Defining Oneself

I am sure I've written of this some time back, but the question of how one defines oneself has been nagging at me ever since. How does one define oneself in a vacuum? While the more socially oriented or "realistic" folk would say that one cannot be defined in isolation, I would think that it's both sad and lazy to think of it that way. When one strips away one's career, friends, deeds and such, does one truly cease to exist? In my opinion, that is impossible. True, one may cease to exist in all the contexts mentioned, but one does still have a core of one's being that is independent of all the above. What's important is to constantly be aware of this core, and to constantly improve upon it. I know of people who commit suicide once they are stripped of their career and such, saying that everything that's ever meant anything to them has been taken away and that they have no further reason to live. For these people at least, they have no core to their being and are thus shattered by the move. They find themselves unable to pick themselves up. I define myself by my interests and my beliefs. Strip away the usual, and I have that core at the very least. Everything else about me is largely mutable. Should I be taken down to basics, I would find a new me to build at some point. Perhaps that simply means that I am not anchored at any single point, but it also means that I am slightly better at rolling with the punches.

Melancholia

It's interesting how certain stimuli can trigger a bout of melancholia. For me, the recently remembered trigger was wet weather at night. Typically, rain in the daytime makes me feel really good, not least because going out on a clear and sunny day is my idea of a very very bad day. However, at night, it reminds me of something I've lost but can't remember. To be precise, it feels a lot like a lost sense of discovery. I guess part of the feeling comes from no longer seeing the mysteries of the night. I've been out on too many rain nights already, and clear ones besides. Ultimately, I suppose it is the desire for a change of scene, such that I may regain my curiosity. Truly, it is not a good feeling, becoming jaded in this manner. Sometimes I think there is something to be found out there, something I seek. Unfortunately, I still do not know what that is, only that it is not here. I can only trust that I'd know it when I find it.

Arkham City

I finally got down to playing Arkham City, and this time I opted to go with the gamepad as my primary input. Seeing as how the game was originally developed for console, I figured it'd be more fun on the pad. Surprisingly, the pad on default settings proved to be a less enjoyable option than my doing the same with mouse and keyboard back in Arkham Asylum. I've not played very far so I shall not make generalizations of the gameplay, but my impression so far is that the combat just isn't quite as sophisticated as I thought it would be given that the game is the second in the series. For starters, Batman still blends the attack across what looks like 20 meters, which is a pretty absurd distance even for the caped crusader. Moreover, it seems so far that it's very possible to counter a strike using a regular attack, which is unusual enough considering that the proper way to deal with it is the counter move itself. Of course, I am not judging it as such, just stating the facts as they are. I'm sure the gameplay was done the way it is to keep the game fun for everyone, but it just seems improbable in a real fight scene. I did really enjoy the new freedom in gliding and the open world approach, however. It feels good, to be able to explore the city and basically work the criminals the way Batman would've in the comics. Perhaps I shall write again, or not. There is Diablo 3 on the horizon after all, and I imagine it shall take up a little of my time for a while after.

The Avengers

If you haven't already watched it, and love the Marvel comics, why are you reading this? Get out there and watch the film already. Joss Whedon managed to get the common theme of protecting the world from imminent destruction with tried and tired Marvel characters together to create what I'd regard as a masterpiece as far as the Marvel movies are concerned. I came to the movie expecting little more than the usual Marvel action flick, but got much more than I anticipated. The film manages to pull the Avengers characters (excepting Spidey) into action highlighting the tensions and vulnerabilities between them, and forging it into a narrative that is humorous in all the right places while preserving the intensity and seriousness that accompanies a world saving struggle. While there are the usual minor authenticity issues and plot holes, Avengers manages to mostly hold together as a rather engaging and memorable action flick while solidly preserving each characters' unique personalities. Overall I can say that I am very pleased with the movie, and that it deserves a solid 8.5/10.

The Night Shift

I was talking with a few of my more nocturnal friends, and it seems that we are in agreement that it would be very nice indeed were it possible for companies to run proper night shifts. By that I do mean professional shift work across the board, rather than the usual select few professions. Realistically, there is no reason for modern cities to stick to the traditional agrarian schedule. True, the pragmatists would argue that the agrarian 9-5 is the current de facto standard and that we should adapt to it. However, I think the time is also ripe for societies and economies to consider viable alternatives. With modern technologies, work is no longer bound to the cycle of the sun, and it is every bit a realistic option to have work done in the dead of night. Now, consider the cost of running a city approximately half of its potential 24 productive hours. For starters, the largely monolithic clock creates peak hours that cause major congestion. Moreover, it makes for deserted times where crime becomes a fairly viable option. Not to mention the economic cost of having stuff shut down for about half a day either way. Running a proper night city will mitigate that, along with the silliness whereby retail stores close at precisely the same time that offices are open. And in a city, that's precisely when everyone's just not free to do any shopping. If anyone is willing to think about it, that really doesn't make sense. Of course, in order to pull off the vision of a night city, it needs to be run as a complete system. I've seen how the cities creep towards the night concept, with 24 hour supermarkets and cinemas running past 12 midnight, but all in all it remains a fringe activity at best. Without childcare, schools, offices and such running the night shift as well, it becomes extremely difficult to get things moving properly. Given the right stimulus, however, I foresee the 24 hour city can be a rather enriching approach for any city that implements it.

L'Arc En Ciel World Tour - Singapore

Tonight, I had my first ever emergency concert. Yes it sounds funny, but it happened regardless. A friend called me and said hey she's got tickets for the L'Arc En Ciel concert. Omg? OMG! Wait wha... Ok well it's easily the first time a call came in saying that I had a chance to pop over to a 20th anniversary one-night-only concert by a band that I kinda like and it's in 2 hours. Sweet. Couldn't say no anyway. The concert itself went off with a bang, quite literally. The band played their songs one after another, with pauses in between but nothing too major. The songs were sufficiently familiar that the audience could easily sing along. Things were a bit too loud for me (as usual) and I was mildly disappointed that the audio guy let the speakers distort during some parts of the songs. Sometimes it pays not to max the sound system out. Regardless the soreness in my ears and dazzle to my eyes, I did have a whale of a time and certainly did not regret attending. As usual, Hyde's being his cute charming ageless self, raising the temperatures of a goodly number of people with his mere presence. Lovely. I find that I have the annoying inability to appreciate things as they are. Throughout the concert, I couldn't help but notice how easily the audience was manipulated by cues from the band and the SFX crew. They even aped certain animations that were played during the intermission periods and generally worked with the performers. True, some may say that it is out of sport, but I think there's more than a little herd instinct thrown in. Regardless, people were certainly having fun and I guess that's what really counts. Overall I'd say it was a right unforgettable experience, one that I actually appreciate. Sadly it'll live on exclusively in my memories, because there was no opportunity to photograph or film it. Or get someone's autograph or whatever. Not that I really mind. On a completely unrelated note, the lingering hollowness still haunts me. There's something that I need, and it still eludes me, keeping me from feeling truly happy.

Lockout

There are some movies that start strong and grow progressively worse towards the end. Lockout is one such movie. The premise of an orbital prison a'la futuristic Alcatraz is intriguing, and then as usual things go wrong, which necessitates the insertion of a special forces trooper to get the situation rectified. The movie starts strong, with a believable orbital prison, and strong characters that are distinctive and likeable. Well maybe not likeable by everyone but certainly very distinct. For moments there I thought I detected hints of Blade Runner, Mission Impossible and Half Life 2, which is generally indicative of fun times ahead. And the fun times kept going till it seems that the low budget production started running out of steam, rapidly careening into a rushed ending that is uncharacteristically disjointed. Unfortunately, really, and we were having such fine moments together. Overall there's not a lot to say. This show's an action flick about a hostage rescue by a single dude from a whole hostile prison population, with all that entails. Unfortunately, the rushed hind quarters and other miscellaneous foulups force me to give it a 5.5/10. It could've been so much better had they fleshed out the narrative in the right places, but it is what it is.

The Cabin In The Woods

Bunch of young people go into a cabin in the middle of the woods. Bad things happen and they start dying. If this sounds like the opening to a bad survival horror movie, you'd be right. However, the entire premise of Cabin is sufficiently unique that you'd probably be pleasantly surprised. Not to spoil anything, the movie certainly isn't your run of the mill survival horror. It is something of a huge elaborate conspiracy setup, whereby a bunch of kids are sent to a cabin in the woods, to face off against some classic horror movie monsters. And yes, the monsters are actually real. The movie manages to subvert a lot of the classic horror stereotypes in the context of a setup, where the common horror flick archetypes act the way they do because of manipulations by puppeteers in a command room somewhere. Given how novel the show's premise is, it's difficult to say much without spoiling the story, but suffice to say that I am greatly pleased by how they turned the genre on its head. You'd never see horror movies the same way again. What keeps this movie from true greatness is the pacing (which is a double edged sword), whereby the true premise of the story is only revealed right at the end. On one hand it keeps you guessing, but on the other it creates a niggling doubt that perhaps the reveal could've come earlier. Despite this, I am quite happy that for once, the story was designed from the start to get everyone killed. As many would know, I don't like people much, and it's awful nice to see blood spilled in gratuitous volumes while ensuring minimal survivability. It also helps that the show takes a turn that is a wee bit Portal at one point. Those who've played the game would understand. Regardless, I would say this movie has the makings of a cult classic and is nowhere near as cheesy as it may seem to be at first blush. It gets 8/10 from me.

