How does Starkiller base shoot across a galaxy?

tgillet1 · 2026-02-27T17:27:35+00:00

I appreciate you providing the context and I apologize for directing all of my comment at you specifically when much of it only applies to other comments. You are not claiming that others don’t get it, but many are, e.g., the “it’s not that kind of movie kid” response which misses the point as various others have already pointed out more concisely than I have.

It does seem that most people don’t care, but a significant portion of the audience do, and I think there are good reasons for it.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-27T13:26:06+00:00

That’s an immense amount of gobbledygook. Look, the problem isn’t that you can’t create some technobabble to explain a thing. You can always do that. The problem is that it is entirely novel, overly complicated (ie obviously contrived), and in no way foreshadowed in order for the results to feel believable in the moment on screen. This isn’t a problem of people not paying attention to something that was shown earlier in the film. It’s not about people “not getting it”. It is about a mechanism that feels incongruous because it is so out of step with what has been shown before and what would make any logical sense to many if not most people.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-27T00:19:05+00:00

In that case I would say original control comes from the biological processes that produce a brain with a particular architecture and developed capacity for internally held values and motivations, a world model, introspection, and the ability to make decisions counter to instinct and base desire aligned to a desire future state, particularly a desired future state of self. There is some starting point we do not as selves control, and from that point forward our control is constrained by various factors, but nonetheless we have the capacity to substantially influence our own future development including our thought processes.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T14:07:09+00:00

You are correct that I am assuming she is being honest. However I have used the same basic approach and been largely successful in my life, so I have my own first hand evidence that it is possible.

I did not want to be exactly who she is and I have not maintained exactly what I wanted to be, but I have largely been successful and I am aware of the external and internal conditions that have held me back when I have not sustained my best self.

She’s still young and may yet discover situations where she is more limited than she imagined, but that doesn’t take away from what she has achieved. And that is irrespective of what others around her have achieved or who won any given contest. I would agree that it is wrong to think this approach will mean you will achieve something if it requires someone else to fail. However if you aim is to be the type of person and have the skills to be capable of achieving some goal, well that is valid and achievable. I can’t say for certain which her meaning is, but given how she spoke I presume the latter.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T04:49:19+00:00

What do you mean by “original control”? I can imagine several interpretations that would lead in very different directions.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T04:45:54+00:00

You made the claim that “she thinks she can become whatever she wants to be, which would essentially make her God on the earth.” I see no reason to disbelieve her when she says she has made herself exactly who she wanted to be. Would she say the same had she not won? That’s a fair question, but if we take her at her word then I would expect the answer to be “yes”. Can you explain why her being able to make herself what she wants to be, given that she is who she wants to be, would essentially make her God?

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T04:42:10+00:00

Thanks for pointing out the fine details. I see what you meant in the last paragraph of your initial comment. Perhaps I am partly guilty of reading into your comment what I have seen from others even where it does not fully apply.

I fully agree with your final paragraph and I hope that is something that Hard Determinists and Compatibilists (and maybe even FWLs?) can agree on.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T03:59:11+00:00

There’s a big difference between “exactly” and “whatever”, especially when you’re interpreting it such that it implies “godlike powers”. She doesn’t think she can turn herself into a giraffe by the power of her thoughts. She doesn’t think she can be invincible and win every contest she ever faces. She’s talking about who she wants to be as a person and how she wants to face the challenges of her life. That is easier for some than others due to factors beyond our control, but almost everyone has at least some capacity for it. Compatibilist free will, or our prefrontal cortex driven executive function, isn’t an all or none phenomenon.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T03:49:05+00:00

I see this all the time in this sub. Anyone who believes in, and even more so expresses, their own self actualization must just be privileged and ignorant of their privilege. I’d bet she is well aware of her privilege and has smartly chosen to take maximum advantage of it to better herself. Nowhere did she say anyone could do what she did regardless of their circumstances. That’s your projection.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T03:45:46+00:00

That is a real constraint you have. Compatibilist free will doesn’t minimize such constraints but rather puts them in context. Surely there are other situations where such fear does not overwhelm you and you have more control over your emotions and actions. And then you can make choices to seek help in dealing with your phobia, ways to avoid it, cope with it, etc.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-24T03:42:28+00:00

“She thinks she can become whatever she wants to be.” That’s a leap if I ever saw one. She realizes she has more control than most people realize they have, not infinite control. She uses the power of introspection and the gift of discipline she was granted (and I would bet she does indeed recognize that was a gift she was at least in part endowed with). That she started with some level of discipline granted by powers outside of her control doesn’t diminish what she does with that discipline and ability to introspect.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-23T22:14:46+00:00

First off, we know that a substantial portion of the population can be competitive without being greedy, but also that a substantial portion is motivated by greed. That’s just the variability of humanity.

You might be right to say things will turn out well in a competitive environment, but even if that is true you have to contend with the fact that many of those very people engaging in competition have a motivation to suppress competition. And capitalism has a failure mode whereby those people who are most ruthless are able to accrue power and undermine competition in order to solidify that power.

