It's not just that, but also the main protagonist is written terribly and never given any real faults or challenges to overcome. During the entire book there is never a challenge that is not resolved by the next paragraph.
The Japanese friends that he makes are grossly stereotyped and are kept one dimensional during the entire book as well.
The main character also strikes me as incredibly creepy, and to a level where he could be classified as an para-social stalker. Just comes off as being a terrible person overall.
Spielberg's movie however is fantastic and one of those rare instances where the movie truly does outrank the book.
The film even has a proper ending which in itself is hugely thought provoking and something we definitely should consider. The book, if I remember correctly, just sets up for another book.
Tropes, Caricature, Mocking, Sterotypes... These things have been the tools of comedy for a LONG time. For good or bad they will remain that.
The problem is context, it's Lenny Bruce mocking the cop who is reading back his skit in court. It's Dave Chapel pointing out how people quoting him on twitter without the context miss the point...
These are made up people in a make believe world doing made up things. They aren't meant to be taken seriously on any level.
I'm not supporting the parent comment. But don't you think we as humans have a penchant for conflating the reel and the real and ending up reinforcing the stereotypes present in the world?
If anything, we need less stereotypes. A caricature is fine, But after a certain point it just feels tiresomely pigeonholing into an idea.
Love the sneaky word play! Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?
> ... reinforcing the stereotypes present in the world
The whole point of comedy is to take away the teeth behind these things. The act is meant to reshape culture and conversation. Stereotype, beauty, the perception of color, were very fungible and its just another tool!
In reference to the first video: did the definition of 'misogyny' change while I wasn't looking? These guys don't seem to exhibit 'dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women'. They simply want to have sex.
Also, one of the main features of the show seems to be to point out the fact that, with respect to women: That's Not How To Do It. So, to claim that the show's writers are "doing it wrong" seems to be missing the point. It'd be like criticizing the writers of All in the Family for imbuing Archie Bunker with working-class conservative values. The whole point of the show was to illustrate how wrong he was.
For the first two guys, the video's point is that their sexual harassment, spying, and dehumanizing comments towards women are played for laughs without it being obviously wrong. The humor is in them being bad at socializing; their behaviors aren't addressed, and are portrayed as pathetic, socially repellent, but ultimately harmless.
The comments Sheldon makes are misogynist in the literal sense of the definition you gave, too, self-evidently so, IMO. The first video starts listing examples at 10:45. Again, the humor is just in the juxtaposition of average people's attitudes with his open contempt for women, with his bigotry acknowledged but never really addressed.
If all entertainment must conform to an idealistic view of society then it's just going to be really boring isn't it? I think a lot of people are not going to watch TV shows if they only portray the world in this highly moralized way.
I probably wouldn't like the characters or watch the show if they didn't make the jokes or have the quirks and shortcomings that they do.
The point is whether the artistic output is prosocial or antisocial. Different aspects can be different levels of one or the other: art, commentary, critique, education are all important. Reproducing awful antisocial behaviors without the attendant critique on those behaviors leads people to normalize and ultimately adopt those behaviors. We are social animals and time and time again it's proven that it doesn't matter if we're "socializing" with real people or fictional characters, we want to be part of a perceived in-group and so will act in ways that make us think we'll be liked by those whose gaze matters to us. Sitcoms are especially capable of stirring up these feelings since there is immediate social feedback (laughtrack) to the behaviors seen on screen.
There needs to be a statue built for this man. My understanding of Rust and low level computing has become oceanic due this man's hours of videos and books.
I started using Firefox as a main driver a year ago due to me interfacing with Linux distros a lot more often. It's the browser that is usually always installed from the get and offers the best experience after logging into my Firefox account.
They also have some other really good tools they support such as firefox relay which is basically a proxy email address for your main email so you can post your an address on the airwaves w/o compromising your main email.
Pocket for saving articles you read on the internet.
I take the Capitol Limited(Chicago <-> DC) most of the time when I go back to home.
Pros:
+ Comfort. You basically get a first class seat with cafeteria access. You can also purchase a whole room, but is less affordable than a plane ticket if you're traveling alone.
+ Regularity. The train leaves at the same time everyday both from DC and Chicago.
+ It reaches parts of the country not easily accessed by an Airport. If you need to visit someone in middle of nowhere USA, Amtrak might just be a better option.
+ Price. Book it in advance and you'll be saving ~$200 in airfare.
+ No TSA to check your luggage, some trains allow you to bring your bike, and there's always plenty overhead space.
+ Easy access to outlets for charging devices.
Cons:
+ Long! Chicago to DC takes 17 hours. Chicago to San Francisco can take two days. SW Pennsylvania is snaking route that feels like forever. It's really a question of how much you value your time.