Battleship

You sank my Battleship! A movie by Hasbro featuring the board game is something that perks my ears, because I played the game ages ago and I am greatly curious about how they might shoehorn the gameplay into a movie. If anything, I know that it is improbable to impossible, so I came to the movie fully expecting a funny flick. My expectations were met. An alien invasion comes to earth after signals were fired into space at another earthlike planet. As the premise goes, it's absolutely certain that a civilization capable of sending ships to visit us from some faraway planet is quite capable of kicking human butt. And they do. I especially like the highlight of the show, with the aliens and their weird chainsaw ball of doom. The story itself is fraught with more holes than my battleship had when it sank to the bottom of the ocean. The story is implausible from how the aliens were really quite incompetent for a race that flew all the way across space, to how they had the usual fragile central command based military systems and just how their weaponry works. And how the humans revived a particular ship to fight for them. Despite this, I love Hasbro for making the movie, as it's also full of Battleship references. To hint, it has a real battleship in the action scenes, real shelling of targets on a grid and actual pegs very much like what you see in the board game. And a little discussion on a frigate vs a battleship. Implausible aliens and apparently bad acting (I can't actually detect bad acting, unfortunately) aside, I think this movie is made primarily for kids and fans of the Battleship board game. In terms of story I'd give the movie a 2/10 for the sheer amount of plotholes, but 8/10 for managing to shoehorn key Battleship moments into an actual movie while preserving the look and feel of the boardgame brought to life by a dude very much like Michael Bay. Leave your logic at the door and enjoy the fireworks.

On Holy Ground

This will sound strange, but I do seem to discern a difference between holy ground and other normal spaces. Now, when someone mentions holy ground, people often think religious sites. That is a reasonable assumption, what with their being consecrated and all. However, that's not all the case. Religious spaces aren't necessarily holy ground.

I've been to many churches and temples, and each time I pass the threshold I just feel nothing. It's as if I've just walked into any other mall. At that point I thought well alright, so holy ground just feels like any other place. And then I step into some old churches, temples, cemeteries and the like and I get a whole other experience.

Stepping through onto true holy ground feels odd, to say the least. It's like stepping through a membrane to another space. For me it actually burns a little, but otherwise it's a pretty overwhelming feeling of peace and there's a certain awe to it. Hell it makes me feel as if I'd burst into flames if I accidentally touched some holy artifact there (I probably would, but don't want to put that to the test). I think the effect is noticeable by regular folk, as you'd see them speaking in hushed tones and basically acting reverent even though there is no religious authority figure around to dictate their conduct. It just seems to happen naturally.

I visited Naritasan temple over at Narita, Japan and I am pretty sure some of it is indeed holy ground. It has that very distinctive feeling, and it was only upon getting back did I realize that it was a temple for over 1000 years. Strangely, it's the places that are at least hundreds of years old that truly feel holy. Perhaps it is a factor of the time that people have spent earnestly worshipping at the site, or something of the sort. Regardless, it sometimes pains me to realize just how hollow modern religious sites can feel, being little different from a common mall or coffee shop.

Our Glorious Dead

I was at the Titanic exhibit today, and was slightly underwhelmed. I expected more from the exhibit, but I suppose the designers did what they could given the crazy space constraints around here. What struck me, however, was getting the boarding pass of a passenger who was actually aboard, and reading the person's life story in brief on the back.

Now, I wouldn't care about the John Smith who happened to be sitting right next to me on the metro, and really even if he told me a one liner about his life I just couldn't be arsed. Ordinarily, I believe a whole lot of people would agree with me. Yet, when it comes to a tragedy like the Titanic's sinking, suddenly everyone becomes a person of interest. I find it hypocritical. Just because we know the manner of a person's death doesn't make the person automatically interesting. In fact, it the voyeurism inherent in understanding a dead person's past that drives this sudden interest. By my definition, if you are only interested in a person after they're dead, it is a right fine example of hypocrisy.

Frankly, if a person proves to be uninteresting in life, I see little reason for their being interesting in death. Unfortunately, we seem to have set ourselves precedents for glorifying the dead, and strangely I seem to be relatively alone in seeing the irony of this. If we are to be interested in people, start while they're alive. Otherwise, let us not care at all.

Privacy

Sometimes I really do wonder at what social media brings people. On the surface, it allows mass interpersonal interactions to occur synchronously and asynchronously, thus bringing everyone together in one big happy family. Yet with technology, we can always be sure that every goodness is effectively a double edged sword, and social media is no exception.

As people have known for quite some time, social media like Facebook is a pretty good source of information for investigations. Those who are most connected to the social media have the most information on themselves out there. The most involved ones even provide live updates on their daily lives (not sure why I'd want to know that, but thanks anyway). With this information, friends can better understand other friends and law enforcement find this to be quite the boon as well. Unfortunately, stalkers can do exactly the same.

What worries me is the propensity of such lack of privacy to become habitual, in that people realize that they cannot avoid the breach without simultaneously cutting themselves off from the social stream. For many people, that is actually a very high price to pay. The problem here is that the value of privacy will go down as a result, and I foresee people not protecting their privacy as zealously as they previously would have. This is especially worrying, in that it brings us closer to a world without barriers for the common folk, but the walls remain in place for those in power...

Living With Inequality

Orwell raises a good point with inequality, in that one needs a frame of reference in order to understand that one's being oppressed in the first place. After watching Hunger Games, it also reminds me of how we live with gross inequality on a daily basis while being conditioned not to think overly much of it. Consider the fact that I am typing this on a rather high end machine that may be well over the annual income of another person out there. The inequality is right here before me, and before the one who happens to read this entry.

For those in richer urban environs, it is the sheer normalcy of everyday life that blinds us all to the struggles of others. For the desperately poor, the "normalcy" of everyday urban life is so far out of reach that the frame of reference cannot even exist. The other problems would be indoctrination, where each person is basically taught to accept ones' lot in life and by extension not seriously consider that of others. It blinds people as surely as Big Brothers' propaganda.

One of my friends commented that wow...in the Hunger Games, the rich folk of the higher districts live such ostentatiously rich lives in comparison to the drab poverty of the lower districts. I pointed out hey...that's precisely the life we're living, except we're the ones on top. It is indeed food for thought. For me, where there is an increase in wealth, the distribution should be as equitable as possible. This does not mean giving away what one rightfully earned, but to provide everyone equal opportunities to earn their own keep.

1984

I've taken to rereading Orwell's 1984 recently, and I've gained a new perspective on the matter. I remember reading it years ago and not quite getting it, because I didn't quite have an interest in the subject of how authoritarian systems work, and thus read it more like your average novel. After going through it in more detail this time, I've come to realize just how much thought went into the novel's creation, and how well Orwell actually understood authoritarianism. More interestingly, the concepts have stood the test of time disturbingly well and become quite prevalent in the recent years, albeit in a somewhat different form.

Interestingly, while Ingsoc in the book promises the equitable distribution of wealth while concentrating it amongst the select few, the capitalist system of today does the exact same thing while promising to increase the wealth of all. Where Ingsoc winds up brainwashing everyone into mindlessly accepting the system despite having to engage in doublethink, people in capitalist societies are made to accept this inequality simply because they are taught that there is no suitable substitute. People simply stop thinking about alternatives.

Given the general degeneration of democracy in today's world, the interconnectedness of the internet forcing people to think about how much of their information leaks all over the place and the omnipresence of monitoring devices, arguably the world of 1984 exists in a mutated form today. Media has become our panopticon, where citizens are being watched over by fellow citizens in a sort of self-inflicted thought police. Governments claim to be disadvantaged and disempowered by the internet, while using the same reasoning to increase their own control through heavily regulating media. And wealth distribution is extremely unequal. How, then, is this not 1984? Has Oceania truly always been at war?

Tiredness

I've come to realize that humans use "tiredness" as a rather generic term for a variety of drained states. That is, tiredness is used interchangeably to describe a state of sleepiness (lack of sleep), being drained (emotionally drained) or exhaustion (physical tiredness from activity). For me, the terms are independent, which means that one can be any number of the three at a time, or even all of the above. Unfortunately, the propensity to use the generic term irks me from its ambiguity.

The distinction is important to me, because there are different remedies for "tiredness". If one is sleepy, one sleeps. If one is tired, one merely rests. And if one is feeling down, one needs cheering up. The problem is when one doesn't distinguish between the problems and winds up using the wrong solution. That certainly does not improve the situation. As always, I figure that self-awareness is a big deal and it can certainly help improve one's well-being.

Fun In The Sun?

I was at a resort with my colleagues for some team event, and I was reminded of just how little fun it was to be out there in the open without cloud cover. Ordinarily I'd think hey spot of sunblock, shades hell it's going to be mostly ok. And then I just forget exactly how much it hurts and then there's the matter of the heat. Overall, I'd say while doing a luge down a hill is incredibly fun, it was an experience spoiled by the sun and heat.

What a shame, but frankly I can never understand how people can term it fun in the sun at all. Not unless they're outright masochists straight from Hell. Or perhaps that's exactly what they are. Regardless, I know for a fact that it's just not the kind of thing for me. I'd much prefer to do the same thing at the resort at night, just looking at the ships' lights out at sea and just enjoying the cool breeze. Now that is a much better way to chill out.

New Rulers Of The World

I was reading Pilger's work when I thought about the abuse of power in general. It is especially bad when it's a matter of the abuse of good faith, taking advantage of others under the pretext of helping them. Worst of all, it's outright hypocrisy where the bully then proceeds to convince others that he's just trying to help.

