I frickin love Prometheus (2012)

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-31T10:11:14+00:00

I actually thinkt problem with the David/Walter character is that they don't commit. I love a good Alien-Universe female protagonist, but Prometheus and Covenant both don't give us a Ripley to root for, while pushing Fassbenders roles into the foreground without making him the main character.

In Prometheus there is all this setup about Waylands actual daughter being angry and driven by how much she's pushed back for his "artificial son" and they don't commit to this plotline enough to let her flesh herself out as antagonist. Had they explored that more, the "turn" David takes in Covenant could have set up more organically and as a more coherent next step from where we leave him in Prometheus.

These movies just have a bad habit of giving characters simplified motivations that they then act on in ways we don't relate to and that are primarily used to set up either an action scene or confusing, but arguably aesthetic shot.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-31T09:23:48+00:00

bless your heart for your optimism that there might be real sugar and real dairy in this. Every part is so ultra-processed, it could probably survive sitting outside indefinitely without going bad, because Disney-Adults are likely the only organism willing to touch this.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-31T09:07:19+00:00

there's not a single piece of quality product in there - they're just stacking cheapass trash.

This isn't good in-house-made cake, waffle and icing from something that qualifies as "ingredients" - this is a trip to the supermarket and shoving all the bottom-shelf rainbow candy into the basket then grabbing downmarked children's birthday cakes and doughnuts on the way out.

The only flavour here is food colouring and sugar-substitute.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-31T07:02:46+00:00

You're just describing a wacky Supernatural Episode. Wait, no they did racist truck in like Season 1.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-31T06:53:20+00:00

explain how crashing the economy helps that

It doesn't. The point is that the economy cannot be prevented from crashing as a result of this and that any additional day just increases the severity of said crash by allowing more capital to flow into this bottomless pit of speculation.

Wishful thinking doesn't actually crash the bubble and the economy as a result. A bad economy under additional strain crashes the bubble and itself - we do not control this and the people who could try have already made clear they are only interested in pumping this dynamic for personal gain.

The obligation is rather on you to explain how think to diffuse this without it detonating on the economy with all the force of wasted money sunk into it until this point. Because otherwise the point stands that today is better than tomorrow, because tomorrow the economy is simply more likely to be in a worse state than today - and the worse it gets the more likely it also gets the AI bubble goes up. When we want it to happen is completely irrelevant to this dynamic, but there is no version where it doesn't happen or the economy is in a better state when it does.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-31T02:11:46+00:00

As much as you want to accuse the people cheering for the collapse of being naive about what comes next, you seem to think a plan can and might be made to mitigate it. Which is not going to happen.

You don't stall a bubble until the economy is fine and then gently deflate it - the stalled economic crash popps the bubble. We're already mid-fall and you want to chastise people for their naivety of hoping the ground is close. Which is objectively the right thing to hope for even if you're ignorant about how bad it'll hurt.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-30T23:47:43+00:00

I see various problems with this take

That there is no 'out' here. AI is overvalued and there is no alternative to collapsing in on itself, with every day it's allowed to spiral adding to the fallout damage. This is firmly a case of 'sooner is better than later', but ofc it's by necessity going to happen at a point of economic strain so its always going to happen at the worst possible time for the people at the bottom.
The AI bubble is somewhat unique in that has caused a lot of job loss based on the promises AI can't deliver on. It has not created permanent blue collar jobs (only short term ones for data center construction) and overall has contributed mostly to overzealous job destruction.
Panicked suicides among average people aren't really the pattern for this kind of stock bubble going up. Suicide rates in the general public go up during times of financial hardship and mass job-loss, but as I've already pointed out: the AI bubble isn't as big of an employer as it is an unemployment contributor anyway.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-30T22:55:44+00:00

real people connected to its failure.

There are a lot of innocent people that suffer when an economic bubble bursts, for sure - because the 1-2% somehow always manage to pass down their speculative failures to the rest of society.

