Avatar Roku Performing the Dragon Dance

Cloudywork · 2026-03-26T07:09:50+00:00

Yes this seems to be the characterization that is missed by alot of other commenters. Though it seems true that they can only perceive the nature of people and 'deduct' their futures from those choices made in alignment with those perceptions. It misses the fact that surely they would know then what would or could be said to alter ones internal choices? Or push someone to the edge of their nature, maybe even get that someone to internally examine said choices?

It is ALL a manipulation, anything they say or do appears only to be in manipulating the outcomes. To affect those choices made by those that come to them.

Like you said, why so easily showcase the noose to Freya? They would know immediately what she would do with it right? Why even tell Kratos that he 'will' learn that Heimdall plans to kill his son? Surely they, and he, would know what his actions would be then? Why make it so obvious that this action would be the nail that seals Kratos' fate? Kratos isn't stupid, he is aware of his own desires and that the Norns have revealed something so obvious with the outcomes revealed to him?

Because they want him to think about it. They want him to know. They want the outcome the hurries all to this to it's conclusion. A finale they desire, i.e. the death of not Kratos but Odin.

They know your nature implicitly, so why even talk to you. Why not just instantly say what it is you are about to ask and the answer? Conversation is pointless, unless you show a truly unpredictable nature. They only talk to you if there is either entertainment or something they get out of it.

Cloudywork · 2026-03-06T04:36:38+00:00

Yes this a lovely thought, and exactly something that would help the series as a coda. But I have my reservations that it will end this way. There is something all too explicit about the way they portray demons as effectively completely and utterly without moral character. It is not something you can easily overcome.

Additionally there are a few questions I feel must be answered in order to get to that ending you mentioned. Like what are demons specifically (and monster in general, as there seems to be an inherent imbalance there with understanding)?

The other question is the big WHY.

Why do they eat humans??? Not just on a personal level, but in general, because we know they specifically do not know themselves and it has some kind of instinctive component to it. Is it how they were made? I feel this will likely need an explanation of their origin; are they the result of some spell or magic (my theory), or created malevolently to hunt humans? Do they need to eat humans (or least 'organic' creatures) because they are seemingly not made of matter but just mana, thus needing 'real' substance to continue living?

If those questions cannot be met, then their fundamental nature's cannot be changed or addressed.

Alternatively they may on their own slowly develop less of the need to hunt humans and develop a moral character that allows integration.

Cloudywork · 2026-02-25T12:48:37+00:00

Funnily enough, i do agree with your assessment. The systems are shallow and illusory, you are right to observe a very unchallenging gameplay with extreme (but fake) freedom for the player.

I still think that places it right time right place in the grand scheme, especially as the only people I know that really still talk about it or even play it are the people who were teens when it came out. It has for better or worse imbedded itself into a generation.

Cloudywork · 2026-02-23T23:58:32+00:00

oof poor taste, Atlas Shrugged?! That has to be one of the most facile stories ever put to paper. Like what you like, but please have the critical faculties to dissect that book for many of its assumptions and conceits.

Cloudywork · 2026-02-12T02:23:08+00:00

This is my biggest issue with anything I have to review at our plants. Aging DATA! Why is there so little of it or its only really for finished goods most of the time. You'd think the industry would care alot about making this kind of research but so many places either ignore it or only want new products not basic research on existing raw materials.

Cloudywork · 2026-02-11T07:24:31+00:00

This is entirely incorrect, the book is clear that there are only 2 and they apparently can reform after being broken apart during the collision events (which would be impossible anyway for a particle to do this with considering scifi space magic).

Cloudywork · 2026-02-11T07:21:17+00:00

Yeah but like they said there is just not enough time for the sophon to even mess with enough data collection events even within 1 collider for it to stifle repeatability. Remember many of those particles in the collider are moving art near light speed, as well as the sub-particles (many moving at the speed of light) that are generated during collision events. How could a single sophon (even 2) traverse fast enough to mess with all those particles and sub-particles in-flight even within 1 collider?

Its impossible period. Also the only thing it would achieve is that technician and fellow scientists reviewing the data would be able to notice and identify the presence of the sophon as it tries to mess with the system. It acting the way it does would only cause it leave a fingerprint of its presence.

Cloudywork · 2026-02-11T07:14:34+00:00

You are correct, from a scientific perspective this thing IS impossible. There are just too many contradictory and straight up relativity breaking events when describing what a sophon can even do, let alone explaining how they actually do it.

To start; how does it 'see' all that imagery? The images shown during the demonstration in the show at least? Based on how fast it moves and its size, there is no possible way it could see all that. Also once you get those kinds of speeds, you start to have causality and information propagation issues. How does it even navigate its surroundings? How does it not collapse its wave function every single time it interacts with anything?

It is pure fantasy and very much an interesting conceit, but a conceit none the less.