I tend to regard betrayal as one of the few truly cardinal sins against myself. It is something that I literally do not forgive. For a greater power to become an oath breaker is unpardonable. Unfortunately, the way power works, it is also often impossible to deal with them even if their deception were to be revealed. The worst thing is that the most advantageous way to live life is to play along with the bully and thereby become traitorous bullies themselves.

Disgusting. Then again, whenever advantage is to be had and selfish humans are inclined to pursue profit, it seems inevitable that they'd play along regardless of morality.

The Salary System

The salary system is quite remarkably broken, for something so prevalent. Everything from the scaling to the way it is distributed. Take for example how a CEO can earn stupid numbers of millions while the grunts may not always be able to count their thousands. Clearly the inequality is massive, and when cuts happen it invariably hits the lower ranks while the higher ups still get their bonuses (albeit reduced) and no pay cuts at all. You'd think the reasonable thing to do would be to cut salaries across the board instead of losing expertise from laying off staff.

Then comes the matter of how increments work. Oddly enough, the percentage points apply across the tiers, causing a geometric salary increase as base salary grades are raised. This means that a 7% increase for a grunt is much much smaller than the 7% that a CEO may get for similar high performance. Barring a promotion, it is actually impossible for the lower rankers to actually catch up.

A possible alternative would be to have absolute increases in salaries at increment time, such that both lower and higher rankers receive the same increment range due to their performance. That should help flatten the curve.

Those Lonely Humans

I like going out at night. There's a certain freedom to it. Sometimes I stop by a 24 hour place like a MacD's at 3am to snack and read a book. However, every time I do this, I cannot help but notice the lonely humans everywhere. Now, it may seem like I am lonely myself, doing things like sit around with a book in the middle of the night. But then again I am there for the purpose of unwinding. What I see is a whole bunch of humans sleeping at the tables or just sitting there apparently deep in thought. Knowing what I know about humans, they're probably not very happy about their lives since most would probably be lying in bed at home instead of sleeping at some fast food joint.

I am reminded of my late friend (whose death anniversary will come around in a couple weeks) and that was the exact same place I last met her before she finally successfully offed herself. She was sitting there in the middle of the night as well, frightened of her hallucinations, and her mom was coming later in the night to pick her up. Tragedy, really, but I still believe she's better off dead since she wasn't going to get any real help. Truly, that's a better place to be for some humans.

Back to the living lonelies, I look at them sleeping at the eatery and think...wow are they homeless? Do they have nowhere else to go to? Or are they just so tired that they fall asleep after a late night supper? As I walk home I see more humans sleeping on the benches around my area, and think the same thing. It is impossible to tell if they are truly vagabonds (they don't look the part) or they're just out there having a cooler rest out in the open. I'll probably never know.

The Bane Of Design

The rapid advancement of technology should help design in theory. More options become available, limitations fade away, design can be free to operate without constraints. In theory, the technology we have today should have made a whole slew of truly creative intellectual property. Yet, it seems this is not so.

The whole hypersaturated market of virtually identical first person shooter games and movies like John Carter attest to this. Something has gone wrong, that the new affordances of technology aren't fostering increased creativity, but seem to have reduced it instead. My take is that technology has become a form of creativity in and of itself, where the eye candy and special effects have led to complacency. Where one was bound by massive constraints just 2 decades ago, forcing creative thinking around technological limitations, now one simply slaps a pretty new skin on a stinking old carcass and calls it a whole new creation. Goodness gracious me.

Designers and other creative people need to find their way out of this rut, to stimulate themselves to think outside the box that superior presentation technology has ironically locked them into. To fail to see this is to allow technology to become the bane of design.

John Carter

John Carter. Interplanetary traveler, Martian loyalist, tycoon. An epic love story that spans two planets, with the lives of everyone concerned in peril were it not for the actions of our intrepid hero. One would be led to expect that the movie would be spectacular. Unfortunately, it was not.

John Carter is a typical story of a traveler who is thrown into a foreign culture, struggles to assimilate, but eventually manages to help protect it against its foes. Of course, the hero always tries to return to that culture in the end. Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves, etc etc. It's a common enough narrative, and is not inherently original in any form. What makes such a narrative memorable and truly enjoyable is the immersion where the viewers think they understand what's going on, what the cultures stand for, and wind up rooting for the hero. This was not to be.

The movie falls short when it substitutes CGI for narrative, where the foreign culture happens to be alien looking beings, and the enemy is just another form of human. On Mars. Yet, throughout the narrative, it is unclear just why they are fighting, why it's even possible for an earthling to romance a martian, what the stakes of the fighting truly are, and basically anything that matters that isn't part of the romance or combat. None of these are made clear in the story.

The overall incoherence of the narrative prevents the viewer from truly appreciating the high budget production, and it is actually disgusting to see all that money splurged to basically reskin an old tale without adding anything particularly special. I'd say this movie deserves a 4/10.

The Giggle Factor

Society has a powerful conformity mechanism, and it's called the giggle factor. Anything that lies outside the common boundaries of the masses will be laughed out of the house. As a result, the socially oriented humans will be inclined to avoid incurring the wrath of the giggle factor anytime soon.

This avoidance of the giggle factor is apparent in the sheer reluctance to seriously explore possibilities outside the realm of accepted science for example. This is regardless the actual quality of the commonly accepted science in question (most speak of it as if they know, but they retain a shallow understanding at best).

While I can understand the general guideline of sticking to mainstream thought patterns as a shortcut to staying away from shams and scams that plague alternative thought processes, I find it rather restrictive and rather like closing one's mind off prematurely. It also leads to the reluctance to question taboos, which may have well lost their practical value over the ages, yet still remaining from lack of informed querying. This seems to be rather unfortunate and a hindrance to progress.

Humans And People

While examining human society over the years of my existence, I've come to feel that human society is split between humans and people. By humans, I mean the animal-like homo sapien creatures that act primarily on instinct and maintain but a veneer of conscious critical thought. They mostly go with the flow, run with canned responses to common situations and I am quite convinced that they are little more than mere livestock. NPCs, if you will. Their presence seems to serve little more than to flesh out an otherwise empty living world.

On the other paw, there are the people, who are quite different from the mere humans. A person is one who's awakened and starts to realize that the confines of society are merely illusory, and that some of the parts have ceased to serve their purpose and can be safely ignored. They are willing to examine and constantly improve themselves and the systems around themselves. Being active participants, I'd say they're player character at the very least, and not merely run by some fancy AI.

The sad thing is the apparent lack of people presence in the face of rather excessive human presence in the current system. Perhaps it's due to processing power limitations, that there can only be that many people on earth at any given time, and that any other character spawned into this system would be doomed to be a mere human. Unfortunate, but that's how the crowd crumbles.

Laws Are Good

I was thinking about the goodness of laws earlier today, and I am certainly glad for their presence. That is why I respect the laws. Criminal law is an agreement set up by the representatives of the people (elected or otherwise) in order to protect the people from Bad Things. I, for one, have no desire to face Bad Things, so I am glad that I am protected by enforceable laws.

Think of the origin of the laws regarding murder. Killing is something that's perfectly natural to people. I for one would have killed dozens of people by now if the law didn't make it less than worth my while. Someone offends me? I find a way to kill them. Easy. Unfortunately, not only does this reduce cogs from our economic machinery, it also opens one to unfortunate backlash from those related to the inoperative cog. This cycle of revenge can potentially destabilize the system, which is an understandably unpleasant side effect. I'm sure back then people figured this out and simply agreed not to kill one another under any circumstances, except perhaps when a whole bunch of people agree that a particular person should be snuffed. It's alright if multiple people decide on something, after all.

How would such laws affect those who are regardless inclined to kill? Well I think that'd inspire me to hide the bodies at the very least, so I can continue with my activities. Not a bad thing overall, considering how it spares others the distress of seeing bodies lying all over the place. Out of sight is out of mind. The law works!

Differences

People are probably more different than they think. They smell, taste and feel things differently. It makes me wonder: Do humans truly receive the exact same inputs across the species? I'm considering what are regarded as normal humans, who don't have some sensory disabilities that preclude detection of certain inputs.

The taste of spiciness made me consider human perceptions. According to common understanding, spiciness is basically the same thing, and some people are more resistant to it than others. However, I also know that people can be resistant to one type of chilli yet be strongly affected by something made from a different chilli. This makes me suspect that people really do sense the same thing very differently.

A part of this may be a matter of the receptors themselves. Simply put, someone may see the same red quite differently from someone else. The other part is probably a matter of a person's memories, whereby associations are made to the input and result in quite some post processing that may color the interpretation of an input any number of ways.

Myopia

I've been thinking about the matter of myopia, and how research is constantly trying to prove whether it's a genetic or environmental matter. While I can understand the merits of trying to prove the origins of myopia, I do wonder if there's a chance that it's really a combination of the two.

For example, it was found that there was a probable genetic predisposition to myopia. Yet, other research has found that there's a positive correlation between myopia prone environments (lots of close work) and people there, regardless of their lineage. It sounds to me that there's a mix of genetics and environment here, where those genetically prone to myopia are more likely to develop serious myopia when exposed to a myopic environment, while everyone else are prone to develop it regardless of genetics due to the environment.

If I were to consider possible physical attributes that predispose one to myopia, I'd go with eyeball shape and memory. Students with good memory may not study nearly as much as the others with poorer memories, and become more unlikely to develop myopia from excessive close work. And those with certain eyeball shapes are already predisposed to the eyes growing lopsidedly to create the visual imperfection, and are thus more likely to develop myopia from close work. Obviously, a combination of the two would indicate the predisposition towards severe myopia.

Lovely Mirror

I remember reading an article sometime back about beauty, and how the symmetry of a face is positively correlated with beauty. In short, the more symmetrical a person's face, the more beautiful it is.

