotta figure out how to get up those metaphorical stairs, or else you're going to be stuck at the bottom forever complaining about the lack of ramps.

    On a more personal note, "Because I said so" is what stupid adults who have an undeserved sense of superiority over children say. It's what someone says when they believe the person they're speaking to is more a burdensome piece of property than they are an individual person. Fuck em'.

    I'm curious how they intend to distribute this technology. Unless every printer on the market uses this tech, why wouldn't people just buy printers that don't have this tech installed? No one is going to arbitrarily choose to limit themselves. Particularly by giving printers (already justifiably regarded as the most cantankerous part of a computer system) one more reason to fail.

    Which is to say nothing of copyrighted material that I have the right to print. Such as pdfs that I bought.