+ No WIFI on most trains, so bring a book if you cannot scrum up a hotspot.
Quick? That's 1100km in 17h. 65km/h average. Regular, non-high speed should be able to do max 160-200 km/h, achieving average speed - including stops - over 130km/h, which is 2x faster.
It has a lot of stops, also theres issues with track speed limits. Additionally, it's running on freight rail, not passenger rail. So theres no hope of hitting 130km/h. (80mph in freedom units) On top of that our cars are grandfathered in and can't be replaced at the moment.
>It has a lot of stops, also theres issues with track speed limits.
Outside of major cities, it's generally a thing where you pour in money and faster track speeds come out.
>Additionally, it's running on freight rail, not passenger rail.
In many countries, there are no such distinctions outside of HSR which has it's own requirements - it's all mixed use. In Poland freight trains use the same 160-200km/h tracks as passenger railway, and move aside to let faster trains go through. Also they use tracks more when there are pretty much 0 passenger trains, like in the middle of the night.
>On top of that our cars are grandfathered in and can't be replaced at the moment.
I completely do not understand that part. Your railway cars can't hit 160km/h?
The problem is the freight railways own the track and amtrak doesn't. Legally amtrak has right of way over the freight trains but the freight companies routinely flout this and cause delays as the law is unenforced. Amtrak keeps track of these incidents which they publish on their site here: https://www.amtrak.com/on-time-performance
I guess that's a politics issue, the freight companies can chuck money at lobbying to make sure they don't have to give way.
Hopefully with some decent lines appearing in the US, Brightline and California HSR in the future people will start to experience better rail and this stuff will get more focus.
Amtrak trains can hit 80-90 mph, even the big ugly beasts. Some are rated to the lowest of high speed rail, but the track has to be updated with positive train control (PTC) to go that fast in the USA, and freight railroads have no need or desire to install that.
People from Europe don’t quite realize just how much freight the US moves by rail. It’s absolutely batshit.
> U.S. freight movements will rise from around 19.3 billion tons in 2020
Outside the Acela corridor is there a passenger train that achieves that in the US? Maybe the new Brightline. I've ridden the Amtrak Cascades quite a bit between Portland and Seattle. It's a scheduled 3.5 hour ride that usually takes closer to 4 hours. Driving takes 3 hours if you're lucky usually closer to 3.5, although I had a 5 hour return trip by car from Seattle one time when I left at 4pm on a Friday.
Point is, Cascades is one of the better services outside the NE corridor and it still tops out at only 75mph (120km/h). The average trip speed is closer to 50mph (80km/h).
We have a long way to go to achieve anything resembling European levels of service. Japanese levels feel like an impossibility.
However, the reason Bash is so prolific amongst Sys Admins such as myself is the fact that they are portable and reliable to use across Debian, Arch or RHEL based distributions.
You don't have to import extra libraries, ensure that you are running the proper python environment, or be certain that pip is properly installed and configured for whatever extra source code beyond what is included out of the box.
Bash is the most consistent code you can write to perform any task you need when you have to work with Linux.
Python is (at least in the CPython implementation) compiled, to python byte code which runs on the python virtual machine.
Its not compiled to native code. (Unless you use one of the compilers which do compile it to native code, though they tend to support only a subset of python.)
Another commenter beat me to it but still: sh / bash / zsh are quite fine up until certain complexity (say 500 lines), after which adding even a single small feature becomes a huge drag. We're talking hours for something that would take me 10 minutes in Golang and 15 in Rust.
I can actually agree with this take. Most of the opinions I've seen in this vein take some absurdly small limit, like 5 lines. 500, though? Yeah. My team rewrote a ProxySQL handler in Python because the bash version had gotten out of hand, and there were only a handful of people who could understand what it was doing. It passed 100% of spellcheck tests, and was as modular as it could possibly be, but modifying it was still an exercise in pain.
> portable and reliable to use across Debian, Arch or RHEL based distributions
Until you try to use a newer feature or try the script in a Mac or BSD or any older bash.
SH code is completely portable, but bash itself can have quite a few novel features. Don’t get me wrong - I’m happy the language is dynamic and still growing. But it can make things awkward when trying to use a script from a newer system on an older server (and the author has been “clever”).
Adam Ragusea is a goldmine of well explained recipes that you could actually cook on a regular basis, even for things like weeknight meals. He tends to emphasize understanding and intuition and using your senses over exact measurement, this is how people are able to cook quickly and with lower mental overhead. Often you have to measure the first time you make a dish to get calibrated, and then can just wing it after that.
Adam loves to go into various details and explanations along the way. I'll even see comments from experienced cooks saying they learned something new.
