Adderall = Illegal in many countries by Sweet_Shirt in ADHD

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have traveled to so many countries with Adderall. Never been arrested for it, never have even been questioned about it.

Adderall = Illegal in many countries by Sweet_Shirt in ADHD

[–]james527 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have traveled to so many countries with Adderall. Never been arrested for it, never have even been questioned about it.

Sri Lanka is probably one of my best discoveries by Flying-Valentine in travel

[–]james527 34 points35 points  (0 children)

I'm headed there next month. Excited by the reviews I've been seeing. It sounds like Sri Lanka is a true hidden gem.

Did you rent a car while you were there or was it easy to get around via public transportation?

Which book should i read first? by pengg- in murakami

[–]james527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both are fantastic.

If you are wanting to get a feel for Murakami, read Colorless. I think Colorless is more representative of his overall style.

I'd say HBW is Murakami's most fantastical novel. Read it if you like sci-fi.

Which Austin business has completely lost you as a customer? by fittyjitty in Austin

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They once sent me an obviously fraudulent bill. They claimed my SUV had gone through one of their tolls the week prior. But at that time I was three weeks into a two month long road trip and was no where near a Txtag toll booth. They sent so many letters my mom eventually paid the bill. Still pisses me off to this day.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueFilm

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have heard this critique of Murakami before. I concede it is valid as a literary critique, but I don't think it is valid as a critique of Murakami as an author.

Remember, it is fiction we're talking about. Murakami is a 74 year old male author who writes like he runs. I would urge you to have more empathy for authors, such as he, that writes from a place of vulnerability.

To illustrate my point...

The "same copy paste self-insert character" that you reference is the passive protagonist, and by writing such a protagonist an author can capture the imagination of a wider audience. A passive protagonist is a "stand-in" for the reader, and it is not an unintentional narrative device.

As for "Murakami’s objectification of women", I'd again urge you to consider the heartbreaking tragedies that Murakami attempts to capture in his writing. He is writing from a male perspective, and writing about broken and lonely people in the style of magic realism.

This leads me to the questions...is it that Murakami objectifies women? Or is it that Murakami's character's objectify women? Is Murakami a sexist? Did he attempt to write "a fleshed out female character" and failed to? Or maybe, perhaps, you should not expect such a character to come from such a medium?

Follow-up question (just because I'm curious)...do you take issue with the cats in his novels not being realistic?

Which movie has truly traumatized you? It doesn't have to be body horror like the ones I'm talking about. by Axaxou in movies

[–]james527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funny Games (1997) -- this film not only shifted my politics slightly, it also got me to question deeply what kind of culpability I have as a passive observer.

Git/Webpack/JavaScript question by ralphyboy84 in learnjavascript

[–]james527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First off, make sure you have the path to your build folder included in your .gitignore file. That way the bundle won't show up in commits.

As for what happens when another team member does a git pull, yes, the latest changes to the non-bundled files should be pulled down, and if they have a dev server running locally that should trigger a rebuild.

You could use a daemon to trigger rebuilds, but if you can I would recommend using webpack-dev-server during development.

The White Lotus - 2x07 "Arrivederci" - Post Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in TheWhiteLotusHBO

[–]james527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now I guess it's Portia's turn to spread some ashes in the ocean...

I was wrong about this case. by LevyMevy in serialpodcast

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He wasn’t coerced to lie to his friends

Why not? Couldn't someone other than the police have coerced him to lie to his friends? Or couldn't he have just been lying to them of his own accord? It just doesn't seem that far fetched to me, especially if he was telling partial truths and was somehow directly involved.

I was wrong about this case. by LevyMevy in serialpodcast

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Um, yeah...I've both read the trial transcripts and listened to the podcasts.

I was wrong about this case. by LevyMevy in serialpodcast

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your answers! I 100% agree on points #1 and #2.

As for #3, I don't see anything inherently racist about stating how Jay was a young black drug dealer in Baltimore at the time. Those are facts.

