kylogram:

bechahns:

charminglyantiquated:

oylmpians:

Playing anything after playing assassin’s creed for a month: why the fUCK can’t I climb this

assassin’s creed was the first video game I ever played, and I finished the first game in a weekend more or less without pause. then I went to work on Monday and, being totally unfamiliar with the Tetris effect, was extremely taken aback by the immediate impulse to reach my teller station by vaulting over the counter. I mean, I didn’t even question it at first. I made it maybe two long purposeful steps forward before my brain caught up and I spent the rest of the day doubting my own actions.

One time I played so much Bioshock at the weekend that on my walk to uni the next day I saw a vaguely rectangular bit of trash out the corner of my eye and automatically thought “better pick up that first aid kit”

When fallout 4 came out, I played so much of it that when I saw a pile of wood near my house, I tried to scrap it and was perplexed as to why it wasn’t selectable.

I don’t want to tell anyone what happened after I played too much Pong. 

The Meaning of America

robertreich:

When Trump
and his followers refer to “America,” what do they mean?

Some
see a country of white English-speaking Christians.

Others
want a land inhabited by self-seeking individuals free to accumulate as much
money and power as possible, who pay taxes only to protect their assets from
criminals and foreign aggressors.

Others
think mainly about flags, national anthems, pledges of allegiance, military
parades, and secure borders. 

Trump
encourages a combination of all three – tribalism, libertarianism, and loyalty. 

But the
core of our national identity has not been any of this. It has been found in the
ideals we share – political equality, equal opportunity, freedom of speech and
of the press, a dedication to open inquiry and truth, and to democracy and the
rule of law. 

We are
not a race. We are not a creed. We are a conviction – that all people are
created equal, that people should be judged by the content of their character
rather than the color of their skin, and that government should be of the
people, by the people, and for the people.

Political
scientist Carl Friedrich, comparing Americans to Gallic people, noted that “to
be an American is an ideal, while to be a Frenchman is a fact.” 

That
idealism led Lincoln to proclaim that America might yet be the “last best hope”
for humankind. It prompted Emma Lazarus, some two decades later, to welcome to
American the world’s “tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free.” 

It
inspired the poems of Walt Whitman and Langston Hughes, and the songs of Woody
Guthrie. All turned their love for America into demands that we live up to our
ideals. “This land is your land, this land is my land,” sang Guthrie. “Let
America be America again,” pleaded Hughes: “The land that never has been yet –
/And yet must be – the land where every man is free. / The land that’s mind –
the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME –.” 

That
idealism sought to preserve and protect our democracy – not inundate it with
big money, or allow one party or candidate to suppress votes from rivals, or
permit a foreign power to intrude on our elections.

It spawned a patriotism that once required all of us take on a fair share of the burdens of
keeping America going – paying taxes in full rather than seeking loopholes or
squirreling money away in foreign tax shelters, serving in the armed forces or volunteering
in our communities rather than relying on others to do the work.

These ideals compelled us to join together for the common
good – not pander to bigotry or divisiveness, or fuel racist
or religious or ethnic divisions. 

The idea of a common good was once widely understood and
accepted in America. After all, the U.S. Constitution was designed for “We the people” seeking to “promote the general welfare”
– not for “me the narcissist seeking as much wealth and power as possible.” 

Yet the common good seems to have disappeared. The phrase is
rarely uttered today, not even by commencement speakers and politicians.

There’s growing evidence of its loss
– in CEOs who gouge their customers and loot their corporations; Wall Street bankers who defraud their investors; athletes involved
in doping scandals; doctors who do unnecessary procedures to collect fatter
fees; and film producers and publicists who choose not to
see that a powerful movie mogul they depend on is sexually harassing and
abusing women. 

We see its loss in politicians who take donations from
wealthy donors and corporations and then enact laws their patrons want,
or shutter the government when they don’t get the partisan results
they seek.

And in a president of the United States who has repeatedly
lied about important issues, refuses to put his financial holdings
into a blind trust and personally profits from his office, and foments
racial and ethnic conflict.

This unbridled selfishness, this contempt for the public,
this win-at-any-cost mentality, is eroding America.

Without binding notions about right and wrong, only the most
unscrupulous get ahead. When it’s all about winning, only the most unprincipled
succeed. This is not a society. It’s not even a civilization, because there’s
no civility at its core. 

If
we’re losing our national identity it’s not because we now come in more colors,
practice more religions, and speak more languages than we once did.

It is
because we are forgetting the real meaning of America – the ideals on which our
nation was built. We are losing our sense of the common good. 

Profound and easily applies to more than America. This is a rot at the heart of all human communities.  

Star Trek Discovery spoiler talk below.

I’m fascinated by this series and its choices. They aren’t easy ones. This holds true for the original series and films (save the JJ Abrams versions).  Upholding the noble ideals of the Federation and Starfleet was paramount (no pun intended, Paramount) to understanding and becoming invested in the Star Trek universe and its characters. It’s still true today.  

Michael Burnham is what Kirk and Picard and Janeway and Sisko were before her (well, after her, really). She is that noble character who deals with moral conundrums through the lens of her Starfleet training (and, like Spock, through her Vulcan background), yet often finds herself alone in the quarry of right vs. wrong. Her template is a strong, if not terribly original, one and she makes for an insightful protagonist. 

