We all know that "They Live" is a documentary. No need to hide it. How much are THEY paying you????!?!??!!!!?111!?!?.
😛
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What’s on your mind?
- Thread starter Gutwrench
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
😛
Do I need to re-read "Dune" and "Foundation" before watching the series?
If I do will I be disappointed with what "they" have done to the original stories?
Should I simply give up and watch re-runs of Gogglebox?
If I do will I be disappointed with what "they" have done to the original stories?
Should I simply give up and watch re-runs of Gogglebox?
I think I can actually answer this!
I feel that most average believers are genuine. The mindset of this person seems to be a mix of a desire to be in on "secret knowledge" and loneliness. Almost every conspiracy theorist documentary I've seen features folks who come off as very lonely outside of the community they've found.
Now the leaders? I do think they might believe it, but it's safe to say it's their source of income to push their ideas. A lot of believers seem to have the money to buy books, memberships, "brain" supplements, etc too.
LOL! Yes! I am a paid shill to push the round earth!
I might read Foundation just before the series. Honestly, unless they go way too far with the interpretation (see "I am legend") I am rarely bothered by the changes. It's just an interpretation of a book.
Thank you! Yes! That's what I am thinking as well. The leaders? Definitely. A good chunk of them see it as a cash cow. There are some that I have spoken to who actually do believe. They're in on some secret information that no one else has. They have this need to be in on something that not many are. It's a need to feel significant.
Honestly rookies like you should have absolutely no say. We do not care about likes and such; I repeat, we do not care.
Random pics below.
😛 😛 😛 😛
I just found out that Google finally has dark mode for it's search. Neat.
Russell T. Davies is returning to Dr Who as showrunner! 
I left at Capaldi honestly, after watching virtually all doctors (not all episodes of course). Writing became somewhat awful and repetitive. Or, it's me being grumpier.Russell T. Davies is returning to Dr Who as showrunner!
My favorite is when they get flustered and call people "sheep". What's also incredible is how often clearly super talented people get sucked in. I remember one flat-Earther in a documentary who made models of the flat Earth encased in a glass dome. The level of craftmanship was wild, he did not need the flat Earth community to flex his creative skill.
I think that after a while it's simply a matter of joining a community that listens to you. Conspiracy theorists are quite welcoming to new members, which in turn gives the attention to what lonely souls and repressed individuals want. What's best than thinking, while you're working a job you hate, maybe going home to a family you hate or total solitude, about knowing super uber secrets and sharing them with your friends online or irl?
Surly conspiracy theory people aren’t very welcoming? Don’t they think new members are aliens, CIA, FBI or NSA?
Yes! That's been my experience, too. When they get flustered, they go for the namecalling and such. It's unfortunate how their talents get wasted on the flat earth. It's incredible.
Some of them are suspicious, but there are others who are actively trying to recruit people into their groups. We had some issues recently with a flat-earther who wanted to go on TikTok and pose as a child so that they could recruit kids into the flat earth "movement." He even came right out and claimed that he'd been targeting kids for years.
Sounds like another good reason I’ve never been on TikTok.
That guy sounds as though he's crossing boundaries, actually may even be in illegal territory.....
True, on a second reading of that post, that's almost creepy. And even if that guy has no disgusting intent beyond trying to recruit kids into their flat Earth community, it's still weird having a grown adult do that.
About to re-read Foundation before watching Foundation.
This got me to thinking about "PsychoHistory", the basic premise of Foundation that allowed history to be predicted.
Asimov initially thought that Psychohistory was possible, then later in life he changed his mind.
I think that he was originally onto a good thing.
First, people everywhere are pretty much the same. I found this out when visiting a PNG village in the 1970s and noticing that village people gossiped about the same things that people in "advanced" western societies did -- who's doing what to whom, and where and when.
Second, genetic research has shown that people are about 50% Conservative and 50% Progressive. This is backed up by watching elections, where across many nations, they are generally fairly close, with about 48% voting one way and 52% voting the other. These proportions swing one way and the other over a decade, but that swing is usually within those bounds.
Third, up until the Google/Amazon* era, we didn't have the computing power, statistical tools and programming knowledge to make historical predictions, but now we do.