I've been thinking about reflections lately, and how different asymmetrical people can look in a mirror as opposed to how they do in person. It made me wonder if there were some implications to this disconnect. For one, people rarely see themselves the way others do them on a regular basis. I doubt the average person takes a photo of themselves or uses a video screen as a mirror. So basically, they're routinely seeing the laterally inverted image of themselves as opposed to their right side images. What might this do to how they dress, do their makeup, their hair...and basically everything else about themselves?

People are basically regularly going about without having really seen themselves. Even photographs can be outright amusing when viewed through a mirror. Take a poster and look at its reflected image: The otherwise handsome/pretty movie star on the right side image can look comical in the inverted. I wonder if anyone truly realizes how silly they really look in real life...

Safe House

Operative on operative action, betrayal and intrigue. Think of Safe House as the Bourne movie that lacks truly stylish action scenes and fails to truly hold a gripping tale together. Being the sort of creature that's largely incapable of observing human expressions and such, I have difficulty independently confirming the claims that the lead actors' performances were good. All I see is a plot that could've been better done. Oh, and they need a better fight choreographer.

So what's good about the whole thing? They created the premise of a genius manipulator agent who apparently went rogue and then resurfaced with some precious cargo. Unfortunately, apart from depicting him as a rather competent killer in fairly improbable scenarios, his intentions remain hazy at best. While this may have been an attempt at inspiring some intellectual considerations on the matter, it does seem to be rather poorly delivered.

Overall I'd say the movie has failed at its premise, and is probably somewhere close to a 3.5/10. I might've given higher scores were I more capable of understanding human expressions and all that, but unfortunately I'm not so I can't really give it a better rating.

Underworld: Awakening

This movie is a shining example of a sequel dragged out too long and plagued by a budgetary shortage worse than a vampire coven's blood shortage. I'd give it a 9/10 for successfully creating more plot holes than I care to mention.

Some say that sequels experience diminishing returns the farther they go. I'm inclined to believe this is the case for Underworld. The first installment had something of an intriguing story going. From then on, it's been a downward spiral into something that's scarcely better than another episode in a tv drama series.

What's good about Underworld? I guess it's that it's a bag of laughs from the implausible acting, bad green screening and a storyline that's swiss cheese after a firing squad had target practice. It manages to play to every stereotype in a narrative where the protagonists are hunted to extinction, and to play it badly.

There's frankly little to recommend this, and I'm inclined to give it a nice 4/10. Sorry, guys. I tried to like it, but I really couldn't.

People Manipulation

A masterful manipulator of people would be good at simplifying and reframing statements, which can routinely appeal to the widest possible audience. They understand common peoples' thought patterns and the thoughts that naturally follow. This, I think, is what makes it so hard for other non-manipulators to get their ideas across.

I've been wondering at how it is that clearly smart people find such difficulty getting their ideas across to less intellectually but more socially brilliant folk. I find that, when dealing with humans, the more abstract the idea the harder it seems for the average human to grasp. In short, someone who doesn't understand how to get an idea across will be easily outmatched by a social person of mediocre intellect since the idea will fly clean over other peoples' heads. Sad, but true.

Conversely, even mediocre ideas can be made palatable (and especially digestible) to most people (especially non-experts in the area) given sufficient social skill. This may well be the reason why mediocre or even poor managers can still rise to the top on their social skills while other more intelligent folk wallow at the bottom: If nobody can understand their otherwise brilliant but abstract notions, nobody can really appreciate their brilliance for what it is. Correctness be damned.

Chronicle

Teenagers with superpowers. That's what Chronicle is about. That said, the story of Chronicle is what can be expected when teenagers lacking creative ideas decide to use their powers to their maximum potential. Ultimately, it's an interesting premise that degenerates towards the end.

The plot itself is sufficiently predictable that I cannot see how I might elaborate without injecting some major spoilers. Suffice to say that the film does a somewhat decent job of the first person point of view (Blair Witch, perhaps) camera work that is rarely backed up by the narrative. Frankly, the narrative itself lacks depth, and fails to truly build the sort of emotional attachment to the characters that it does seem to try to do.

Overall I would say that the movie is a mediocre attempt at portraying teenage life turning sour when complicated by growing superpowers. It is somewhat refreshing to show it from a shaky first person perspective, but it misses the magic touch that would make it truly memorable. I'd give the movie a 7/10, with maybe 8/10 if you're into the camera work.

Thoughts Are Only Skin Deep

I saw a most interesting product just now. Basically, it was a snail slime based moisturizer, that is touted to be 70% pure snail slime. For those who don't already know, most girls I know wouldn't want to be a snail, let alone slather its slime on her own face. How surprising. Can it really be that there's a good way to sell disgusting stuff to females at exorbitant prices?

Beauty itself appears to be priceless. The very thought of the possibility of becoming more beautiful seems to suffice in selling a product, efficacy and grossness be damned. And for a high price, to boot. Clearly, it is entirely possible to get a female to pay dearly for the privilege to slather disgusting stuff on her own face. Intriguing.

The thought process is interesting. In the absence of a reframing method, most people have established ideas of what is gross and what isn't. Yet, the concept of a beauty product sweeps all of that aside, reframing everything in the context of a beauty product, whereby its "objective" attributes are enhanced. Truly, thoughts are only skin deep, and just need a little nudge in the right direction to completely transform them.

The Kravist Mindset

When I was discussing techniques with a friend today, he basically managed to "shank" me while in conversation. Now, I was thinking that I was holding back because we were in conversation and he was a friend. In fact, it would probably be inappropriate to do a full drill to avert the strike as well. Yet, it opened the possibility to me, that someone could indeed attempt that in real life for no apparent reason. Simply put, the strike would succeed regardless.

Now, the next question is, what would an appropriate kravist response be to such a situation? Clearly the first strike has landed and a serious injury has probably occurred. Yet, if one's still capable of soldiering on after the initial injury, one's survivability remains higher than if one simply gave up at that point. Failing the opportunity to stop the first move, one then needs to react quickly to prevent the next ones from happening. Hence the react, adapt and move on. The next move, should the assailant(s) be taken down, would be to seek medical attention and emergency first aid on oneself if at all possible.

I guess that would be the kind of injury that even a master would sustain, simply because there was no warning at all. However fast one's reactions may be or how sharp one's instincts are, sometimes it's possible to be taken by surprise regardless. Granted, this is exceedingly rare and just about any normal street situation wouldn't play out this way (completely without warning, that is), it remains a possibility especially if one has become a high value target for reasons unknown to oneself.

Leading From The Front

I was thinking about leadership, and what makes a great leader. While there may be a great number of solid thinkers making it into leadership positions, people of otherwise rather similar intellect have an incredible knack for being right horrible leaders. It isn't always a matter of poor intellect, and is often more of a propensity not to observe the front. Failing to do so tends to have a rather nasty knock on effect on decision making integrity.

When I think of a great leader, I'm thinking of someone like Alexander or Rommel. The sorts of leaders who put their own necks on the line and are acutely aware of action on the battlefront, which enables them to make accurate and appropriate decisions on the fly. It is one thing to lead from a podium far from the action, based on assumptions and analyses that may be backdated at best, outright inaccurate at worst. It's another to really know what's going on.

Unfortunately, it seems to be that, in the career space, time spent working alongside the grunts is time not spent rubbing shoulders with the brass. This tends to have some knock on effects on their progression, even though it does wonders for grunt morale. There seems to be little incentive to actually do a good job in leadership sometimes, sad as it is.

Tracking Dreams

I recall dreams from time to time. It's not really all that often, probably once or twice a month according to my dream diary. The diary logs any dream that is significant, so of course there are a number of dreams I've had that are recalled but quickly forgotten for whatever reason. This night, I write about tracking dreams.

Dreams often have nonsensical premises, and one wonders where the dreams came from. For me, I interrogate my mind using the dream itself to gain some insight. If I dreamed about something that I was crossing the bridge at night with only a flashlight on, I'd run a search with concepts like flashlight and darkness. The first memories that surface are often the most salient ones that are most closely related to the dream itself. In this case, it was when I was guiding my folks down a dark passageway because they didn't see as well in the dark as I did.

The next step is to interrogate that memory for the emotions associated with it. It turns out that works as well, which makes a rather nice match to what the dream was about. After filtering for these memory associated aspects of the dream, it becomes possible to root out the other dream aspects that did not come from the memory. That is the essence of the dream.

Chinese New Year Superstitions

Like with many superstitions, Chinese new year superstitions often make little sense. As usual, they are probably best thought of in terms of tradition rather than logic and actual practicality. Too much of it is based on the concepts of sympathetic magick, apparently without understanding of the principles of such spellcraft.

Now, let's consider the matter of luck and how it's purported to operate during the new year period. Supposedly, the practice of getting new things and cleaning out old (bad) things is intended to rid the house of ill luck. Makes sense. However, one's also told not to clean up for a period after to accept the good luck. Wait, if cleaning's good, why's cleaning suddenly bad? Gota make up our minds somewhere here...

In my opinion, if the year's been good, wouldn't it be generally harmful to attempt a thorough cleaning around the period since it may involve clearing the good luck along with the bad? Simply put, I really don't think the luck related superstitions hold much water at all. For one, I don't note religious adherents to such practices as being particularly rich or lucky. And for those who are about to say it...yup, both will involve empirical observations.

Processing Power

Human minds have limited processing power. One of the effects of living in a city is that processing power becomes overloaded fairly easily, and people go into shutdown mode in order to deal with it. That is, to avoid going positively nuts. Everyone does it to a greater or lesser extent.