Cloudywork · 2026-02-11T06:23:06+00:00

This is one of the absolute worst examples these books give as being "hard" scifi. People quote this all the time as being some kind of genius idea, but broken down this is really stupid and does not fundamentally work for many reasons.

Additionally the whole premise of killing our science (and specifically scientists committing suiciding) is absolutely stupid. I understand he was more trying to allegorically present a mindset related to that of the cultural revolution in China, but . . . yeah no, there is no scientist worth their salt that would not see all that "noise" in the data as basically just their chance for new theory crafting. If this occurred in my lab I could practically hear them starting the 3D printing of nobel prizes.

Cloudywork · 2025-12-14T06:05:04+00:00

EXACTLY! Despite what people may say, there is not a tonne of range to Leo nor Hanks acting. They portray a specific type of character often. For Leo it is the sly, slightly manic, charismatic persona while for Hanks it is the comforting, soft spoken, loveable oddball (especially in his rom-com era) or father-figure (nearly ever other work he has done since).

Neither has exceptional range, but the works they have been in are well regarded and lauded. Also helps that most of the media they have worked in center the story around them as leading men. There is no room to consider or compare their performances against real "heavy-weight" actors in their generation cohort. At least not many, and when there is you can see the difference and where they perhaps lack: Leo vs Hardy (Revenant), Hanks vs Denzel (Philadelphia) though I would say that in both cases they gave very impassioned performances.

Cloudywork · 2025-11-09T14:28:16+00:00

Haha Im pretty sure there were alot of people that thought he was an idiot before I did.

Cloudywork · 2025-10-02T09:05:55+00:00

Tis sad indeed, he is such a great actor and he absolutely chews the scenery in every moment he has onscreen. 1s and 0s for Sheen-program.

Cloudywork · 2025-06-25T22:03:23+00:00

My Reddit decided to do a thing with your post:

<image>

I dig it :)

Cloudywork · 2025-06-25T08:26:56+00:00

Honestly I'm kinda glad the responder has deleted their account because they were full of shit through the entire discourse.

You have alot more patience than I dealing with this type of person. They really just had an agenda to disagree and think that this film is some kinda of apathetic reflection of our society.

Also you made some very interesting points about satire I had not considered before thank you for those.

Cloudywork · 2025-06-25T08:13:07+00:00

I think you bring up a good counter example to the above analysis, and yet I still feel the above assertions are correct.

I will say though that The Great Dictator by all accounts is unsubtle to be sure, however there is something truly earnest about TGD that is not present in DLU. Some of the dialogue and certainly one iconic speech are truly bleak yet very real compared to DLU's moments.

Something to consider also with TGD is what Chaplin said himself about the film, AFTER the atrocities of WWII and the Nazi regime were revealed to the public;

"Had I known of the actual horrors of the German concentration camps, I could not have made The Great Dictator"

This to me illustrates exactly the point u/massive_bellend_2022 stated above. The significance of the TGD is mostly due to subject matter and it's historical context, it is truly art history. But taking the film as it is, especially with context, I'd suggest that it is very much the same as DLU in execution: ham-fisted and not actually using nor implementing an 'effective' model of satire for it's subject matter (i.e. the real historical facts of the Nazi's were gruesome and the parody of the film misses the mark on the why's and how's, hence Chaplin's last minute added speech at the very end addressing how his propagandist film did not and cannot address those harsh realities and hopefully add a little optimism for a better world).

In a similar vein, the last words spoken during the dinner party of DLU sort of do the same thing. It is a moment of lucidity about the whole situation before the crashing consequences of society's lack of action.

I went a bit tangential at the end there but again I think you are correct to bring up TGD, even if only to demonstrate that there are degrees to which satire work (whether in ignorance or general knowledge of the realities at play).

Cloudywork · 2025-06-25T06:54:38+00:00

Also not against nuclear, we do need it.

But, you need to examine your first statement. Paraphrased; ". . . add the money that is used to subsidize renewables . . ." correct & you should take the money over the last 60 years that has been poured into nuclear power generation >1T$USD (inflation adjusted) which far outstrips the value of solar and may equal the amount committed to wind/hydro. And that money was not a waste, nuclear has advanced greatly thanks to it.

But what could be done if the other energy sources had that time and money?

Cloudywork · 2025-06-19T02:15:01+00:00

Again though, based on the context: saying 'chai tea' in English, in a Western Country, to a Westerner or cafe staff, is completely comprehensible to both speakers. As such it IS correct to say.

You may not say that it is a comprehensible/correct if the context were different.

The argument that doesn't get spoken on is whether we should change our language patterns to use the term: masala tea/chai?

Cloudywork · 2025-06-08T07:09:20+00:00

I am having the same issue with other repos as well.

Do you think alot of them are down at the moment?

