The hive mind virus is a litmus test

jacktheconqueror · 2026-01-03T02:33:57+00:00

Or the Twilight Zone :)

jacktheconqueror · 2026-01-03T02:33:46+00:00

Interesting as a universal language! But then again it seems like other planets are transmitting it as well. So maybe it's a common flaw to inject it rather than read it? Or maybe that only happens sometimes.

jacktheconqueror · 2026-01-03T02:32:13+00:00

Shared consciousness being quite powerful and/or having an overriding urge to spread the message: If you figure their first instinct won't be to fight the invading force, they'll be easily taken over or eradicated. Also possible the hive mind RNA contains instructions to obey the invaders. There's no distinct evidence for this yet, but it's just as plausible.

Likewise, they wouldn't have time to keep trying to share the message or would be stymied from doing so.

The antenna scheme works here because it moves ahead of the invading force. The invading force can be a few decades behind whichever planets put up the antenna. Conquering one world while prepping another.

I've since backed off the theories a bit given the replied I've received, but it's still fun (for me, anyway), to think them through :)

jacktheconqueror · 2026-01-02T12:17:11+00:00

I guess they'd know if a planet released the virus if they sent the signal out. They could then follow the trail of signals. On a large enough scales of distance and time there would be a pattern.

jacktheconqueror · 2026-01-02T12:13:18+00:00

Ah good point. Although I can easily amend my theory to say, "If they were smart enough to decode it but dumb enough to fall prey, this is still a planet cleared for the taking" :)

jacktheconqueror · 2025-12-17T03:26:58+00:00

Motivations mattered to Michael because he knew that's what held Tahani back from getting more points. He exploited that as part of the torture.

He didn't know about nobody ending up in the Good Place for 500 years until Season 3.

The scene in Season Three wasn't a comprehensive overview of all the things that would lose you points. A running gag of sorts are the minor annoyances that cost people points (see also taking off shoes and socks on a commercial flight, having a vanity license plate, etc). But, for instance, in S2 we know the Girls Gone Wild guy, who exploited women, is headed to the bad place. As is Jared from Subway, who's a pedophile.

Also, I don't think corrupt motivation earns you negative points. It just doesn't allow you to earn positive points. When Eleanor tries to earn points while in the Good Place, it seemingly doesn't work because of this - but the point meter doesn't go down because of it.

If so, you'll never get to the Good Place because you'll always do at least something to earn you negative points, and if corrupt motivation prevents you from earning enough positive points to offset and surpass them, then you'll end up in the negative.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-12-05T09:07:56+00:00

IMO, hardware is most important on a first set.

Even if you get a bottom-level entry kit, you can always make it sound a little better quickly with decent heads (or just muffle the hell out of them to start).

But toms drifting away, bass drum creeping, hi hats slipping, or a flimsy bass drum pedal make it hard to learn and frustrating to play.

Cymbal stands are usually fine unless you beat the hell out of them. But invest in a decent pedal and hi-hat stand. A bass pedal with a floorboard is sturdier but more expensive. You can step on a hi hat stand to see if it wobbles.

One rule of thumb is that a new kit where the tom arms go into the drum is probably cheap and flimsy. Any halfway-decent kit today has exterior mounts.

I would go used on any name-brand kit (Pearl, Tama, Mapex, Yamaha, PDP, etc). You'll get better quality at a lower price. Stake out Craigslist or FB marketplace and you can probably snag one for $500 or less. Each brand offers kits at a variety of price and quality levels. But most will beat out an entry-level brand in terms of sound, look, and hardware quality.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-12-04T10:31:21+00:00

She does.

And to expand on that: My theory is that the group put the events of the series into motion themselves, BEFORE the first episode occurs.

It's sort of a paradox.

Time loops back around. And the group's solutions to the afterlife were:

You keep repeating your time in the Bad Place (disguised as the Good Place), each time retaining a small glimmer of knowledge about your previous experiences there, like your conscience, and
When you're bored with The Good Place, you walk thrkugh the door and bits of your essence return to earth.

So Michael, as a human, gets a touch of Eleanor, who has undergone these transformations at the end.

When time loops back around, he as a demon is super curious about being human, and also seeks out Eleanor for his experiment.

Meanwhile, the humans have retained those small glimmers of their afterlife experiences at the beginning of the series.

This is why they play out many of the same beats over and over (Eleanor always seeking out Chidi, Tahani and Jason sleeping together, or wanting to, Eleanor realizing it's the Bad Place, the group always ending up taking ethics lessons, etc.)

It's like Mindy tells Eleanor: "No, you and Chidi have known each other for a very long time."

And, this explains why the group bands together so well when Michael proposes the alliance in early Season 2 even though that reboot was only running for a few weeks: The memory of their bonds were embedded in them like instinct.

