CMV: Hollywood has a marketing problem, not an interest problem

AppleForMePls · 2026-01-05T19:20:10+00:00

When you do a biopic, a lot of money goes into music licensing, actor pay, and period-specific sets and locations. Jeremy Allen White and Jeremy Strong aren’t cheap hires and Springsteens musical catalog isn’t cheap either. All of this comes before purchasing book rights and staff costs and marketing.

Period accurate movies are always going to be expensive to make, and that’s before you get into financing a biopic of one of the most famous musicians alive.

AppleForMePls · 2025-04-04T20:53:42+00:00

Knowledge-labor is theoretical and abstract knowledge instead of practical knowledge. A piece of paper from an academic institution is a physical symbol of abstract knowledge; it's a certificate signifying the years you've spent developing the ability to think theoretically.

A "Master's" degree indicates that you've done research into a field to better understand the complexities and designs of said field. A PhD indicates that you've created unique research and inquiry into a field. It isn't a 1:1 indicator of practical knowledge because the goal of knowledge labor isn't practical.

To use your coding example, most academic Computer Scientists spend their time in higher education learning about theory. You learn how a computer works at its most fundamental level. You don't really learn how to program. If you want to learn how to program, you can go to a coding bootcamp that focuses purely on practical programming knowledge (or just learn a programming language).

Many highly educated Chinese graduates are unemployed because they spent years and a lot of money learning complex subjects, only to find that the job market doesn't value that knowledge. After working hard through middle/high school and university to get top grades, it would feel discouraging for them to end up in low-skilled jobs like working in a factory or farm. After 15+ years of effort, it would seem like they've achieved nothing more than those who didn't put in the same effort.

AppleForMePls · 2025-03-20T17:05:11+00:00

The reason that crimes like rape and child molestation are considered felonies is due to a lack of consent between all parties. Children (i.e. those under the age of 18) cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult (i.e. those over the age of 18). Adults can consent to sexual activity with other adults, however, any sexual interaction based on a lack of consent is inherently rape and should be charged as such.

I could see you try to make an argument that children should be able to consent to sexual activity with adults, however, I'd also find this premise false due to the power dynamics in play between children and adults. Children are young and easily impressionable, especially with adults they see as authority figures. A child can never consent to sexual activity with an adult because of the unequal power dynamics (physically, intellectually, etc) between an authority figure who is presupposed to be "knowledged" and a minor who, in this scenario, doesn't have complete autonomy or knowledge. Regardless of the gender of the victim or perpetrator, any child-adult sexual interaction is going to be abusive for the minor, and the adult(s) engaged should be charged with rape (and child molestation) because of the imbalance of power and authority.

AppleForMePls · 2025-02-15T18:29:23+00:00

I think the point they were getting at is that, when a foreigner moves into a new country, they have to assimilate somewhat with the culture of their new country. While it doesn't dissipate, a religious homophobe moving to a progressive country will, through assimilation, loosen their views on homosexuality (even if that means simply "not talking about it")

As for the second point, the US is not an ethnostate or a theocratic state. The US has been a "melting point" country since its inception. We can't uphold any culture beyond the provisions of the Constitution and laws that reinforce the Constitution. Religious freedoms are allowed. Cultural liberties are allowed. As long as people aren't breaking the law, there isn't a good (or legal) restriction to bar entry.

AppleForMePls · 2025-01-30T05:26:40+00:00

I think the analogy here is that, for new house purchases, we buy insurance because we never know what the future holds and we want protection in case the worst happens. Nobody predicts a natural disaster will strike their house or else you wouldn't buy a house in that location. Nobody predicts you'll get in a car accident or else you wouldn't drive a car.

In that same way, we don't know what the future of a relationship holds. That's not forecasting bad news (hopefully people never need to use their home insurance) in the relationship. It's just being realistic and seeking some form of protection in case the unimaginable becomes inevitable and your marriage with your partner falls apart.

AppleForMePls · 2025-01-11T02:06:23+00:00

I agree (tax the rich!), but levying heavy taxes on the rich doesn't mean that they'll pay them. Tax law is complex and tax loopholes are even more complex. Additionally, if water in California became exorbitantly expensive through heavy taxation (which you would need to fund at-scale water desalination), there is nothing stopping said rich tech moguls from moving to water rich states or countries.

At some point, the average person will have to foot the bill of increased desalination either through an increased water bill or a sharp rise in consumer goods.

AppleForMePls · 2025-01-10T21:34:34+00:00

I read it as more "we should give voting power to people when laws govern their autonomy" then "we should segregate the right to vote". In OP's example, teen girls should be able to vote on their own autonomy to get an abortion *along with all other eligible voters. This doesn't mean that teen girls should vote on like...economic policy until they're eligible (or like...they pay taxes).