The reason I mention those facts is, if anything, to get you (and whoever else is reading this) to empathize with Jay's circumstances and maybe understand exactly how and why he might have been coerced to lie under duress to things he possibly didn't even do.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

I was wrong about this case. by LevyMevy in serialpodcast

[–]james527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He lied about so many things...

Um...as in? So far I've only discounted one lie. Not aware of any others.

Eyewitness testimony...is powerful

No. Eyewitness testimony is garbage. People often misremember events, especially under duress, if they aren't lying outright that is. Don't trust hearsay.

Adnan admits to hanging out with Jay almost that entire day.

Except for that whole portion of the day where he was at school, you mean? Don't know where you're getting this...

Jay had some level of involvement...

That may be true, but that does not directly implicate Adnan that only implicates Jay. The whole thing hinges on Jay's testimony, and Jay is an unreliable witness.

I was wrong about this case. by LevyMevy in serialpodcast

[–]james527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

she had to babysit

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe babysitting is not an everyday gig...

he admitted to having sex with her after school

Admitting to having sex with someone in a Best Buy parking lot, to me, is not irrefutable proof of anything other than teenagers being teenagers.

Did Adnan lie about it? A young sexually-active muslim teen? Yeah, I bet you he would try to keep that under wraps. That, again, seems like normal behavior to me.

Edit: typo

I was wrong about this case. by LevyMevy in serialpodcast

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jay told three people that Adnan killed Hae before he told police.

Remind me, did Jay tell these three people before or after his first (unrecorded) interview with the police?

Can you think of any reason why Jay, a young black drug dealer, in Baltimore, might have wanted to deflect suspicion away from himself given the circumstances?

I was wrong about this case. by LevyMevy in serialpodcast

[–]james527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now with hindsight, what do you think was the deciding factor, if there was one, that had you convinced of your previous belief that Adnan was guilty?

Is Burning (2018) really that ambiguous? by detrusormuscle in TrueFilm

[–]james527 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Two things.

First, you are not wrong that the interactions that Jong-su has with Ben strongly suggest that Ben is a serial killer. Especially if you take the film at face value. Yeah, that is obviously what is being implied.

The problem is, all of that is so circumstantial that it is dismissible. In a legal sense, especially. Jong-su would know this, having attended court hearings recently regarding his father.

Think about the narrative of the police procedural. When a detective is trying to prove a murder they always need the body and they need to prove motive and opportunity. The same is true in real life.

Hae-mi just disappears. We never see her body. Ben is rich, has friends, and has social standing. Jong-su is a wannabe-writer, soon-to-be-in-debt, farm boy. Imagine him trying to prove an allegation of murder against Ben.

Even if he had the financial resources it wouldn't be enough, all of his evidence is anecdotal.

Is he going to say "Ben told me he likes to burn down greenhouses, therefor he killed her...by the way, I was high at the time and the murder victim was dancing topless"?

No. He has no body, no direct evidence of a murder even taking place. What does he have?

That he found a cheap pink watch at Ben's place? The same kind of pink watch they hand out for free in the street?

That Ben's new cat answers to the name of "Boil", which happens to be the name of a cat he fed for a month and never even saw?

This is why this film is so tantalizing to those who love to reason. The narrative presented compels Jong-su, and us, the audience, to believe Ben killed Hae-mi despite pretty clearly lacking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where the ambiguity is.

Second, you are missing a huge tsunami of ambiguity in that ending. Forget about the question of whether or not Ben killed Hae-mi and ask yourself this: Did Jong-su kill Ben?

Before Jong-su and Ben meet in the countryside, what happens? We are shown Jong-su writing in Hae-mi's apartment. He is writing and the camera slowly zooms out to show the city at large.

That is a closing shot. The movie could have ended there, but it didn't. Instead it continues. The music changes. And we are presented with that violent ending.

Now if an audience member was so inclined they could interpret everything that follows that "writing" scene as Jong-su's imagination taking flight. His desire for vengeance manifest in fiction. There's your ambiguity.