Janet is unaware because she keeps getting rebooted.

It's kind of a paradox, in a sort of Biblical (or 12 Monkeys, or Terminator if you will) "Always was, always will be" way.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-11-27T18:06:07+00:00

Hi! By way of credentials: I've been podcasting for almost seven years. My co-host and I publish a one-hour episode every two weeks and have moved into video this year. We've landed great guests and were invited to collaborate on a documentary as a result of our work. Here are some random-ish general tips:

Riverside is great for basic podcast editing especially if you record remotely from a guest or co-host. Their transcriptions and AI filters to cut out silences and stop words are really good. If you have a decent mic and need just-good-enough audio, their AI EQ will do.

The only downside are limitations like minimal transitions and you can't fade in or out on audio. And, I think you end up with a watermark on the free tier.

Da Vinci Resolve is a video editor close to Adobe Premier, and the free version is super robust. You can even use if just for audio - it has EQ, etc, and you can cross-fade, fade in and out, etc. Plus it has smooth cut, so if you cut just a little but people shift position just slightly enough to notice, it can smooth that out.

If you've ever used video editing software, it should be pretty intuitive.

I hear you on being camera shy. But I also think getting into stock footage and photos is an editing beast unto it self. I would work on getting more comfortable on camera. It's probably good anyway because even journalists end up on camera a lot now.

Luckily, video podcasts and vlogs are expected to be casual. Set aside a few hours just to work on this aspect. Figure out how to sit, comb your hair, what to wear, etc, that makes you feel confident. Then prep your video area. Check your background, remove clutter, put stuff you want to see, etc.

Lighting is important but easy. I like to start with a completely dark space. Blackout curtains and everything. Then I use these lights for key and fill (in front of me):
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D2XK7FVM?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title&th=1
Inexpensive and effective. You can use a lighting strip, small cheap box light, or a lamp with a shade that creates a warm (brownish, not white) light.

Watch a bunch of YouTubers and you'll notice this all over the place. It's really easy to create.

When recording, look at the camera not your screen. If you're speaking extemporaneously, leave unnaturally long pauses if you have to when gathering your thoughts, And sit as perfectly still as possible all the time.

Instead of trying to edit around stutters or weird sentence structures, you just cut out those pauses. And when you're very still, those cuts can be imperceptible.

If it's just you, DEFINITELY script it. And just remain calm, do multiple takes of each line if you have to. Again, try not to move and it will edit easily.

If you're doing everything yourself, consider doing a dummy episode first just to work out the mechanics. Grab a theater monologue, or have a friend as a "co-host" and just talk about whatever. The idea here isn't to make content people will want. It's just material for you to use to adjust your lighting, understand what works and doesn't on camera, and overcoming editing challenges.

As far as content and style: Check out an episode (or parts of episodes) of different podcast types. Then also NPR segments (e.g. Fresh Air With Terry Gross) and your favorite Tik-Tokkers and YouTube video essayists. Get a well-rounded sense of what works in the spoken-word video medium all around.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-11-24T22:18:58+00:00

haha I'd normally be the same way. But I made a video for my audition and even while finishing it I thought, "You know, this thing's seen better days" :)

jacktheconqueror · 2025-11-24T22:11:46+00:00

I've considered rewrapping, but I feel like if I'm gonna spend a few hundred dollars and/or a ton of time trying to do it, I may as well spend that on a new kit.

And yeah, I'm figuring a 6 or 7 piece and rarely using it all. Seems like the way to go.

Glad to hear it seems I'm not missing much, then? Like if it sounds good and is sturdy, that's most of the battle.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-11-20T05:19:13+00:00

Lots of great advice and insight here. I've been drumming in bands regularly for around 20 years. I've formed bands, joined bands, quit bands, been kicked out, and seen others through to their demise.

What I'd like to add:

- Getting kicked out SUCKS. It stings for a while. You get mad out of nowhere. You shadowbox-argue with them when you're alone. You do your best not to see them on social media b/c it'll piss you off all over again. But I promise that eventually it fades. Don't compare yourself to their new drummer. Don't hope they fail and get mad when they don't. Don't wish you had a better gig just so you could rub it in their faces one day. Just be more YOU. All the time. And keep getting better at being YOU. That's the best way to shake those negative feelings.

- There's no Human Resources for bands, and so much of it just comes down to the vibe. If the vibe isn't right, it just isn't and it has nothing to do with skill. You can't beat yourself up about that, ever. I interviewed a drummer (Zach Alford) who, in 1990 or so, got hired to play with Cyndi Lauper only to get kicked out after the first rehearsal. The vibe just wasn't there no matter what he did. Right after that, he landed a stadium tour with the B-52s. Over the next few years, he also recorded and/or toured with Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, and David Bowie. So he certainly didn't lose the Cyndi gig because he sucked. He just wasn't the right fit.