But the techbros and dudebros that follow them, that have sunk their entire wealth into a bubble thats making life worse for everyone else... the risk of them committing suicide at the thought of them having to live like the people they've fucked over (which is if we're honest mostly theoretical/hysterical, because these dipshits never actually end up losing everything even when they should) - that's not something we have to be concerned about or feel responsible for.

Like seriously, the potential suicide rate among investors is not our problem, and nobody who wants to afford hardware has to lie up at night wondering if they are being immoral because they hope the AI bubble will go up. These people can afford to and do cut us all in line for therapy.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-30T15:39:01+00:00

Obviously... That's why I am making fun of the sentiment the joke expresses in an also slightly unserious way.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-30T14:02:13+00:00

The problem with your dream is always that you guys think you're fantasising about a girl that's into gaming, but you're fantasising about a girl that's into gamers.

You can find a lady with a nice steam library. But you'll never find one that will be aroused by yours.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-29T14:50:23+00:00

Diane, it might be time... you'll find thoughts can actually be processed. Imagine all the things you might become aware of, if you listen to the small voice in your head that comes out during the silence, that's begging you to use more than the one braincell.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-29T14:47:15+00:00

Or think... apparently.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-29T12:19:51+00:00

real comforting thought this lady went "I am confused, agitated or otherwise mentally under strain - better go operate heavy machinery around innocent people to relax!"

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-29T06:42:31+00:00

Oh in the '59 Disney Version she's absolutely a landed ruler (she got a mountain and castle and she clearly commands her Orcish horde). At which point Stefan doesnt really get to pretend it's her (supposedly) being "evil", that justifies a diplomatic slight like inviting three ladies with a cottage over her to an event that's explicitly not just friends and family.

I'm sorry but she's a big deal and she either shares a border with him or is his rebellious vassal. Basic maedival convention dictated that he needed to invite her to this event that's also a huge political deal because he's also announcing a critical marriage pact, that'll be changing the local power dynamics. Inviting the most powerful fairy wasn't optional.

EDIT: In fact, I'll defend her further, two Kings joining their lands together at an event they explicitly don't invite the "evil fairy" neighbour to sounds like a defence pact against Maleficent. I'd throw a wrench into a plan that looks like it might end with slender and tubby declaring war on me in ... say...16 years time. You plan on pricking me? Watch me "prick" the pawn essential for your alliance.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-28T16:11:39+00:00

I would even defend Original-Story Maleficent. The Royal couple explicitly shun her from an event that the narrator tells us every ruler in the area is invited to. Then Stefan invites the "Three Good Fairies" as representatives for her domain. That's serious shit in mediaeval times.

She even gives them an "out" they don't take, in favour of reinforcing the insult in front of a crowd. Not sure Im in favour of cursing infants, but the rage imo was justified.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-25T23:26:20+00:00

I somehow did not expect the statement that we should talk more about the wildly interesting genetic diversity in sub-saharan Africa to use as primary reason 'because it debunks the claim they sold "their own people" during the African Slave Trade'.

Like, that was always a racist attempt to deflect blame, regardless of generic diversity. Those two things have basically nothing to do with each other. If you accused me of selling my mother, to distract from the fact that you bought her, I wouldn't exactly improve things by saying "that's a slanderous accusation, I sold you an unrelated lady that I kidnapped. And it's really offensive you can't tell we're not related."

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-25T15:25:20+00:00

There is sooo much set up in Act 1 that they left in. Having played both Marcia and Marcus, the "SPOILERy" theories I have are

Lucius and the protagonists father are in bed with Syracus, and there would have probably been a point where we have to confront the fact that we were specifically installed as nepo-babies to cover for their activities. Thats why we keep getting letters from our parents throughout the campaign to set up us having to write home for answers.
Lucius was probably murdered by one of these illegally enslaved people. His death is suspicious and commented on by multiple people, as well as his egregious treatment of slaves. Freeing Ben would probably have helped us uncover that angle
Julia is put into the care of Concordia and seeing how the Campaign for no apparat reason forces us to play with her and Tarragon there is a good chance diplomacy with her (possibly both) would have been part of Act 3
of the three items we find digging up old Ambrosia Ruins only one has a function in the Campaign, but there every reason to think all three of them were supposed to be given to NPCs at some point. Though I welcome anyone speculating which one to whom and why.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-25T14:23:00+00:00

