Unfortunately he lost the site when he switched hosts, I've been badgering him for years to restart it.
Here's the original titanic/float one: https://web.archive.org/web/20120315194303/http://moviesasco...
Rick: Boy, you're really gonna flip your lid over this one.
Morty: Oh, w-wh... what is it?
Rick: It's a device, Morty, that when you put it in your ear, you can enter people's dreams, Morty. It's just like that movie you keep crowing about!
Morty: You're talking about Inception?
Rick: That's right, Morty! This is gonna be a lot like that, except y'know, it's gonna me-beh... make sense.
Morty: Inception made sense!
Rick: You don't have to try and impress me, Morty!
Rick: "It's been six hours. Dreams move one one-hundredth the speed of reality, and dog time is one-seventh human time. So, you know, every day here is like a minute. It's like Inception, Morty, so if it's confusing and stupid, then so is everyone's favorite movie."
Exactly like that. It happens in real-life and no doubt that's where they based it from. It happened to me a couple of times already, the deepest I got was 4 levels.
Real-life sleeping > level 1: sleeping > Level 2: sleeping > Level 3: sleeping > level 4: awake
Usually, it was very bad. A form of nightmare. You slowly get aware of it, even to the point that your brain tells you that you are awake. Then when something happens that you want to wake up (for example, you died, or you suddenly got aware you're sleeping), you will indeed wake up, up to the next level.
Once again, your brain will tell you that you are finally awake.
The first experience I had of this was when I was barely a teenager. It was a nightmare within a nightmare within a nightmare within a nightmare. When I got fully aware I was sleeping, that's when I fought, waking up, then waking up, then waking up, then finally waking up to the real world.
Problem was, I was no longer sure if it was the real world I woke up to. To this day, I sometimes think I am still sleeping.
Just like the other ending in Inception. Hence I love that movie. I can relate.
This is a well-known problem in the lucid dreaming community. There are some surprisingly easy ways to check. I find the simplest is to count my fingers out loud. If there are definitely five on each hand, then I'm awake. If there's any problem coming up with a count, then I'm asleep, no matter how much it seems like I'm awake.
(I also have dreams where I wake up over and over and over, only to realize that shit, I'm still dreaming. It's surprisingly disconcerting, there's a kind of physical sense of losing my mind involved.)
In any dream state, you can test the rules of the world around you and see that your brain doesn't quite build the world to completeness. Light switches will not work, text will morph and shift either in front of your eyes or when you look away and turn back, the people around you will spontaneously morph into others, you can breathe through your nose when it's plugged, etc.
What happened to you is referred to as a false awakening. Testing the reality of your situation by checking clocks, breathing through your nose, counting your fingers, etc. will all quickly put you into a more lucid and aware state. From there you either continue or, more commonly, you wake up.
I haven't thought of that. What became my anchor for the past few years have been my schedule or being aware of it.
But there were rare cases when in my dream state, the reality is happening in the dream and that totally puts me off greatly. A good example is when I'm dreaming I woke up, went to work, and got home.
When I woke up, I didn't know until I arrived at the office and learned no day has passed yet.
It's true, if you're too much into lucid dreaming, there are times when you can't tell if you've woken up. Parts of the dream spill overs in the waking world.
It worked for me once and I got really excited. Too excited and woke up :(. Never happened again (not that I've been trying).
On the movie, I think the really interesting part was not the recursive dreaming but rather how our ideas- that we think are novel - are not actually ours. After watching it, me and my wife started observing it on each other. Me or she would come up with something and the other would point out some conversation in the recent past that seeded it. Fun and a bit scary.
And when we notice how our original idea (and we're sure it's the first) is too similar to another who beat us to publication, yet both parties are sure no one copied anyone... well, it gives credence to the idea that there is an alternate space out there... or maybe we can access each other's ideas on some quantum level.
Speaking of quantum level, it might even be possible altogether.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
— Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I've been trying to figure out how to know I am levels deep but to no avail.
This is pretty neat overview though:
Code running in a container runs slower than in the outside world ;-)
Nolan tends to write really, really, really soft scifi.
Locating the bottom of the address space ... do_syscall_stub : ret = -1, offset = 1052680, data = 18ca9008
do_syscall_stub: syscall 192 failed, return value = 0xffffffff, expected return value = 0x1000
syscall parameters: 0x1000 0x1000 0x7 0x11 0x3 0x2449
Failed to flush page for address 0x1000
I can't remember in the movie what was the deepest dream possible but you could pick a large base ticker value in case whatever you decide as the lowest dream is not (I remember the movie leaving that as an open question).
if ( now - timestamp > rand() )
now = now - rand();
The movie interleaves them so you have a post-shooting event then a pre-shooting event until you get to the end where the shooting happens then it leads to the exposition.