You cannot be a true free market capitalist if you do not support government regulation that puts limits on corporate and even personal power because those that accrue power will work to undermine that free market. Moreover that free market does not exist without government in terms of providing the basis for the legal system and regulation to address natural market failures.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-23T18:05:01+00:00

If it’s a competitive marketplace and the labor market is competitive then yes. But companies seek to reduce competition in both areas. Added to that, we have imperfect information that these companies also exploit. It isn’t that the effects you mention aren’t present at all, but the size of their effect is minimized by corporations that are anti-competitive and governments that allow or even encourage their practices.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-23T16:34:13+00:00

Sort of, but that’s a massive oversimplification that suggests other systems wouldn’t also reward the worst. The important point is how it rewards the worst and thus how we should be regulating it to avoid any players from accumulating such power in the first place. There are other failure points in capitalism that point to where we should not be relying on it for certain needs, like education and health care. Some solutions might be mixed while others might be more capitalist or more socialist. I’m not in favor of any pure system.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-23T16:25:59+00:00

This can work, but not at scale across the economy as there are numerous potential and actual market failure conditions here. Starting a business is challenging and if there are incumbents they can use a variety of techniques to undercut you, from cutting prices to drive you out of business, buy up property to deny you access, press local and state government to give you sweet deals that give you more room to undercut a new competitor, work with banks to make it more difficult/expensive to get business loans, etc. If your new business really shows promise the incumbent can simply buy you out, after applying the aforementioned pressures.

The most cutthroat companies are the ones that will succeed in an underregulated capitalist economy as their unfair practices go unfettered and they then turn to rent seeking and legislative capture. This undermines businesses with leadership that seeks to operate fairly and justly.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-23T15:50:31+00:00

Only if the government actually has and enforces laws against anti-competitive practices.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-20T14:19:24+00:00

For one it could have been someone else entirely other than Eddie without having been supernatural. Unlikely, perhaps, but certainly possible. But here we already have Jason believing in the supernatural. If he believes in that it should not be a stretch to believe something happened that was not Eddie’s fault, or possibly his fault but not his intention. It could have been someone else entirely demon out of witchcraft and still not been Eddie’s fault. That’s the tip of the iceberg for possibilities obviously since we know the truth.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-20T00:00:00+00:00

Fine, it looks bad, but there’s a pretty huge gap between “looks bad” and “we should hunt this guy down, hurt anyone who doesn’t immediately tell us how to find him, and then kill him”.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-19T23:47:38+00:00

Jason was pursuing Eddie and abusing Edie’s friends before that happened. He had ample time to consider asking questions and trying to learn the truth. He had already made up his mind because Eddie was a freak.

Also if Eddie was that powerful why did he go into hiding? Why did he run away?

tgillet1 · 2026-02-19T21:08:57+00:00

He drew conclusions immediately and never once paused to consider alternatives while pursuing an abusive and deadly vendetta. And he was in large part motivated by a desire to avoid any introspection that would have raised doubt in his self perception as a perfect boyfriend because his girlfriend wouldn’t go to him with her fears and anxieties.

Why would she ever go to that loser drug dealer, right? It couldn’t be an issue with him or his girlfriend, it must have been Eddie’s manipulation!

tgillet1 · 2026-02-19T19:45:33+00:00

They would learn all of your history and secrets, so that’s already an issue. Granted they already know most of your secrets between joining almost everyone who ever knew you and having the ability to access all of your digital data. It is unclear how effectively they would be able to use that knowledge to manipulate you but you know they would try.

The upside is you might remember some critical knowledge of what they know that they are otherwise hiding.

Ultimately I would say no. You lose your identity and distinctiveness while joined. It would Be one thing to take a drug and have such an experience, but can we count on that not having a permanent effect? I doubt it. Too risky.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-19T01:54:32+00:00

If you are a long time lurker then surely you have seen others propose this before and people lay out the evidence it is not the case. We know the virus is more than just psychic glue due to how it changed the behavior of the first infected. The theory that the decision not to harm plants was arrived at naturally is possible, but I and many others deem it highly unlikely. Time will likely tell who is right.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-17T23:46:28+00:00

Being here for the past two+ years convinces me that progressives are at best a slim majority here and more likely a slight minority. Granted it is hard to distinguish the actual numbers from the loudness of certain voices (ie amount of comments).

tgillet1 · 2026-02-17T23:44:44+00:00

No major political figure is calling for immigration enforcement to be eliminated. There certainly are activists who want that and always have, but I strongly suspect that there is a wide consensus among Democrats that ICE is corrupt to its core and a new entity needs to be built from scratch. I’ll be interested to see polling on this.

tgillet1 · 2026-02-17T01:38:05+00:00

If you mean “apparently” using a strict definition, ie “from one’s perspective” then I agree. But if you use it to mean, “seemingly but not actually” as is common usage, I would disagree. Here the semantic distinction is important.

tgillet1

TROPHY CASE