Now, my consideration is with why it is that some people think for themselves and others don't. I'm going to assume that processing power norms exist, and most people are similarly smart. I'm also assuming that people are able to think, and most aren't necessarily running their brains in suspend mode all the time. With these assumptions in place, the logical question is what exactly the processing power is spent on.

Some of the supposedly "mindless" folk most probably do run their processors. They just seem to have their processors set on dealing with seemingly unproductive activities, such as fashion perhaps. However, it does seem to me that the constraints they set upon themselves (or have internalized from wider society) is the set of prescribed topics to think about. The reason "mindless" folk are as they are is that they are simply processing within the prescribed paradigm, and it never really does occur to them to consider anything beyond those confines. Not so mindless after all. Just...misguided.

The Game Of Thrones

Power has ever been something that the people have fought over. In this current age, the internet is quite a potent powerhouse indeed, and once again control over this resource has become quite salient.

Unlike any other time in human history, a resource has been created that can potentially link the people of the world who are capable of accessing it. In fact, the sheer ubiquity of the internet has made it such that even common folk can have access in a goodly number of countries. Never before has a resource been created that can fell governments and change societies. Coordination becomes possible, and for once people can band together in sufficient numbers to a common purpose that may be contrary to the unified will of the authorities.

On the other side, the governments and corporations that help run them are feeling the pinch and are attempting to wrest back control of the internet from the people. Given the concentration of old fashioned political power and money in these folk, it would be interesting to see if people power has a chance to fight back this time. The key weakness of the mob has always been that it's too divided to fight back except in exceedingly dire situations, but this time it may well be different.

The Inbetweeners

What did I just watch!? Alright well the background is that I was (again) asked along for a movie that I knew nothing about. (Perhaps I should stop doing this). Ultimately, I am perhaps a poor critic for this particular film because I didn't watch the TV series, and there is undoubtedly a lot of the flavor of the backstory that is whizzing right past me.

Simply put, this is a comedy about a bunch of boys who are really quite eager to get laid. Perhaps every bit as much as any other boy around their adolescent ages. There's the insensitive, the stupid, the geeky and the know-it-all. They stumble through their attempts to find their mates while on holiday, and the rest you just have to watch to get it.

So what do we have...a film chock full of good ole English adolescent humor. Perhaps a bit slapstick, but English humor regardless. Bunch of characters that I ought to recognize were I a fan, which I am evidently not. And lots of sex. And attempts at sex. And failed attempts at sex. And sex. With more sex. Without really explicit sexual moment. Which are sometimes explicit regardless. Right, then. I'd just say that this film is clearly a fan service, and the dude who watched with us was a fan so he did appreciate it. Unfortunately, I have no idea on that front, so I'll speak as a non-fan and give the film a 4/10.

On Group Think

One of my friends pointed out today that the high intellectuals of any day are highly susceptible to group think. That is, when their peers within their fields think in a particular way, the others start to follow suit. This leads to periods where people think in very particular ways, such as the trends in economic policy.

Truly, social proof is exceedingly powerful. Thinking from the perspective of an intellectual, it is rather difficult to convince people of a different point of view when everyone of the time basically agrees that a particular convention is incorrect. Man this is our entire world now, so who are you to disagree? I like to think that an individual can move a mountain all by herself, simply because she is right. Yes, it is unrealistic and against convention, but it is also the stability-giving convention that holds us back from thinking outside the box. It may not even be a question of can a single person move the mountain this instant, but a question of is it possible to do so at all and how can we make it possible...then easy?

I guess people really do need to be taught the ways of thinking that'll equip them with the ability to break out of group think. It's difficult, and sometimes it isn't even apparent that one's sinking into that particular morass. Truly it can work well most of the time to achieve a consensus, but at others, it's also downright important to be able to hear the dissenting voices so that progress can be made.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

A Tom Cruise movie. Honestly, if the reviews weren't all that great and my friends weren't asking me to watch it with them...I really wouldn't. Mission Impossible 1 was fascinating, but I still feel it should have just ended at that. Anything beyond will tend to become repetitive. Much like Ocean's 11. Regardless, the reviews looked fine and all that, so I watched this particular release.

First things first, this is a Mission Impossible movie. If the title didn't suggest it already, it's all about people trying to get a job done despite effectively impossible odds. Unfortunately, that seems to be the plot of a goodly number of action flicks nowadays, so the meme ceases to amaze or amuse me. Then again, for an MI flick, the movie is not half bad either.

So we've got the usual fodder of impossible situation and high tension moments that leave some of the audience gasping in their seats (fails to work with me, because the heroes invariably make it out just fine). Some of the classic MI accept your mission moments, and cocky operatives in action. Yet, despite all the tensioned shock and awe, the movie kind of zips past with few truly memorable moments. Perhaps I have become jaded by the glut of similar films.

Regardless, it's a respectable enough MI, but I would have to say that it isn't quite up to the mark of what a lot of review sites are saying. I'd give it maybe a 7/10. Predictable, both in a good and bad way.

Skyrim

If anyone noticed that I've been kinda missing over the last couple weeks, let us blame Skyrim. For the precious few who have yet to hear of this game, it is pretty much the biggest current Western style RPG. If anything, it is actually a huge open world with an incredible amount of content with a satisfyingly complex progression system to back it up. In short, it is stellar.

I recall the last game that managed to hook me this way was back in the days of Morrowind. Oblivion sort of dropped the ball due to its obvious console roots, and the perceived lack of sophistication in the gameplay system.

The thing about Skyrim is its sheer scale and varied atmospheric environments. One can march from lush forests to arid wastelands and up frigid mountains with a blizzard blowing in one's face, dealing with the wildlife and other stray humanoids along the way. That's in addition to the main attraction of doing errands...er...quests... to push the storyline along. Or not. The choice is yours.

So, what would I say in conclusion? Skyrim isn't really a game. It's more of a world created by game developers, and a rather engaging world as it were. I think I shall have to leave this boring one for a while now, so I can appreciate the truly beautiful things in life.

Trusted Incompetents

I think it is very common to see authoritarian leaderships decay into cesspools of incompetence, whereby incompetents get increasingly assigned to leadership positions, causing an overall decay of the system. This does not seem to make sense, since a solid system is what would help authoritarian leaders stay in office as long as possible.

However, the other thing that is obvious to such a leader is the fact that a personal support network must exist in order to stay in power. Given that not everyone close to a person can reasonably be expected to be exceptionally competent, it is only inevitable that an authoritarian leader wind up placing incompetents in charge of various areas. Over time, this nepotism will start taking its toll, leading to the characteristic decay of authoritarian regimes.

It is a pattern that is seen to repeat in pretty much every authoritarian regime that I know of. Infrastructure gets from bad to worse, selected parts of the economy are buffed while everything else slides to ruin. Indeed, non-authoritarian systems can and do face similar problems from incompetence, but it does seem that incidences of such trusted incompetents planted where they really shouldn't be does occur more often amongst the authoritarians. Even if the authoritarianism is localized within the organization.

The Privilege Of Leadership

It is easy to think of how corrupt politicians can get, and how they stop serving their countries and wind up serving themselves instead. I am sure we can find many extreme examples of such bad behavior, and it's even more common to find incompetent leadership all over the place. At this point, my question is...why?

A leader cannot generally come to power of her own strength. Hitler certainly didn't go up there simply by shouting everyone else down. It was a gradual build up of power that eventually hit a critical mass, then became a self sustaining political engine. Clearly, even really bad leaders have had their moments of competence and become (more) corrupt afterwards. Such is the privilege of leadership: power corrupts.

However, such a statement seems overly glib. Power corrupts. Why? Power allows people to do many things, yes, but that also means that good leaders can enrich themselves without having to impoverish their people. Clearly something else went wrong. I think a part of that problem comes from the privilege of leadership whereby the leader winds up surrounded by similarly privileged people and becomes increasingly distanced from the general population. This distancing is more perceptual than physical, since they start to develop tunnel vision whereby their perceptible world becomes richer than average and they start to believe that the country itself is doing fine.

It is effectively what happened when Communist leaders started believing their own propaganda. Such a thing sounds logically impossible: you generated the lie yourself, so how can you possibly be fooled by it? Yet it happens, because human perception seeks patterns, and a statement that is repeated often enough becomes perceptual truth at least at a subconscious level. What can be done about this particular aspect of the problem? I don't know for sure, but having the leaders constantly exposed to the woes of the commoners is very likely a good start.

Acquisition

The human drive to acquire is insanely strong, and there's no period more obvious than during the Christmas season. Whenever I hear about Black Friday mad rushes where people literally fight to acquire something that they don't necessarily need, I am reminded at just how much humans really are herd animals and just basically take their cues from others.

I witness the idiocy of pepper spraying other shoppers to get a purchase, or fighting over discounted paper towels, and figure that the people probably don't really require the items. The purchase can be made later, and I'm reasonably sure that paper towels aren't Christmas presents or even really essential during Christmas...unless you need a lot of them for a dinner for whatever reason. While cases of need undoubtedly exist, I think a lot of it can be attributed to the building hype leading up to the season, after which all hell breaks loose when people suddenly realize that they are in competition with all those other increasingly impatient customers pent up outside the store.

This can be seen equally clearly in the case of keeping up with the Joneses, where people gather prestige items just to "keep up" with their neighbours. I find this to be largely unproductive, since the purchases seem to have a lot of social value, but precious little personal value. Some of my friends have remarked that however strong one may be, one cannot be an island. I concur in terms of productions and products that one cannot produce for oneself, but I also believe that one can still be as island-like as possible where applicable such that one does not get lost within the mindless masses.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows

Well I've actually missed the first installment of the SH series, so I can't really make a comparison with its prequel. Based on what I've just watched, however, I thiunk I can safely say that I'm not displeased.

