funkless

yes, I was using the famous example that broke the Fin De Ciele -era snobbery about art and the distinction between artist and artisan to make a point.

my point is that you can't define it. So you say "should posts about the wheel be included?"

and the answer is if you exclude all things about wheels where do you draw the line? someone creates a new type of ball bearing that revolutionizes manufacturing, but thats not allowed because it's a wheel? Someone uses a new archeological discovery about an ancient device to invent a modern one? No posts about cars, trains etc? No posts about waterwheel generated activity?

It becomes impossible to police.

Hitler wasn't Aryan. There's no instances of extreme right-wing ideology that make sense. Never was nor will there ever be

So news of an online store doing shady shit constitutes as “tech news” because they run a web site?

So writing "R MUTT 1917" on a urinal and putting it in an art gallery constitutes as "art" just because they said it is?

etc etc

I was looking for this. every single time I type something on my phone I wish I had a blackberry still

due to the nature of infinity — a la monkeys and typewriters — you could have not only a single CD that due to a catastrophic series of errors is actually something completely different from a CD — but an infinite number of them.

Is it entirely beyond the realms of possibility that an infinitesimally small stroke of luck could create a sentient race of CD people? Except "small" doesn't make sense in infinity — "small" just means "a less common certainty"

they... do? it's like the "what is art" debate. the answer is "whatever you want it to mean in that moment and it can be different in the next moment"

anything including and beyond hitting a nut with a rock to open it

it's long been the case that to get away with a crime, you make it your business.

depends how recent your recent history is. within several living generations we had McCarthyism

they were banned for transphobic attacks / brigading on specific individuals

I recognize that both movies (Barbie and Oppenheimer) have some self-depreciating self-criticism of their own meta-apparatus. Oppenheimer's story - if we keep the narrow focus to just JRO - is a story about a scientist who gains political power through the usefulness of his theories only to lose that political power due to political influences and return being "merely" a scientist with his own tropical getaway, publishing deals, tenure at a university, worldwide fame and recognition and a host of baubles and awards from across the globe, including the USA just 9 years later.

I think it does read pro-USA, especially to this foreigner who lives and works in the USA. It does not cover the political and medical implications of the New Mexico testing grounds, it does not cover the impact on Japanese civilians from the war (indeed the only victim we see is imaginary in Oppenheimer's mind). It's not a particularly interesting story, and its characters barely suffer (in comparison to the suffering they caused).

I'd argue that it's propaganda to make it seem like bombing civilian targets in Japan was necessary, worthwhile and agonized over by heroic people. Which you may believe is true, but doesn't stop the movie from being pro-USA. I'd even argue it's depiction of McCarthy-ism is self-serving as it seems to suggest, subjectively to me at least, that "look at how far we've come."

back in my day the police murdered us for not working, or not working enough, or working too much, or wanting to work, for relaxing, not relaxing, relaxing too much, not relaxing enough, sleeping, not sleeping, sleeping too much, not sleeping enough and walking around existing and we liked it that way