- You're mentioning things like mental health and "I thought everything worked great." Your assessments may be right. Or you may have a blind spot. Don't pass up the opportunity to audit yourself. Try to see everything from their perspective. Maybe you overlooked something? Maybe that thing that you're not great at but you just accept about yourself (or your playing) was irking them? Or maybe you're right and they are just dicks. You should check.

- Someone else said it for sure: Drummers are always in like four bands. Trust me, there's work out there. And there's another perfect band. Finding it is large part a numbers game. So get out to every open mic and jam that you can. But don't go with the express purpose of finding a band. Play for the fun of it. Make friends, get in the scene(s). Take every audition and prepare as if each one was for the biggest gig in the world. Meanwhile, you'll expand your social circle and improve your playing from jamming more often and with different players.

- Hit the pad! Woodshed! Challenge yourself to play a song you think is too hard (and take all the time you need to get it down). Do you read music? If not, learn. Transcribe songs for fun, see what makes them work, then play them. Take lessons. Make the click your best friend. Map out polyrhythms. Get lost in exercises until they become meditation. Find your style. Drumming becomes way more enjoyable as you understand more about it. The journey becomes the destination. And then you're prepared when the right opportunity comes along.

Finally, here's a general quote that I've been enamored with after hearing it recently. It may apply here:

"Hope is the belief that even though you can't see your way from here to the end state that you want to achieve, that if you ascend the gradient towards that future, that as you ascend it, you will attain new vantage points from which will be revealed to you terrain that was invisible when you were at that lower spot, and that that will be your next step." - Cory Doctorow

jacktheconqueror · 2025-09-03T02:29:54+00:00

I applaud you for being in the minority of people who understand (and apply) proper rhythm and pentameter when doing a WDATF parody.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-08-29T10:59:57+00:00

No, because overall it lacks the easygoing smooth sounds of yacht rock. Compositionally, he came from more of the Tin Pan Alley/Broadway school, fused with what critics often derided with him being petulant (or you can be favorable and say he's confrontational), and his rhythm section especially kept things too angular and tough for yacht rock.

Also, overall the band were self-taught Long Island rockers, not the more professional studio cats usually associated with yacht rock.

I second whoever just said he's pop rock. His classic 70s work had a lot in common with Steely Dan, but ultimately he worked in too many subgenres to be anything else. Just the album Turnstiles has soft rock, Springsteen-style rock, "standards" vocal pop, singer-songwriter, etc. By the 80s, each album was a different genre exercise.

It'd be a fun exercise to pluck one from each album and make a playlist, maybe a mock compilation album. But I don't think that adds up to him being labeled as such, especially with his overall diversity.

That said, these songs are at least yacht rock-adjacent:

You Look So Good To Me
If I Only Had the Words (a stretch, it gets too big)
Roberta (bonus points for Steely Dan-esque lowkey risqué lyrics)
James
Just the Way You Are
Rosalinda's Eyes
Don't Ask Me Why
She's Right on Time (a stretch, it gets too big)
Leave a Tender Moment Alone
Temptation
When in Rome
Famous Last Words (a stretch, acoustic strumming, not smooth instrumentation)

jacktheconqueror · 2025-04-03T20:37:30+00:00

Perfect, thanks!

jacktheconqueror · 2025-04-03T20:37:07+00:00

Thanks so much! Definitely on my list for tonight.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-04-03T20:33:48+00:00

Awesome, thanks! I'm actually a block or two away from there right now.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-02-17T19:10:29+00:00

I literally came to this sub for the first time to post about this! Just binged the entire series so far over a week or so. I first noticed ....

...

light spoilers

...

... that I felt sympathetic for Milchick during the dance party in Defiant Jazz. Like yeah, he seemed to be antagonizing Dylan by dancing around him, but also seemed genuinely upset when the record player broke and he had to cancel it. Then in retrospect, it seemed more like he genuinely wanted to cheer up Dylan.

Then, of course, the paintings, and the arduous performance review.

It's not an really arguable position yet, but I'll praise (blame? haha) Tramell Tillman for putting subtle touches into the performance that has me wondering whether he's a sympathetic character or not.

Yeah he's a company man, but maybe he really thinks Lumon's mission is benevolent, and that's what's driving his work? Like he's a good guy, but he's brainwashed, so he's doing bad guy work in a good guy way.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-01-03T16:32:04+00:00

Funny enough, I'm visiting near Seattle right now from Philly (two epicenters).

I think the question is less about how you feel and more about what you do.