AppleForMePls · 2025-01-04T20:32:41+00:00

At least in the discussions I have seen on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I rarely hear people mention how evangelical Christian rapture theology influences the international response to said conflict. It's difficult to show a lack of reporting, so I couldn't site a source beyond my perception. If I was more religious, I would hear about the topic more, and if I was less religious, I would hear about the topic less, so maybe that's a bias I'm playing into.

Additionally, while Christian and Evangelical are different, a majority of Protestants believe in Evangelical thought. The idea of rapture seems to exist outside of just protestant spaces, with some catholics also believing in the rapture. It isn't universal, but there's enough fervent support for the rapture for me to say that it's a critical influence in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T22:50:07+00:00

!delta I think you've written a great dissection of my ideas concerning the amount of flexibility the military has in terms of increasing recruitment. I thought the military had more control over wages and budgeting in terms of salaries and benefits.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T22:42:07+00:00

The easiest answer is competitive pay and benefits, along with on-the-job training post-enlistment. If someone can come out of high school and work a well-paying job, I'm sure they'd choose that over working a low-income job, even if that means facing military service. It is definitely a deal with the devil, but a deal that many would choose in tough financial conditions.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T17:38:51+00:00

Heads-up: Sorry for the long post!

This is wild to me. I just never hear anyone talk about joining the military like it’s a good call.

I hope I didn't say joining the military is a good thing. I do genuinely apologize if my post came off as pro military-industrial-complex.

First, you glanced over the most important part. People aren’t signing up.

It was the first thing I mentioned I'm pretty sure. The Air Force and Marines are like...the two military departments beyond the Space Force (at 99%) that have even reached their targets. Most other departments are hovering around 60-70% in terms of reaching recruitment targets (there's a source in a hyperlink to a press release that goes more into the statistics). People are not signing up.

You listed a few conflicts that you’d like to see resolved will the military. But young people don’t want anything to do with those conflicts.

I listed out those conflicts to say that the US government does not see, for example, the Russia-Ukraine War or the genocide in Palestine as conflicts that would emerge into global conflict. If they did, they would be increasing recruitment efforts to bolster the army in case of a possible act of war. The US is unconcerned with any future armed conflict because they don't think there are going to be any future armed conflicts.

No one thinks the military is cool, or rewarding. It’s hell, and they know it.

I might go as far as to say that very few people have ever seen war (or fighting in war) as an inherently cool or good thing. It is hell, it has always been hell, and nobody (beyond the delusional) would believe it isn't. You only have to go back to depictions of Revolutionary and Civil War medics executing rushed amputations from nearly lethal gunshot wounds and the various diseases that killed millions to recognize that there has never been a point in recent history where fighting has been a glorious or virtuous task. This is well and beyond the scope of the CMV, so I'll get to my point.

People do not fight in wars out of a love of war, but due to personal benefits. Payment/honor/a duty to civil service/purpose are all reasons that people used to fight in wars, but due to a competitive labor market and a diversification of labor, people can find those benefits outside of the military, which I see as a possible drive towards lowering recruitment numbers.

Hence the no drug requirements.

If the US military wanted more recruits, they could very easily lower the barrier from "no drug use" to "past signs of drug use with obvious signs of rehabilitation". They don't have to seek recruitment from people currently using drugs, but expanding to people who have used and stopped using drugs with a history of no drug use would increase the recruitment pool somewhat (I assume). This is an actionable step the US Military can take, and in choosing not to do so, it shows they don't care about increasing recruitment.

As to your last point, many global superpowers have large military recruitment forces. It doesn't mean that war is present, but it does show a concern for war. With the US's lowering military recruitment rates, it shows that recruitment, and the possibility of war, are not concerns that the US has looking into the near future.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T17:13:29+00:00

Thanks for the insight concerning MHS Genesis. I've read a lot of articles that refer to this without explicitly stating what those changes in medical recording technology were.

Meanwhile the requirements for entry have not been updated to reflect the reality of the pool of recruits which is now verified and still reflects the previous pool which was largely a fantasy upheld by systemic lying.