In short, the movie is quite a reimagining of the Sherlock Holmes narrative, with quite a bit of bawdy humor thrown in along with an insight to Holmes's thought processes. It is difficult to say much without introducing spoilers, but I dare say that the action is well balanced with the deductive processes.

However, there's the usual gripes about period films, what with the usual anachronisms and historical (in)accuracy of props. Moreover, the way Holmes deduces certain scenarios is a little far-fetched, making it seem as if he already knew what would happen rather than piecing the puzzle together from fragmentary evidences.

Overall it's not the greatest movie I've seen, but neither is it particularly bad. I do have a soft spot for this sort of story, so I suppose it'd get a 7/10 from me.

Constant Cognition

I've come to realize that I tend to operate somewhat differently from most people I know. That is, I have a tendency to think over a goodly number of my conscious decisions. That is, a controlled form of second guessing that aims to root out the underlying reasons for my decision making. It is a method I developed as a means of self control, and it seems effective enough in that I am no longer prone to actually losing self control, going into a blood haze and coming out of it wondering just what the heck I did (usually something violent).

Anyway the thing is that constant cognition in this form comes with a price. For one, it certainly slows down the decision making process, and can even make it seem to stall by normal peoples' standards. Or perhaps my own, come to think of it. Moreover, the disabling of cognitive shortcuts also means nothing comes easily without some rumination and I suppose it involves some degree of mental strain as well. At the very least, it does require the ability to detach from emotions or at least ignore them for some time in order to have a less noisy picture.

Regardless, I do think overall it's a good solution to deal with my own personal needs. Of course, the tight self control also means that I have to be careful about things that may reduce my self control below a certain maintenance level. The outcome may not be quite desirable.

Social Dissociation

I think it is useful to be able to socially dissociate oneself. That is, to induce upon oneself the mental attitude that one is not quite like the others in the group. If there's one thing I learned about group think, it's that the most powerful weapon against it just so happens to be to not feel socially integrated with that particular group.

When one regards oneself as separate, it becomes a lot easier to think outside the box that the well integrated build around themselves. This allows the sort of lateral thinking that can solve problems in ways that everyone in the focus group seem to become unable to.

I am no expert in the subject, but I guess this may be one of the reasons that artistic folk are viewed as "smarter" in some way when they seem to be able to think up stuff that nobody else would readily imagine. Perhaps they are, but perhaps they are also less of a part of the hive to the extent that they are capable of thinking for themselves for a change.

On Superstition

I'm pretty sure I've written on this topic previously. Anyway, the faulty thought processes underlying superstition irk me to no end. It is one thing to believe in something as far-fetched as black magick, especially if there's a specific definitive test case and a proof that consistently comes forth from this proof. It's another matter altogether to have a rather generic test case that can be "proven" by just about any outcome. An example is the attribution of any ill-fated event to the influence of black magick.

Now, what annoys me is how these vague test cases pretty much validate any scenario you might want to toss at it. It's similar when it comes to astrology, whereby a vague prediction 50 years ago just might come true, simply because a crap load of things do tend to happen in 50 years and there's an ever increasing chance of the prediction coming true. Those who are unable or unwilling to comprehend this will wind up being victimized by their own ignorance sooner or later.

Unfortunately, it seems it's not always easy to spot a faulty test case, so it's not really possible to avoid ignorance altogether. However, one must always be willing to re-examine one's methodology for comprehending life and to constantly update one's test cases to ensure that they at least make an effort to avoid being superstitious ignoramuses.

Puss In Boots

Funny Mexican movie, Antonio Banderas style. Puss In Boots manages to capture the typical Mexican narrative, featuring the classic wronged hero (with accompanying predictable storyline) and setting it in the middle of a humorous Fables'esque storyline featuring our (now) well known feline hero. Do I like the movie? Hell yeah!

Ok bad thing first: The storyline's predictable. Some people have panned it for that, and I think that's fair enough, but I think the refreshing take on the narrative and setting it in a novel setting have more than made up for that particular shortcoming. After all, it lets you forget about trying to understand the story and get on with appreciating the details in the movie.

On to the movie proper. I'd say the details are amazing and something that cat lovers and Mexican movie watchers would certainly appreciate. The show's got its own take on the fairytale characters, both making references to their iconic backstories and managing to fit them into the greater narrative. The movie even manages to balance between being outright goofy and quite poignant and serious. It's a fine tightrope, and I believe the team has managed to pull this one together rather neatly. They even managed to squeeze in an anti-cruelty message in the tale, which is downright commendable. Clearly, the folks have watched their movies (especially Mexican ones) and know about cats. The characters are human enough, yet catlike in all the right places. They're certainly not your average purely anthropomorphic animals you see in too many cartoons.

So how would I rate this feline tail of romance, betrayal and redemption? I'd say a clean 8/10. Yes I do recommend it, and I would watch it again just because. It won't beat How To Train Your Dragon, but it certainly is good on its own merits.

House Money

I was at the casino area with my folks today, and I noticed that most of the shops in the area were selling rather high end goods. Everything seemed to be something branded, and costing quite a bit even for basic clothing. At first glance, I thought, ok this is a rich peoples' area and catered to that. Makes sense, only that I wonder why I don't see a similar layout near the glitziest hotels in the vicinity. Just how are these stores paying their rent?

After some thought, I realized that the answer probably lay in the house money effect. True, gamblers near casinos can be high rollers and have the liquidity to purchase a $500 dress at a whim. However, not every gambler is a whale, and surely those coming to visit aren't all rich. That's when I realized that they didn't have to be rich in the net worth sense, but in the current liquidity sense: If they just had a windfall, the house money effect kicks in and they're more likely to purchase pricey goods that they would've normally avoided. That would help explain how the stores got their sales.

If a fairly middle class gambler happened to get say $10'000 from the poker table, it would seem to be a comparatively small expense to fork out $500 for the branded dress. The house money effect suggests that since the money isn't really regarded as the gambler's own anyway, the expense has minimal emotive impact. Odd, but that's how people work apparently. For me, whenever I receive a lump of money that I didn't earn, I'd simply spend as I usually do and then dump the rest in savings. I just see no logical reason to regard given money as any different from money I earned fair and square.

Bummer

Today is supposed to be the day I had a good time taking photos of birds and land critters at the zoos...for free. Special bday offer and all that rot. Ok let's cut to the chase: It was a bust. Rained all day, and since the places were basically open air, the animals would've been in hiding and not quite within camera's reach.

I wound up having to settle for a pale shadow of that, which was an outing to a new mall my folks hadn't visited just yet. I really hate it when stuff like this happens, but then again story of my life. Not really had all that many good bdays anyway. They're usually exams, spent being sick, having disappointments like these, whatever. Sometimes I wonder why I bother even trying to have a good time.

Anyway, after pondering what one of my friends said previously about a foiled outing not being ruined because she was out with people...well...no. I still feel majorly bummed out, and the fact that my folks were out there celebrating it with me just didn't help any. If anything, I've always regarded people as sort of furniture in outings, whereby the objective of the outing is key and people just sort of attach themselves to the outing. If people weren't there, the outing would feel just as great. Unfortunately, well...today happened, and I'd be very happy to hit the punching bags extra hard at the gym tomorrow to vent some.

The Autistic Advantage

In our current age of logic and modern technology, it seems to me that the being autistic to some extent is actually a benefit to the individual as opposed to being "neurotypical". In terms of the cognitive vulnerabilities that most people are subjected to (i.e. peer pressure, image issues, social norms, etc), autistic spectrum people are more able to overcome.

I was reading a book on how people use social rules of compliance to "persuade" people to their goals, whatever they may be. While I was reading the examples, I discovered that I'm actually quite resistant to the scenarios stated. The first thing I wondered was why? Why would it be that I can flat say no in a situation where others would feel compelled to say yes? The answer seems to lie in how I perceive people in general, which tends to be in logical terms rather than emotive. I do not think so much in terms of dude did me a favor, and therefore I am obligated (in a generalized emotive sense). It's more like dude did me a favor worth $10 or have it classified as a major intangible favor, and therefore I will return something of equal value at some future date.

The thought process helps shield me from the obligation trap, because I would know if I'm facing unfair demands when calling in a favor, and I would turn them down. Or for example worrying about social pressures (image management) when maintaining appearance of consistency in my conduct. The fact that I largely regard people as furniture helps some, because I will know for myself whether I am being internally consistent and am less affected by the thought of how others will perceive me if I happen to perform an action contrary to the image I am trying to project.

This is not to say that I am a complete social idiot and blow things up all the time because I piss on social norms (actually...that probably does happen a lot without my realizing) but that I wind up being less bound by them and become somewhat resistant to the sort of social-based coercion that would work pretty darned well on other better adjusted individuals. I believe in this case, the autistic advantage lies in the fact that being less socially integrated lets one stop and think over in logical terms what's going on out there, and acting in a more calculating way rather than having a knee jerk reaction that has become so natural to the average person that they are unable to perceive what they just did.

Immortals

The time now is 3.11am. I just came back from watching something that tried to pass itself off as a movie. First thing about the movie: It's supposed to be loosely based on Greek mythology, with an emphasis on the loose bit. My take is: Where is the Greek in all of this?!