So, why have election polls got it so wrong in recent years in Australia, Britain, US? Because they use sample sizes that are too small. My second point shows that with the population being so close in Progress/Conservative proportions, and with a small (only a few percent) making the difference one way or another, you have to have extremely large sample sizes, approaching 100% of the population, to get an accurate reading. The only way we have been doing that is to actually have an election.
Could we do better? Yes, by using the data and tools that Google/Amazon have amassed. They have very large sample sizes, over many years, and the tools to correlate that with predicted behaviour (they wouldn't do all of this expensive work unless it made money for them). This way we could better predict how elections would go. Do we want to do this? I am reminded of a short story where, due to data collection and analysis, elections were so predictable, that it boiled down to one person. That person was declared the "Elector" for that election. On election day, that person made their vote, that one vote was collated with the rest of the data, and the election declared.
So, could we use the these tools and data to predict history?
Should we?
I leave it as an exercise to the reader.
* I don't just mean Google and Amazon. I really mean BBDC, Big Business Data Collection. This includes the Tobacco companies, who have been analysing people and working out how to maintain and preferably increase their user base for over 70 years.
This got me to thinking about "PsychoHistory", the basic premise of Foundation that allowed history to be predicted.
Asimov initially thought that Psychohistory was possible, then later in life he changed his mind.
I think that he was originally onto a good thing.
First, people everywhere are pretty much the same. I found this out when visiting a PNG village in the 1970s and noticing that village people gossiped about the same things that people in "advanced" western societies did -- who's doing what to whom, and where and when.
Second, genetic research has shown that people are about 50% Conservative and 50% Progressive. This is backed up by watching elections, where across many nations, they are generally fairly close, with about 48% voting one way and 52% voting the other. These proportions swing one way and the other over a decade, but that swing is usually within those bounds.
Third, up until the Google/Amazon* era, we didn't have the computing power, statistical tools and programming knowledge to make historical predictions, but now we do.
So, why have election polls got it so wrong in recent years in Australia, Britain, US? Because they use sample sizes that are too small. My second point shows that with the population being so close in Progress/Conservative proportions, and with a small (only a few percent) making the difference one way or another, you have to have extremely large sample sizes, approaching 100% of the population, to get an accurate reading. The only way we have been doing that is to actually have an election.
Could we do better? Yes, by using the data and tools that Google/Amazon have amassed. They have very large sample sizes, over many years, and the tools to correlate that with predicted behaviour (they wouldn't do all of this expensive work unless it made money for them). This way we could better predict how elections would go. Do we want to do this? I am reminded of a short story where, due to data collection and analysis, elections were so predictable, that it boiled down to one person. That person was declared the "Elector" for that election. On election day, that person made their vote, that one vote was collated with the rest of the data, and the election declared.
So, could we use the these tools and data to predict history?
Should we?
I leave it as an exercise to the reader.
* I don't just mean Google and Amazon. I really mean BBDC, Big Business Data Collection. This includes the Tobacco companies, who have been analysing people and working out how to maintain and preferably increase their user base for over 70 years.
I had the impending arrival of Fall on my mind today. Leaves are starting to change, setting my clocks back an hour on the 3rd, getting the snowblower ready to mount on the John Deer, making sure my heating pads are ready for my aching bones once the sub freezing temps arrive, looking forward to being with family over the holidays, and put the finishing touches on our Fall Trip to VT in October.
I love Autumn.
I love Autumn.
OTOH, we have the impending arrival of Spring. We passed the Equinox the other day, so days are now longer than nights.
Plants have been madly dumping pollen in the air, so lots of hayfever-induced sneezing going on.
Little girl birdies are giving "come hither" looks at little boy birdies who are responding by looking at their feet and shuffling them.
The Maiden-hair fern outside my window is being raided for nesting materials by those who have paired up.
Magpies are attacking all and sundry, including drones.
Ponds are full of testosterone-fueled frogs calling for mates. And calling for mates. And calling for mates. Can somebody please tell them to ****, I can't think while I type...
People say a lot about spring, most of them nice. However, as a biologist, I can tell you that spring is all about sharing genetic material.
Autumn as we call it, is a great time for photography. But after an awful August weather wise, it feels more like summer at the moment apart from the short evenings. The grass is yellow and hardly growing. It’s a very messed up weather year.