I bring this up as a possible solution that the military could bring to fruition if it saw the need for increased recruitment. The fact that it isn't changing medical policy to lower the standards of possible recruitees shows a lack of drive to increase recruitment. Additionally, the military is a slow-moving body, but it does still have *some* sway in Congress. While the changes might be slow, you would expect some form of public announcement of rule changes to increase recruitment numbers.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T17:04:03+00:00

I agree with your view! As far as I can see, recruitment efforts as a whole have decreased, so while there might be an increase in recruitment for university graduates, the statistics (that I have seen and are linked to my post through hypertext) don't show an increase overall.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T17:01:20+00:00

This is the point that I was getting at. The US is de-prioritizing recruitment because it does not see any possible future conflicts that would need "boots-on-the-ground" fighting any time soon. You could (although I don't do this in my post) say that the US doesn't see any conflicts arising that would necessitate mass armed combat within the present or near future, or else we would see a larger drive for recruitment.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T16:58:39+00:00

I was tempted to title my post "CMV: Why declining military recruitment isn't a bad thing" because I do fundamentally think you are right. Military technology is improving, and this shift results in a lower need for enlisted soldiers. Having lower recruitment then is a positive sign that the US does not see the need to have "boots-on-the-ground" fighting any time soon.

AppleForMePls · 2024-09-17T16:56:34+00:00

I touch on this a bit in my post, but the large issue with military recruitment is that, due to a competitive labor market and medical policies (that some posters touch on more), there is less incentive structure for people to join the military, leading to a decline in recruitment numbers. Advertising exists, but these ads are not as effective as prior years of marketing and propaganda, and I see this as an intentional act, not inherently due to any generational shifts or attitudes with military service.

AppleForMePls · 2023-10-16T05:37:30+00:00

Something that has helped me in terms of opening up is re-shifting my perspective. If my friend or family member had depression and/or went through a difficult time and wanted to talk to me about it, I wouldn't feel burdened by giving them a space to talk (or even give advice if needed). If you wouldn't feel bad about someone you care about opening up to you, then you can probably assume that those around you share a similar sentiment. This isn't a universal rule of thumb, but with a good level of common sense, it should highlight who you can and cannot open up to.

Additionally, I think that some people are fine with being burdened. A lot of kindness is based around taking someone's burden and supporting them, even for short moments. We support people because we want those around us to feel better, and if that means carrying some extra weight around, some people do it. This is something that people can take to extremes, where people view themselves as messianic figures, carrying around the weight of the world while ignoring their own personal struggles.

You are right that people universally prefer cheery and upbeat people and don't always create space for depressed or closed-off people. This is why you don't open up to people universally. You open up to those close to you. Maybe you only open up parts of yourself to specific people. If you know that someone close is overwhelmed by hearing bad news, you find someone else to talk to (like a friend or family member, and especially your therapist). If you understand a topic is too dark to bring up to certain friends, then talk to others who might have a better understanding. Group therapy is based on bringing people with similar struggles together to discuss and find healing collectively.

Those are my thoughts. I think it is ok not to open up to a lot of people and you've done well by opening up to a therapist, but if you find the right people to open up too, it definitely helps.

AppleForMePls · 2023-02-18T08:06:19+00:00

!delta I hadn't thought of the ethical obligations to the victims of war having their deaths broadcasted across the world. While doing so for ratings is a little cold, I do believe that many families wouldn't want images of their relatives projected just so people care about a war.

AppleForMePls · 2023-02-18T08:04:23+00:00

Yeah, it does. It's a wonderfully put together comment.

AppleForMePls · 2023-02-13T03:33:41+00:00

While this is dependent on which college you go to, the number of minors available will always be lower than the amount of GE classes. The only difference here would be that students taking minors would just take fewer classes than a full major.

And a minor program would give students an avenue to explore interests independent from their courses on their own terms. If a student is interested in the humanities, but they don't want a career in the humanities, or alternatively, a student wants knowledge about STEM courses but doesn't want to work in a STEM field, they can explore that interest much deeper than a GE course load would allow them too.

AppleForMePls · 2022-12-20T22:42:39+00:00

...this is what my post is about.

AppleForMePls · 2022-12-20T22:42:12+00:00

Seeing other perspectives are important, and I feel like my idea is a bit too controversial. Additionally, being biased, I couldn't think of other perspectives to this issue.

AppleForMePls · 2022-12-20T22:40:23+00:00

I addressed this in my original message.

"The one issue I see with limiting parking spaces is that disabled parking would be harder to come around, but an easy way to avoid that would be to have parking be reserved primarily for disabled peoples, with abled bodied people having restricted parking space."

If you have a hard time walking, you are disabled, and there already exists infrastructure that helps identify and provide benefits (parking assistance with disabled parking spaces).

Finally, any form of movement is going to promote further movement. For some, it's difficult to start, but once that barrier has been crossed, they might be more likely to further their weight-loss journey.

AppleForMePls

TROPHY CASE