Ok let's start with the good bit, 'coz that's really the only saving grace of the movie so far: Over the top fight scenes with plenty of gore. There. I've said it. Ok and maybe some cute girl butt. That's about it.

Moving on, the movie somehow manages to completely mangle Greek infantry tactics, mythology, aesthetics and politics in a single fell swoop, proceeding to wrap all that crap in a shallow narrative so fraught with plot holes, inconsistencies and improbabilities that they might as well toss out the entire Greek mythological premise and make a completely new fantasy much like what they had in Suckerpunch. Notice that I wrote that bit in a single sentence (and Suckerpunch was waaayyy better, btw). Oh, and they managed to throw third rate CGI into the mix, which really is quite reminiscent of 80's blue screen.

Right, I suppose it would be pretty obvious to the reader that I'm ranting at this point, but I stand by my evaluation of this excreable filth. Let it be said that I have experienced this pain, so that you shall not have to. I'd give it 3/10, if only for the blood, violence and a rather fine bit of girly ass. Take my word for it: Don't watch this movie. That is all.

Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn

Here's a fan movie if I've ever seen one. That is, this Tintin flick just so happens to be precisely what Tintin narratives are typically about, and can be reasonably expected to appeal to fans of the series. For everyone else...well...it depends.

Now, the whole idea is that Tintin stories are largely kid stories, with really predictable storylines. Tintin discovers something that mysterious people seem to want really badly, so he decides to take it upon himself to discover more about them. He gets into a great big life-threatening adventure, and really never seems to write about it, come to think of it. But hey, I like it all the same. Not quite so the people who watched it with me, however. The philistines just haven't had the chance to read the comics in the first place. Bah.

Anyway, there's really little I can say about the flick, seeing as how with Tintin writing just about anything about the story would count as a spoiler. I did like the animations, and the typical cartoon physics involved, along with a rather fine rendition of Cap'n Haddock...even though it seems Snowy was the star of the show for some of my dudes.

Overall I'd say the movie's good for Tintin fans, and it's probably something along the lines of 7/10. Good, but not great.

Oh, and I wrote this at...1.

Drive

Once in a while, I watch a movie that contrasts with itself. I'm not talking about a movie that has some serious unexpected twists, but more of a movie that takes on a totally different tone as it goes along. Drive is one such movie.

Now, it is something that starts off sedate and lovey dovey, involving a professional getaway driver. The intro alone should reassure you as to the driver's prowess. As the movie progresses, it is clear that darker, more violent elements are coming into the picture. It's always the gangsters, and they're always killing people in especially bloody ways. Well I am biased here, so when there's exquisite violence for show on the big screen, and that violence proves to be largely anatomically correct, I become quite happy.

Overall I'd say that Drive has captured the essence of an ultracool getaway driver who gets into some seriously hot soup, and I really liked the violence as the show progressed. Unfortunately, the lovey dovey scenes that formed the bulk of the first half felt a wee bit too drawn out. Really, it suffices to show a few scenes to demonstrate how close the couple is. For that, I'd say the movie's worth maybe 7.5/10. Simply put, its upgrade from the gratuitous bloodshed was easily overridden by the gratuitous use of love scenes.

Individuality

Individuality is something that I cherish and regard as highly important in any person. Yet, the concept of individuality is quite often interpreted significantly differently by different folk, so perhaps it is important that I define it for myself. I regard individuality as the ability and inclination to think and act for oneself.

What sparked this thought thread is the idea of individualistic people. That is, people who are inclined to not follow the crowd, and be themselves. Some express this through dressing oddly (or otherwise differently) while others act differently. My question here is: Is this indeed individuality? Can one be an individual simply by dressing or acting differently? In my opinion, that answer is no. It is insufficient.

If one decides to dress in the manner of a subculture, like say for instance the goth subculture, one isn't necessarily being an individual. While rebelling against the mainstream by simply adopting the ways of a subculture, one isn't necessarily thinking or acting for oneself. It's simply a facade one puts on just to seem like an individual. One can undoubtedly choose to subscribe to a subculture for personal reasons, and that's perfectly fine. However, one can also appear perfectly average yet maintain individuality through being willing to think for oneself and act the part.

An example of this is say following a subculture's dress sense. It is one thing to do so, but it is entirely another if one's doing that without understanding the origins of that subculture or making any effort to inject one's own preferences into the gig. I strongly believe each person is an individual subculture, population one. It is not a matter of aping something else just to feel like one's a part of something, but more like going in as a participant, and then budding off as a wholly realized person. Such is the journey of discovery of life.

Public Energies

Today, I was discussing the matter of peoples' energies. That is, the concept that when people are constrained/repressed, their energies will wind up diverted and may end up being quite destructive. Which caused me to wonder at how the Japanese do it, somehow managing to maintain a fairly creative environment even despite massive social constraints. It seems quite unlikely that such an environment could've arisen, and though I am no expert in Japanese culture, I have seen numerous creative works coming from Japan...and they seem to reflect a thought process that is quite alien to my own.

In contrast, similarly repressed societies elsewhere just tend to breed a certain sort of ill society, whereby people cease to care for one another. They simply become destructive instead. It puzzles me how such similar environments can result in such significantly different outcomes. The key here seems to be culture. That is, a culture that is more open to doing things in unusual ways.

Where Japan may well be quite straitlaced, they seem to be quite tolerant of experimentation when it comes to the youth, and they have a rather clean separation between the imaginative space and the socially proper space. This seems to have created a magic circle where people are free to explore and express themselves, without violating the equally stringent social mores that afflict repressed societies. This seems to be absent in the ones that turn destructive, whereby there is indeed no safe space at all, and the only outlet for these pent up public energies seems to be deviance. That is, rough behavior, anger and other destructive tendencies.

Perhaps it may be a good idea to delineate clear boundaries of what is safe (such as in kabuki theater) and what is socially proper (as is typical in strait laced societies) to provide safe channels for creative energies, such that they benefit the society as a whole while maintaining social order.

Intellectual Incest

I have come to understand my reluctance to extensively socialize with colleagues. Now, I often get invited to outings and chat with them a lot when I do turn up, but something has always bugged me about going out in this manner. Of course, there's the obvious implication that my going out has political undertones, in which cementing relationships that way does help cement one's position in an organization. That much always bugs me, but there's something else. That something else may well be what I call intellectual incest.

By intellectual incest I mean the very concept of going out with people you ordinarily spend a lot of time with, and by implication have been influenced by and are actively influencing you. The influences through social contact during working hours will invariably color discussions outside (apart from the obvious tendency of work talk) and basically wind up shrinking one's intellectual circle since one's exposure to outside disciplines is diminished as a result. In fact, it must be to one's advantage to engage social compatriots outside that work circle, to maximize one's overall exposure to reality in general.

I struggle with the incest thing, especially in an age where weak links abound and it really isn't as easy as it used to be to find people out there and spontaneously create links with them. Gone are the days of active random instant messaging and getting to know locals from different disciplines but similar interest. Most people may do that over Facebook interest groups, but in a sense that starts off on the wrong foot whereby the very presence of the Facebook (or other social media) accounts creates a greater intimacy than would be comfortable in comparison to a more anonymous medium like the IRC of old. I guess I will need to find my alternatives. Stagnation is certainly not a good thing at all.

In Time

Remember what I wrote a couple days back about the sequence of narrative creation, and how creating details before composing a proper narrative proves to be problematic? Well In Time is precisely that: A movie with an intriguing premise that winds up falling flat because it doesn't have a solid narrative to stand on.

Right, so here's the good stuff: In Time is about a world where time is both life and money. Run out of time/money, run out of life. You die. Ok that's the good part. It's an interesting concept, and something they could've taken quite far. After all, we're familiar with Blade Runner and how the replicants were so desperate to extend their lives.

The bad news? A sophisticated narrative never emerged. The movie turned from something that could've been a philosophical study in variable human mortality...into a flat Bonnie and Clyde heist fest where time turned out to be...money. Really they could've just made the movie about money and it'd be pretty much the same. The narrative itself is fraught with logical problems, and the attempts to create a convincing universe around the time/money/life concept fail simply because the explanations wind up looking rather implausible. In fact, they might've been better off not trying to explain the mechanics behind the whole system and focusing more on the narrative itself.

Much as it pains me to do so, I'd say the movie deserves 5.5/10. It'd be 4.5, but I liked the concept, and that's where the other point went to.

Detailing Narratives

I have come to realize that creating a narrative is a lot like creating a drawing: It is often less helpful to do the detailing first before having the grand structure planned out already. For example, it is often not very useful creating beautiful dragon scales before you're sure that you're actually drawing a dragon, nor is it useful to start writing about an intriguing mechanic by which the fictional society runs if the drama itself is not ready for action.

The thing I've found about detailing first is that first it crimps the narrative some. If the narrative didn't already exist, it'll start to be a process whereby the narrative becomes shaped and often distorted by the details. That's because the narrative is being forced to be consistent with the details. Worse yet, this tends to lead to the neglect of proper narrative design, which can result in stories that are logically plausible, yet are extremely flat in every other sense.

I think my view for now shall be that a narrative is best designed first, so that it flows and the grand structure is made known, after which the details can be dropped in so that they spice up what could have been an otherwise drab setting.

Childhood?

I was enroute to work today and as my lift passed one apartment, I saw a dad helping his kid to light a sparkler. It's a simple enough act, only that I'm seeing it while I'm going to work. On a morning that I wouldn't ordinarily see if I wasn't saddled with office hours. To be honest, that sucked.