Just one exception to this comment, I've found weight ratios to be very important when baking. Recipes that go by weight tend to be of much higher precision and overall quality.
Lastly, as a beginner, don't be afraid to get things really hot! As long as you don't see smoke (especially from oil, oil should never release any smoke), heat is your friend. I ditched nonstick for stainless, using heavy fats/oil (ghee, tallow, olive oil) + high heat — and never looked back. And don't forget, even as Adam would say, better ingredients make for better results!
j-kenji lopez-alt is great for beginners and experienced cooks alike. very science forward into the why and he generally shows you how to cook what he's going to eat for dinner. https://www.youtube.com/@JKenjiLopezAlt
helen rennie is a cooking teacher and is also good but the recipes can shuffle from esoteric to mundane so you have to pick and choose. https://www.youtube.com/c/helenrennie/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@EthanChlebowski is a solid and practical channel to pick and choose from. though the more recent videos are more of a deep dive into the science. the older videos are more about single recipes with some tangents on technique.
serious eats and americas test kitchen are good reliable recipe factories but require a lot more steps and effort generally. but at the end of them you will have a very well tested and usually tasty dish. so once you have your chops from the above you can branch out a bit with some more complicated dishes.
avoid any of the big recipe aggregators as they are so low quality recipes that aren't worth your time. all recipes etc.
If you're into Chinese cooking, then the Chinese Cooking Demystified channel is excellent. This is not your lemon chicken from the mall food court… They deep-dive into all the regional cuisines and present non-mainland-China-friendly recipes and techniques. It's a real eye-opener.
For something really out-there, Wilderness Cooking (again, a terrible name) is intriguing. It's this guy living in what looks like a pretty remote village in Azerbaijan doing traditional outdoor feasts. Warning: not even remotely vegetarian-friendly.
I'm gonna shill for apple and say that this is probably an oversight. Something that has been around for years and everyone expects to work as such that fell out of QA testing. Hopefully they bring it back after realizing their slipup.
That being said, I've used Kindle for years because it's online etc. They have had this same feature for years on their mobile versions so I don't get how this was a killer feature of Books.
The Apple Books version wasn't just a static animation—you could partially flip the page, flip it back, make just the corner flip up a little then push it back in place, et c., all with smooth and responsive enough operation that it was close-enough to feeling like a real, physical thing. The "back" of the page, as it flipped, showed the text from the front as if it were showing through thin paper, it wasn't just blank. Lots of apps have page flip animations but most of them are both non-interactive and bad. Apple's was interactive and good. Dunno if Kindle's is as good—I used it long ago and my recollection was a slow, ugly, non-interactive page flip animation, but it may have changed since then.
[EDIT] Two key real-book-reading behaviors this enabled, that a non-interactive page flip animation (which I personally find a ton worse than no animation) does not:
1) You could "play" with the corner and edge of the page while reading. Great for fidgeters, and analogous to what some of us do when reading real books.
2) You could start to flip the page as you were nearing the end of the current page.
Kindle's animation is pretty good, and I did that fidgeting thing with it all the time. I've never experienced the stuttering on Android that the OP has on iOS. It also shows the text bleeding through the back side of the page.
But the animation is disabled by default and lately I've stuck with the regular sliding animation because it's faster and much less obtrusive. It also lets you start turning the page as you're reading the last line.
I disagree that something like this could have been an oversight. A designer spent time coming up with the new animation, it was approved by somebody in a project management role, and engineers had to spend time implementing the new feature.
Apple has an intense culture of dogfooding, so it would surprise me very much if someone in a leadership position didn't experience the new page-flipping animation, much less explicitly approve its design.
But what I could imagine is that it fell out of product oversight and an engineer just came along and said "well that's a really complicated piece of code, I don't want to maintain that, I'll replace it with something simple", and nobody pushed back because this isn't a high-priority feature any more
That’s not really a change you miss if you do any QA of that app at all. And if it was missed that’s even worse for Apple than if it was a conscious choice.
My shill for Apple here is that the simple sliding animation is much better. I never liked that book animation. It felt heavy and distracting and out of place like most skeuomorphism.
It wasn't just skeuomorphic, it had a functional component. It helped you keep your place and maintain context as you turned the page, just as you'd do with your finger while reading a real book.
No one has ever designed a physical book that works anything like the new page-turning approach, and you have to believe there's a reason for that.
The Japanese friends that he makes are grossly stereotyped and are kept one dimensional during the entire book as well.
The main character also strikes me as incredibly creepy, and to a level where he could be classified as an para-social stalker. Just comes off as being a terrible person overall.
Spielberg's movie however is fantastic and one of those rare instances where the movie truly does outrank the book.