> [Fischer] exiting back to reality from level  with the THOUGHT:
> Illegal instruction: 4
ARCH_FLAGS := -m64
ARCH_FLAGS := -m32
To use other Nolan movies as a point of comparison, Memento and The Prestige are much more accomplished in terms of fully exploiting their concepts. And within the domain of movies exploring the theme of "your lived experience is a dream/illusion", there are much more effective and/or complex examples.
I have a feeling that Inception is kind of like Interstellar in terms of public perception: people are psyched by the initial concept, so they don't pay attention to the fact that its underlying narrative structure is pretty run-of-the-mill.
I guess I sound like a buzzkill! If I've missed any deep concept within Inception, I'd be glad to be schooled/enlightened, since I like understanding what makes a movie tick. Also, I don't think it's a bad movie at all, just that it's not that complicated once we're past the initial disorientation.
 Before anybody asks, in no particular orders: In The Mouth Of Madness, Mulholland Drive, Paprika, Written By. In a different vein: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Hell, even Total Recall (1990 version) and The Matrix probably apply.
Having to constantly track how many levels deep you are, how time flows at that level, the rules for what may/may not wake you out of a level, the specific actions going on during the specific levels at those rates of time, how they interact all together, and whether you were right about the level the movie took place at the entire time and what that means for it all, and the information you've learned and leaned on to make the assumptions you have at every point.
It's a very complex, complicated movie built out of very simple premises.
> I have a feeling that Inception is kind of like Interstellar in terms of public perception
Possibly. I wasn't super impressed by Interstellar, but not for the same reasons people around me always seemed to point out. To me it felt like a story that might have wanted to make some interesting philosophical points but decided to hide them almost completely behind staid and rote characters and plot and overly interpersonal emotion driven motivations, given the scope of the project they were supposed to be involved in.
> If I've missed any deep concept within Inception
I don't think so, I think you just misinterpreted what I meant by complicated. It's not conceptually or philosophically complicated, it's mechanically complicated. In the same way that two separate expressions of an algorithm or procedure may be simple or complicated, elegant or a bunch of spaghetti code. Inception is a simple set of concepts expressed as spaghetti code, but done so purposefully with the intent to entertain.
The cool thing about the movie is that you can misunderstand nearly all of that, and when the music begins playing across all three (four?) dreams you immediately grasp the consequence for the plot.
It's like not caring about Gnu make's console diarrhea flashing past the screen, until the final message tells you a test failed and suddenly going, "Oh, shit."
FWIW, a classic sci-fi movie that leaves me similarly cold is Bladerunner (although I love Philip K. Dick).
Shortest explanation? The film combines Christian symbolism (Matthew 7:24), the Platonic theory of the soul (anamnesis), the Fisher King story from the Grail Legends, and the Greek legend of Theseus in the Labyrinth. The four parables intertwine effortlessly: Mal is simultaneously the Minotaur in the labyrinth, the Platonic negative (who falls into the world and forgets the truth she once knew), and the faithless temptress who chooses to build on sand.
The film then does to the audience what it shows the heist team doing to Fischer ("your mind is the scene of the crime"). So it is a meta-heist film that discusses how art communicates with its audience, all the while following the convention of the heist genre in showing us exactly what it is doing and then surprising us when it pulls it off.
I guess I'll have to re-watch that movie, then.
Stanislaw Lem's Futurological Congress explores similar ideas with both brilliance and humour (avoid the dire movie based on the novel however).
I think Mulholland Drive was such an effective foil for power fantasies because it started in a dream state then revealed the depressing and pedestrian triggers for that state. I saw it late in graduate school and the sense of failure permeating Naomi Watts' character in the second half hit very close to home. I don't know if it would have worked if the frame for the movie had not been so mundane (in contrast to something like Inception, which relies so heavily on a black box dream-infiltration device).
In this sense Inception and Dunkirk are very similar. There's a wonderful choreography to make all these variable-speed timelines hang together in viewer-time.
cout << ARGB.value << endl
Better question: Why isn't assembly in quotes?
Some people always write their surname in ALL-CAPS, too, and I never understood that, either.
But it isn't so much that I don't understand. I don't understand a lot of things. It's that nobody else seems to understand, either. Even the ones who do it. Or they've all taken a vow to keep this information from the rest of us.
Because different cultures order the components of their names differently, and writing the surname in all-caps indicates which is which.