No need to take any pot shots at this trash in terms of aesthetic efficacy in earnest, if y'all know what I mean. But as an experiment, it's interesting. There seems to be an odd consistency to all of them, which reveals a kind of internal logic & coherence of sorts that courses throughout any iteration.
Aesthetically, where can you place these? I feel like the late David Lynch could have used some tropes in his unnerving, unsettling dream sequences (a la the intro dream in "Mulholland Drive" where people are so cheery and upbeat that it feels viscerally disturbing).
That's the consistent feeling that I'm left with watching each one, is just a deep, deep unsettled and uneasy feeling. A scowl on my face the whole time trying to make through each one.
I did crack up seeing a martini glass presented to the camera, then float in place on it's own and the presenter resumes holding it with his other hand.
> I did crack up seeing a martini glass presented to the camera, then float in place on it's own
It's just a cheap video-generation model doing its thing. I wonder if the orchestrator model noticed this and tried "Create a scene with a martini glass. Make no mistakes".
The real treasure was the weak ties we made along the way.
Jokes aside I do agree with you! The little things actually build up to the big things. Trying to insist on the big things via big-things-methods, that somehow forego the little things that comprise it all, will ironically have you miss the actual big thing. (Which might not be what you're pointing at... but I am!)
I think social graphs are often pre-disposed to capturing strong interactions only—an email chain, a trace-able back and forth (just as this), friend degree networks—not the off-hand conversations you overhead on the coffee corner, a tidbit you saw on a documentary awaiting a doctor's appointment, a faraway poster hanging on a museum wall.. you get the idea. Weak ties are everywhere! (Just not always recorded)
There's a quote in The Wire, when an ex-cop becomes a teacher in some of the toughest schools. The principal says to the new teacher about to be thrown into the gauntlet, "You need soft eyes."
To your point, I've come across many who conflate the 2.
Wisdom seems like making good choices for long-term positive outcomes, where there are no rulebooks, lots of uncertainty, and the incentives thrown in your face to act in one direction are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.
Intelligence seems like an aptitude to grasp concepts that lend itself to wielding a specific thing to a certain utilitarian end.
I'm sure others have said it better than me. But the folks I've met who are obviously intelligent seem to lack the ability to understand the consequences of their choices, and have already predetermined they're not only justified in their myopia, but somehow assume/ presume social support from everyone around them no matter how short-sighted their ideas are that come with obvious negative consequences if you look even one-step beyond their immediate outcomes.
In relationships, offloading personal responsibility onto someone else (aka blaming another person for your choices and behaviors and thoughts and actions) is something like projection, blame-shifting, codependency.
This makes any healthy relationship impossible, as no one can be responsible for someone else's decisions and actions.
Many emotionally immature folks appeal to this and use guilt and shame to get another person to believe they are responsible for someone else's emotions & choices. It's textbook toxic.
Reminds me of crypto. A lotta tokens. A lotta gambling. Very little supplanting of crypto from fiat. Very few use-cases that revolutionize society, etc.
Toxic positivity is just as bad as toxic negativity.
Cynicism seems to fall under toxic negativity, in that it presumes negative intent before even finding out if it's true.
I think the article suggests being willing to find out, and take a stand towards choosing to influence your immediate circle to be allies, comrades, amongst fellow "soldiers in the trenches together," rather than just assuming everyone's in it for themselves and therefore there's no point in giving effort to be human towards one another.
I do like what the author says at the end, that even if our influence may seem tiny and insignificant, that it has impact if we notice.
I do think cynicism can be cancerous. I don't equate cynicism with a realistic assessment of an actually bad situation (which is where toxic positivity will want to bypass, brush it under the rug, stick their head in the sand, etc.).
And also, there are people I respect who said they read 100+ books a year, and that you should, too. But while others in my circles were eager to jump on the train, for me, I thought it would be performative, and be about having read said 100+ books than digesting any of it. And what more, I recall that I best retain info via reading if I have skin in the game, rather than feeling like reading makes me appear more approvable to others.
All that is to say, it's good to hear from someone who reads a ton that a lot of your reading is kinda junk stuff (even if 150+ books a year is still a crazy metric – and as a tangent, people who ride bikes a ton say that a lot of their miles they rack up are junk miles, so I'm sure there's an equivalent of shitlit in any pursuit/ hobby/ interest/ endeavor).
Bukowski's books are funny and sad at the same time, but I would not consider it shitlit! Well maybe some if it like Hollywood I could see it, but definitely not Post Office.
You're making a joke (and the reference is great) but this is actually what happens. It's where the idea of "Lead" came from, and in many other industries it's much worse. It's why in business there's "(Acting) Associate Senior Execuitve Global Managing Director, Clients and Markets" type positions, so nobody can definitively compare themselves to one another ("oh, so you'll be reporting to me") and people can feel like they're moving up, instead of just being called "manager" or whatever and understanding it's a wide band.
I don't know Goldman at all, but I know there are plenty of corporations engaging in labor fraud by giving everyone and the kitchen sink the title of "Vice President" because of the benefits under the labor laws. Doing so is fraud if it is clear the title is given to hundreds, if not thousands, of employees who actually perform no functions that warrant an executive title. I worked at a Fortune 500 company with a total workforce ~10,000 of whom ~50% had the title of Vice President and another ~25% Assistant Vice President.
My world is richer for reading this. I absolutely can see it. Like Redline meets Cowboy Bebop. Both can be b-side vignettes in a larger futuristic SNES world. Not so sure about Star Fox being in the mix, but not entirely out of the question either. But F-Zero & Metroid is a wonderful pairing.
Aesthetically, where can you place these? I feel like the late David Lynch could have used some tropes in his unnerving, unsettling dream sequences (a la the intro dream in "Mulholland Drive" where people are so cheery and upbeat that it feels viscerally disturbing).
That's the consistent feeling that I'm left with watching each one, is just a deep, deep unsettled and uneasy feeling. A scowl on my face the whole time trying to make through each one.
I did crack up seeing a martini glass presented to the camera, then float in place on it's own and the presenter resumes holding it with his other hand.
Everything else made me nauseous.