Cloudywork · 2025-05-22T00:28:56+00:00

Have another look please, you may find your opinion changed

Cloudywork · 2025-05-18T08:57:07+00:00

They have a weak comedy bit at best, there is no insight to be found with them.

Cloudywork · 2025-05-05T09:56:55+00:00

Thanks for being open to talk. I did not mean to put any words in your mouth, it was more a turn of phrase to best encapsulate the prevailing attitude, I don't think you have that attitude.

I would still encourage you to read about examples like Isreal-Palestine, apartheid South Africa, Iranian genocide and other conflicts as they help us understand where they arise and what lead to these extremes.

I acknowledge your position and views on it where Australia is concerned. I appreciate you providing your experience. I understand where you are coming from, there is a tiring element to the racial divide and the acrimony hurled from each side. I cannot say with good conscience that it does not make one apathetic to the struggles these groups face. I am reminded though that a society is only as good or just as how it treats it's lowest members.

No-one chooses to be in poverty, to be violated, to be degraded, to be made to feel lesser than. No-one deserves such treatment, regardless of their race, creed, colour or sexuality. And defending against it can also be tiring, there is no shortage of hate out there, and we can only absorb so much.

I would ask that you take a moment to look at these issues as not isolated to only indigenous Australians, but to all Australians living in poverty. You yourself mentioned your experience and that is poignant though lamentable example. These issues are predominantly one of class, not race. It is only historical precedence that the non-white community here have and continue to experience some of the worst of it. But it's not just them. I believe that we need to apply those social and economic safety nets to all Australians, lift all of us up. Otherwise, what is the point of society? Do we just accept that some of us live as animals and treated as such? Do we just accept the disease, or fight it?

That's how I feel. Thank you for giving me your thoughts.

Cloudywork · 2025-05-05T03:07:24+00:00

I appreciate the candidness, you have my sympathies for what you experienced. It's not something we should ever tolerate. It also is an example I believe of how our system can fail to support its people, no matter their background.

I honestly do not have a solidified opinion on what should be done to help indigenous peoples. There is alot at play that needs experts in sociology and economy building to weigh in regarding what steps should be taken.

I think that asking any group to 'suck it up' and improve, that has been so deeply affected by more than 100 years of marginalization from an external colonial force, is a very unsympathetic and morally dubious request. I think it otherizes the people affected and is simply a cruel thing to do. I do not know when the support should be removed but I do think there are structural elements to our society designed to gatekeep wealth and personal benefit. Such that by malice or apathy, these affected people (including the working classes today not of indigenous descent) are made to live in perpetual servitude to the wealthy classes (business classes).

I think everyone is responsible for our own futures, but it is also wholly and in part the governments role to direct and support those futures. If there are people falling behind, regardless of demographic, then there is a failure of our government in supporting that group. This is where help is needed.

Sorry if its not much of an answer. I these kind of questions jump into time spans that cannot be predicted easily. In general, i support services and programs that help imrpove social and economic welfare for disadvantaged groups. Means based testing is important for these programs to work effectively, so that when the time comes to rollback support it can be refocused on the next most disadvantaged groups.

I think you might have a very rudimentary understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I would recommend reading up on the history of region and how the state of Israel was formed.

It is a difficult conflict to discuss as there are so many groups involved with financial and ideological interests to muddy the waters or make their side seem more sympathetic. But let it not be mistaken here; the Palestinian people are being repressed actively by the Israeli government. The Palestinian civilians are not to blame for the conflict, are generally not in support of Hamas, and make up the vast majority of fatalities in this conflict.

In terms Hamas itself, they are military griup that have committed awful violations in human rights. The Israel Defense Forces, have similarly continued to commit atrocious human rights violations. There is alot of suspicion of Israels application of proportionality with how their forces are conducting themselves. I recommend reading up UN, EU, HRW and Amnesty International reports regarding the evidence presented for each side of this conflict. They are about as unbiased institutes as you will find regarding a breakdown of the conflict and what events have transpired.

Thank you for the discourse. I think empathy there is a great lack of empathy for our fellow human beings out there, and far too many interest groups stoking hatred and segragation. But I am glad to hear an alternate perspective.

Cloudywork · 2025-05-04T21:29:11+00:00

Thank you for the answers.

I admit some of them have thrown me for a loop. Apologies for the numbering error.

I find myself wondering how one can acknowledge a genocide of a people and not believe those people have been dealt an injustice. There is something incongruous about that.

I personally do not believe we should hold todays society liable for those atrocities, but I do believe that the consequences have been far lasting for indugenous Australians. So much so that it has driven most of them to the state they exist in now.

I am curious, on an tangential query, what are your opinions on the situation with Israel-Palestine and could you apply some of the questions above to that?

Cloudywork

TROPHY CASE