Lots of people familiar with the material here, but as somone with zero context, I watched the film and I don't get it.
Is it something where you need to know the backstory to get the importance? The premise just seems quite thin: (Spoiler alert) the guy behind the desk had his mind erased and the guy with the gun is an impostor.
I know it's not polite to armchair-critique a thing I could never have created myself, but I don't think this is a particularly good adaptation of this story. One change, I think, completely robs it of some of its impact, and I would have handled something else differently as well - but oh well.
> One change, I think, completely robs it of some of its impact
Which one?
One thing I didn't like from this adaptation is that the thought-devouring idea doesn't live inside Wheeler's mind, like in the story. They made it into a CGI blob. But I suppose the story is confusing enough, so making it invisible would have been too much.
You're missing a bit, like there is an entire top secert division of people that fight against mind erasing aliens, and there are a large variety of mind erasing aliens.
Yes, there is. I can see how someone not already familiar with the material would feel lost.
First, it's based on SCP, as other people have mentioned. Second, it's very dialogue/monologue driven, there's lots of exposition about a shared universe, vaguely hinted at, secret government agencies, conspiracies, etc.
The author chose a very topic which by definition is hard to understand: ideas (or memes) that do NOT want to be remembered. So a lot of what happens is discussing "dangerous" ideas that do not want to be remembered or discussed. There's a larger overarching plot, split across several related stories.
The guy with the gun was one such idea embodied in the physical shape of a man. It was confusing the boss on purpose. Wheeler was on to him from the beginning (because her boss doesn't have an assistant), but needed to get her boss on board with the idea first, before shooting the "assistant". Everything she does in the dialogue has this goal.
Same feeling as pair programming in my experience.
If your consciousness is driving, your brain is internally aligned. You type as you think. You can get flow state, or at least find a way to think around a problem.
If you're working with someone else and having to discuss everything as you go, then it's just a different activity. I've collaboratively written better code this way in the past. But it's slower and more exhausting.
Like pair programming, I hope people realise that there's a place for both, and doing exclusively one or the other full time isn't in everyone's best interests.
I've had a similar experience, where I pair-programmed with a coworker for a few days in a row (he understood the language better and I understood the problem better) and we couldn't be in the call for more than an hour at a time. Still, although it was more tiring, I found it quite engaging and enjoyable. I'd much rather bounce ideas back and forth with another person than with an LLM.
Any workload that relies on re-using a bucket name is broken by design. If someone else can get it, then it's Undefined Behaviour. So it's in keeping with the contract for AWS to prevent re-use. Surely?
The original solution involved a very thick disc which could then leveled and re-pitted. The problem was that the change in mass over time made it hard to calibrate the acceleration.
It also put a high radial load on the spindle whilst mounted sideways which led to run-out.
And flooding the area with radon (a heavy gas) helped the disc to float a bit, but had unexpected consequences...
Lego from my youth, which was a hand-me down at the time, doesn't fit well with new lego. So it might be 40 years old, (which seems like a long time until you actually reach that age!)
I think it's more likely do to plastic aging than the original tolerances though.
To add even more - I was handed down Lego that belonged to my mom in the 60s, played with them through the 80s and 90s, and now my kids have them today. I wouldn’t be able to tell you which were hers and which were mine.
That led me to https://www.folklore.org/Desk_Ornaments.html which is a very fun read. Interesting to note that the UI style of the DAs is actually not consistent at all, some have round corners and some don't.
I particularly like this Bill Atkinson tidbit at the end:
Bill Atkinson complained to me that it was a mistake to allow users to specify their own desktop patterns, because it was harder to make a nice one than it looked, and led directly to ugly desktops. [...] So he made MacPaint allocate a window that was the size of the screen when it started up, and filled it with the standard 50% gray pattern, making his own desktop covering up the real one, thus protecting the poor users from their rash esthetic blunders, at least within the friendly confines of MacPaint.
(He was totally right, making your own desktop patterns was fun but the standard checkerbard was far and away the best choice.)
Maybe I just don't get it, but the first example the controls are out of the way, leaving most the space for the content.
In subsequent examples the controls have made less space for content and obscured it. And takes up space with less-often used things like line spacing and and drop caps. Feels like I'm being told that up is down.
And the smudgy liquid glass effect just makes everything look grubby. Not classy.
To me it definitely looks like the area for the document grew. The sidebar is a solution to not tacking a million things into the toolbar, it's not like it's open 100% of the time.
Is it something where you need to know the backstory to get the importance? The premise just seems quite thin: (Spoiler alert) the guy behind the desk had his mind erased and the guy with the gun is an impostor.
Is there more to it than that?
reply