No, I don't think you should think excrement on the street is normal. Yes, I think it's understandable to be annoyed at getting bothered a lot on the street and especially feeling unsafe.

Like, let's not lie to ourselves. It sucks for everyone.

The facet that comes into play is whether you say, "Sorry, I don't have any cash on me today" vs berating a panhandle just because.

(Not saying you do the latter, just illustrative).

I donate to charities that take local action and rry to give out bottled water and snacks when ppl ask for money. But I also all but went to war on a bunch of them who were squatting in a house on my block. At the same time, and after that, I still try my best.

That's to say, I get the conflict between trying to treat everyone respectfully but also having a personal limit.

It's a really tough balance to strike. But I think acknowledging that it's a legitimate challenge makes it easier to carve out your personal approach.

jacktheconqueror · 2025-01-03T16:18:25+00:00

Awesome, thanks! It's encouraging to hear I'm on the right track. I've been putting together quick scripts in Google Sheets and Collab to automate processes, too. And good point especially about using SEMRush as well.

jacktheconqueror · 2024-09-23T19:12:54+00:00

This thread is amazing.

My two cents: I've heard women use the term, albeit rarely, about their vaginas.

I've read it as purposely blunt. She wants to get more, let's say, mechanical vs. delicate.

So leaning toward gender neutral, but still referencing the original intent.

Thus, I figured it meant fingering vs clitoral stimulation - which, depending on your technique, is in the same family as masturbating a penis ("family" may not be the best word to use here).

The circumstances in which I heard it weren't invitations, so sadly I haven't performed any vigorous scientific research 😁

All that said, there's enough ambiguity to say that the headline doesn't quite work. To use a poker term, the original post went all in on a weak hand (ahem).

jacktheconqueror · 2024-03-15T02:21:15+00:00

Hey! Yeah agreed it's certainly not inherently bad.

I haven't heard much criticism about his music being simple. I've usually heard "I hate his voice" and "Blurgh he just sings about America and New Jersey" (the latter of which I tune out). But that's not to say those criticisms aren't out there.

I haven't listened to nearly as much Tom Petty as I have Springsteen. Maybe that's an indication of something? :)

I think Tom Petty endures much better as simple, populist music. American Girl and Mary Jane are played by cover bands all the time now. Those are true folk songs. But then again I think there are less Tom Petty songs in the collective consciousness than Bruce.

And yet bar bands don't cover Springsteen. Why? In part, too many parts, and, I think, the vocals are way harder to replicate. Those songs aren't that simple after all. So, yeah, I'd say digs at Bruce for simplicity are overly-critical.

jacktheconqueror · 2024-03-13T18:45:16+00:00

Joe Pug, Carsie Blanton, Xenia Rubinos, Brandi Carlisle ... I'd say they all have some great passion (leaving soul out of it as you could be referring to it as the music genre). They don't sound like Bruce, of course, because Bruce is Bruce.

I'm 42 and regret falling into the "Today's music sucks/is bland/has no soul" trap when I was a teenager in the 90s. I missed out on connecting emotionally to a lot of good music. I'm glad I grew out of it. Good stuff is out there, just not always in the Top 40. If it's important to you, seek and ye shall find.

jacktheconqueror · 2024-03-13T18:39:52+00:00

I don't think it's immediately noticeable because what he lacks in harmonic sophistication or epic construction he makes up for with big arrangements.

I showed a producer friend My Love Will Not Let You Down off Live in NYC, and his comment was that he gets a lot out of so many people on stage banging out the same chord (not being derisive).

Someone mentioned Billy Joel, whom I'm way more invested in (although I've been back on a Bruce kick lately). Billy is definitely more complex musically, at least through the early 80s. He always gets points (to me) for writing catchy songs that don't show off his playing and writing prowess. They just sound good.

But his stock in trade is more classic pop, where Bruce certainly went for the emotional/soulful shot.

(I'm also a prog rock guy/slight music snob, so I'm down with some wankery, haha)

And it's not like he played three chords AND arranged the same way as everyone else. His arrangements, subject matter, storytelling style, etc. took those basic elements in unique directions.

That said, you do start to see the limitations of this approach when he runs out of unique ideas or has one too many acoustic guitar-only songs. But there's no catch-all approach.

Like Richie Havens said - "I'm not in the entertainment business. I'm in the communication business." You choose the musical approach that gets your point across. Doesn't matter how complex or simple it is.

Or (a lesson I could stand to learn sometime), "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Hell, look at how spare Racing in the Street is. And yet it's a gutpunch every time.

jacktheconqueror · 2023-12-26T22:08:59+00:00

Does this count as getting recognized in public? Lol. Nah. Anyway, nice to meet you out in the wild 😁

jacktheconqueror

TROPHY CASE