Like Kirk, Picard and Sisko before her, too, Burnham has a history of tragedy and loss, first losing her parents to the Klingons, then her own responsibility in the death of her captain and mentor, Phillipa Georgiou.  It’s the latter tragedy that gives Burnham a great character boost that keeps this viewer invested: whilst in the ‘Mirror’ universe, Burnham sees, however briefly, a character connection between Emperor Georgiou and her late counterpart. Burnham’s guilt, grief, and, perhaps, hope, spurs her to rescue the Emperor and bring her back to her own universe (I’m reluctant to call it Prime, as there is some evidence it might not be). 

Emperor Georgiou opens a wound in Burnham – she is not Captain Georgiou, a character we met only briefly, but a much darker, and morally corrupt character (she reminds me greatly of the Mirror version of DS9′s Kira Nerys, the vain and ruthless Intendent). Burnham’s ache for the Emperor to be more like her lost captain is palpable and it gives her story a great drive. It’s not often a show would make such a choice: we want to be surrounded by the good guys, like Captain Georgiou. Her Mirror version isn’t particularly nice, but she has feelings of love and loyalty, unable to see Burnham die twice. I wish we could have seen more of Burnham and Captain Georgiou’s relationship and traveled with them a little longer, but this Star Trek is willing to do something a little daring. Emperor Georgiou, alive and well in Burnham’s universe with the potential to get up to no good. May we meet her again.  

I should mention Lorca – how interesting that they make the captains in this show disposable – the reveal with him actually being from the Mirror universe and his all-too simple takeover of the Emperor’s ship was something of a let-down. We’d spent several episodes with him, this complex and ruthless character, only to dismiss him as the power-hungry villain he really was? i don’t mind that the character is gone, but wouldn’t it have been more interesting if he lived, in his own universe? Hopefully the next captain will be genuine Starfleet and won’t be bumped off so easily.  

The cast we’re left with in the finale, Burnham (chief science officer – a role Spock had on the Enterprise), Tilly (now an ensign), Suru (First Officer and Acting Captain), Stamets (Chief Engineer – I believe) (and the nameless but decorated bridge crew) is a bit on the small side – and we learn they are without a captain, but on their way to Vulcan to receive whoever it is. Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager had their cast established with hardly any variation, right from the beginning.  I’ve a feeling the second season will add to this group, starting with the new captain (may it be a woman, thanks) and, no doubt, new crew members (my recommendation in my previous post still stands).  

One intriguing event in the finale: the Discovery crossing paths with the USS Enterprise, issuing a distress signal (and under the command of Captain Christopher Pike).  In the original series, Spock was Pike’s science officer (his First Officer was a woman simply known as ‘Number One’), and Pike was kidnapped by the Talosians.  Now, the time frame of Discovery might be too soon for Spock to be serving with Pike, but it is a possibility. 

Now, why might this show be in another universe?  One, Michael Burnham herself.  In the Prime universe, Sarek had two children we know of: Sybok and Spock. No one has mentioned Sybok in this universe, so either he doesn’t exist, giving us a clue that this is not Prime, or we might have a continuity error. Burnham, of course, has never been mentioned by Spock before, but the show may give us reasons later on why that is so. Otherwise, creating a character closely related to him, knowing we’d never heard of her before, creates something of a plot hole. 

We also have the issue of the existence of the spore drive – something also never seen before. The war with the Klingons is a sticky point, as well. Digging a little deeper, in the Mirror universe, we met ‘Emperor’ Georgiou, whilst in Prime-era Enterprise, we knew of the ‘Empress Sato.’  Again, these all might be errors or explained later.  

Finally I do want to bring up a couple of troubling things.  I’m bothered by them killing off a gay MOC (whose death seemed entirely unnecessary to me) and by making the ‘villain’ Emperor Georgiou a bisexual, mimicking The Intendent in DS9. I don’t want to make a thing of this, really, because I’m sure, in the latter half, at least, there wasn’t much intentional thought behind it, but, in a way, that is what makes it so troubling. Why are bisexuals (especially bisexual women) so often seen as villains? It’s old hat and we should be done with it by now. There was no need to add it in, and I hope they don’t repeat that cliche. Sexualising Emperor Georgiou just to add to her venality isn’t terribly original or wonderful either, so let’s hope that will be a lesson behind them.  

The relationship of Stamets and Culber is groundbreaking for Star Trek, the first same-sex relationship depicted with any depth. And they killed one of them off. I don’t have much to add on this save my deep disappointment. Stamets and Culber’s relationship was really well done and Culber was a wonderful character-that-might-have-been. Queer characters are so rare and we’re always the most disposable ones. It’s just depressing that the new Star Trek would indulge in this (and I’m not giving it a pass because co-showrunner Aaron Harberts and former showrunner Bryan Fuller are gay and because they left us one standing gay character. Representation still matters. Hollywood is still a bubble world that doesn’t seem to ‘get’ what it means for people living outside of it).  

I’ve rambled enough.  I’ve overall enjoyed much of Discovery and I hope CBS decides to do the right thing and let US viewers watch either on the regular network or put it on Netflix.  I’m really bothered by the rush to create streaming sites for paid content when they really don’t have much on offer (and Disney is set to drain everyone with their new ownership of Hulu). Does Star Trek Discovery need to show naked Klingons and use the F word to justify its existence behind a paywall?  Seems pretty silly to me.  

Still.  Good luck. Live long and prosper.  

Don’t forget – petition your networks, America.  Many of them (including AMC) have advertisers supported by the NRA – including tactical weapons manufacturers. 

Tell the networks to drop these advertisers ASAP.