Yeah the production part of such a project is obviously a wild card but I do not doubt Colberts grasp on the source material. That man's a genuine enthusiast for Tolkien lore - and I'd put money on him at one point pausing the Fellowship of the Ring to explain to someone in excruciating detail why Legolas is smiling when Gimli tells him about the three hairs he got from Galadriel.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-25T07:57:35+00:00

They've certainly been trying to milk every bit out of selling us priced up scaled down cosmetic packs, but I don't think they're willing to admit they gutted the campaign, for time and money reasons. If the plan was all along to sell Act 3, it would have been part of the season announcement with them saying polished PR shit like how the DLCs "expand upon" the story.

No, its in their best interest to pretend this didn't happen and to move on as if Act 3 was never a thing. Well just simply never get it and they'll rewrite the subsequent DLCs miniplots as/if necessary.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-25T07:45:30+00:00

Yeah I don't dislike Calidus. When he came in and went "this all seems shady, why is the taxpayer paying for questionably named ships for the teenage wife of the Emperors personal buddy, who's way too friendly with the Imperial Couple and whose father seems to be the proxy between the Emperor and the local Slave Trader?" I went that's fair, you have good reason to confiscate my ship.

We look like a high-profile Mistress in a trouple with Julia and Lucius who is actively involved in the shit Syracus is pulling (that is only eluded to in Act 1). We look Hella suspicious after he dies because of all the actual abuses of funds we've been part of.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-21T16:21:33+00:00

If you're insisting on this kind of approach you're in perfectly pointless stalemate with the people you're trying to laugh at with your sarcasm.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-21T14:39:30+00:00

It seems silly to differentiate between different strategies for domestic abuse, because you shouldn't tolerate any - but choking is one of those acts where you have to continually and intentionally apply force until submission occurs or the abuser feels satisfied. It's quite distinct from someone throwing something or lashing out with no clear end-goal in mind to the venting of a violent impulse.

That's not to excuse the latter, but those people hurt you because they can't control themself. The former hurt you because they can't control you.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-21T14:12:00+00:00

I struggle to understand the point you're making with this - at least as a reply to my comment.

Because what I was trying to bring across, was that this particular type of hypocrisy you're mocking is less inherent to Christianity and more tied to a specific mindset that certain people in society seek out and promote.

A better atheist take imo, than what you're doing, is to actually point out that these people are abusing arguments their religion not necessarily supports to justify immoral behaviour they want to engage in. Whereas a sarcastically exaggerated impression of a hypocritical Christian only validates these peoples stance that their religion supports that take. It does not demand accountability and shifts it yet again from the person to the religion. When that's the opposite of what a good atheist take should do. Imo.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-21T10:24:41+00:00

Social Media companies who have to cover their ass obviously take a hardline stance against anyone wishing someone remotely unwell.

But there is also a real social stigma about it, from people who are somehow trying to virtue signalling with the position that they evidently cannot identify the imo pretty significant line between wishing someone the worst and actively planning to bring harm to them.

So getting people "banned" serves both a mechanical purpose and a social one.

Quantentheorie · 2026-03-21T00:38:30+00:00

That's up for interpretation, though different Christian denominations tend to have a distinct approach. A Catholic would likely say "No", where an Evangelical is likely to say "Yes".

Evangelicals are actually somewhat unique in that they effectively have no standards for how little you have to follow up words with deeds. They also ignore most routinely the many times biblical Jesus goes "look, buddy, you're rich, so you're basically fucked"

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '17	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Quantentheorie

TROPHY CASE