Story time. First things first. I hate mornings. I do my best to deny their existence, and while I don't hate my work (I love it to pieces, in fact), I really hate having to get my butt to work before 5pm. And now on to childhoods. Well the thing is, I really don't remember all that much about my childhood. I do vaguely remember that sparklers are fun, and I did a lot of pyromaniacy things when I was a kid. The thing is, I feel like I miss the simpler days of my earlier childhood. That is, the not having a lot of weird things to worry about. Those who know about my problems also know that I only realized what was up a number of years back, and life's never really been the same since. Of course, it's improved a lot in the recent years, but it's certainly nowhere near as simple as it used to be.

Anyway, I guess the important thing is that I'll always remember the times back in university when I had months long holidays (that's how holidays oughtta be) and I'll never be comparing work leave to that. It just won't measure up. I find it funny that some people would point out that well...work just doesn't work that way. You don't get months off at a go. Well technically you can spam unpaid leave, but generally the company would want you to leave pretty soon if you did that. The fact remains that the comparison will be apples to oranges, but whenever someone tells me that wow that was a long weekend, I just tell them...my long weekends are 3 months long. And I haven't had a good long weekend in ages.

Changes

My life has changed significantly for the better lately, and so has that of one of my friends. Basically, she's been given the opportunity to work in game development as a designer, and it really isn't something that's commonly offered so readily to a newbie. After some persuasion, she decided to take up the offer. I cannot be sure if she's of the right temperament to pull it off, but hey at least it's an opportunity to try her hand at the industry and to see if it suits her.

Looking back at my life over the last 5 years, I really do wonder at how my other friends have been doing in all that time. Some people invariably drop out of touch for a long time, and stay in contact only via the internet. I think it's a good time to meet up where possible, and see how things have changed for them.

The Thing

It's funny how I've not actually watched all that many movies back in my day. It's a fairly recent development, my watching of movies, since my company does hand out movie tickets every month or so. Otherwise, I really wouldn't have bothered. That said, this is the second movie I've watched this week with my friend, mainly 'coz I really could've done with something to do at night after work.

Anyway, The Thing is your average monster stalking kind of movie. The sort where an alien picks humans off one by one till precious few survivors remain. It's no spoiler, because everyone who is going to watch this probably already know that.

I'd say I liked the movie, because it makes the viewer consider exactly what the Thing is, and how it propagates. There's something to having aliens that can perfectly mimic humans. I suppose the story's got its logical issues and whatnot typical of cinema, but I rather do appreciate the trip. Probably at least in part due to the Inquisition style approach of burning anything that's suspicious or contaminated. I'd say the movie's somewhere around a 7.5/10

On a related but non-review note, is it a bad thing if I thought the tentacle creatures were rather kinky?

Johnny English: Reborn

Agent Bean returns! Well, everyone knows that JE is pretty much a spoof of Bond, and pretty much everything you expect to find in a reasonably serious secret agent movie. I'd say there is very little to discuss about the movie itself, because the premise and gags will be familiar to those who've seen Bean's antics, and the previous movie.

Some would say that the movie is predictable and silly. Me, I think that's kind of the point of the movie, and really, there are only so many ways you can deliver slapstick comedy. All I can say is that the movie kept me laughing through its entire length, which says something about my sense of humor and perhaps how funny the show actually is. Evaluating it on its merits and the intent of the production, I'd say that the show deserves a hearty 8/10.

Faith And The Financial Market

I've been reading House Of Cards lately, and it's the same story of over-leveraging. One would think that it's pretty obvious when a company's sunk into risky assets as collateral and has precious little stuff in its reserves. The funny thing here is that well...if everyone knows it already and they're still going for it, it seems to me that they're really just running on faith. And hot air.

If an economy is indeed heavily reliant on credit, it is obvious how a credit crunch can utterly devastate the economy. Yet it seems that leverage is the steroid of choice amongst financial institutions. It's hard to think of a better way to create a heck of a lot of stuff out of a small pool of assets. Arguably, it's the only crazy effective way available in your average capitalist economy.

Yet, humans will be humans. If faith were to be maintained regardless, runs on banks would not occur as often, and everyone can happily live in Oz with the magickal flying dollar bills. Obviously, this doesn't happen. Someone invariably loses heart out there and realizes that things are going south in one part of the economy, and starts figuring that liquidity is beginning to look like a good idea. Seeing a big player do that, others will start to take their cues and so on. The house of cards comes tumbling down.

Human Cognitive Pathways

It is interesting how differently humans process the exact same input. That is, give a bunch of humans a single scene or thought, and the output will likely be quite different between the humans. What's more interesting is that some humans will actually process the same thing in completely different pathways, which may even be completely opposite to one another.

Amusingly enough, most people are not telepathic and have limited ability to discern what the other is thinking. Therefore, it is entirely possible for them to talk clean past one another and result in some rather damaging misunderstandings. The fun part here is that both (or more) parties will be convinced that the other's responding to one's statement in the same spirit, and it's difficult to ascertain otherwise.

Shallow Professionalism

I am the sort to believe in raw performance in favor of appearance. If one fails to perform, it matters little to me what their personal bearing is like. Which, of course, is why shallow professionalism remains one of my pet peeves. I'd call shallow professionalism the art of appearing to be professional, be it by obvious conduct like constant apparent seriousness, or by appearance by dressing in a particular fashion.

Now, what irks me about it is how many professional-appearing individuals prove to be quite unprofessional in the practical sense. They are not performing their jobs to the best of their abilities simply because they are employed (and paid) to do so. Worst of all, the appearance of professionalism can easily throw off an unschooled supervisor, who may mistake the appearance for the actual performance of professionalism.

Unfortunately, it seems my views are in the power minority when it comes to this matter. The elevation of shallow professionalism to an art form remains to date, and really...not all that many of the people who matter are inclined to evaluate things otherwise. For one, that'd just take too much effort on their part. It may even involve a restructuring of management itself to dedicate resources to true performance evaluation.

Portal 2 Is Quality

I am crazy about Portal 2. Well...not drooling crazy, but crazy enough to play the game straight till 6am on a weekend. That's some good score, for a game that practically screams quality from every game moment. Not only is the game full of references to the goings on from the previous game, it manages to proceed with the kinds of twists and humor that are typical of the original.

From the very beginning, it's clear that the level designers paid very close attention to the principles of level design. The composition of scenes is impeccable, and always informs the user as to what she/he is to do next. If anything, the use of framing in the introduction gives users a very clear idea of exactly what portals are and how they operate. I'd say the intro itself did such a brilliant job of being an introduction, without feeling like a tutorial. Even the first parts of the game felt extremely well crafted, with the sort of dramatic tension that you'd find in good movies. The puzzles are also amazingly well crafted, requiring rather unorthodox solutions most of the time.

So...just how did Valve get something so right? =p

Space Marine: Improvements

First things first, I am a fan of the Warhammer 40k universe. As such, I do try very hard to like the Space Marine video game. Unfortunately, try as I might, I cannot not see just how they tried too hard in the wrong areas such that they made a potentially great game merely good.

Now, I am not sure exactly what constraints Game Workshop put on the company, but it seems that they are rather reluctant to engage canon. This is quite unfortunate, seeing as how they're using a well known chapter like the Ultramarines, and pitting it against some random Chaos warband. The first thing I would've done is consider revising the storyline to feature the Space Wolves, and the nasty involvement of the Thousand Sons. As a bonus, it's entirely possible for Magnus the Red to make a guest appearance.

The problem I see is how they've come up with an incredible variety of componentized armor for the different Traitor and Loyalist factions. It bewilders me as to exactly why they'd do that, when the chapters aren't quite featured in the campaign. We see a hint of Blood Ravens and some Dark Templars, perhaps, but little else. Simply put, there's a lot of possible variety in the mediocre multiplayer without popping the content in the campaign. For those who purchased Space Marine as a single player experience, the DLCs would've looked utterly useless.

It would've made sense to save the other content for possible expansions, while focusing on the core storyline as a content source for multiplayer. For example, if the conflict is between the Space Wolves and Thousand Sons, it would've been a small matter to bring in more detailed hierarchies in the campaign, reusing those assets in the context of the multiplayer as well. As a bonus, the weaponry used by the combatants can be iconic of their respective factions. For example, the plasma cannon's charged attack is AOE, which for damage purposes would be identical to virtually any other AOE in the game. Using the damage code, and replacing the plasma special effect with warpfire, it's entirely possible for a Thousand Sons sorceror to fire empyreal bolts. Overall, it would've added a lot of flavor to the overall game.

Focusing on the gameplay, with less on the progression (which is very art heavy), it's possible to dedicate more resources to the core gameplay polish. It would've probably been better to create a flexible system for the armor, but to hold back the asset development for future content. As it stands, having a full armor set for completing the campaign just feels like overkill, since that armor set has absolutely the same stats as every other armor. Moreover, the lack of distinctive faction-specific armors prevents the establishment of significantly different character silhouettes in multiplayer, which adversely affects IFF.

This is not to say that I'm bashing the game outright, since I have no idea why it turned out the way it did, and overall the melee combat is highly satisfying. However, I still reckon that it's entirely possible to have created a more polished gameplay with the exact same resources, securing the user base for the acquisition of future expansions.

Focus Good, Forgetfulness Bad

Gona be a short muse post here. Now, in general, it's a good thing to not be absentminded. Here's why: Today, I was making some soup and I noticed that a ladle next to me had a very healthy ant population because it had residual soup on it. Ok fine, time to leave it alone and get a clean one. I can always wash that later.

After which, I started boiling and grabbed a ladle to stir it with. Yup...you guessed it...the one covered in living things. Well, few things beat ant soup. Adds protein to the mix. *flexes*