New Testingstan

Actually that's just because I have the "style=5" thing in my URL.

And because I'm in a trolling mood today:

Constitution of the United States, Amendment XXVIII (Proposed) wrote:A healthy Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to have Access to Free Medical Care, shall not be infringed.

Service Guarantees Citizenship Healthcare

Fraudulence Prefect is doing some bomb-ass work in that thread. I wish I still had an account so that I could say, "I am literally a physics major and I literally give zero literal fucks about this, and this was literally suggested for the first Society of Physics Students movie night this year. Sorry you all youse guys have problems with fiction putting drama above literal literalism." and get banned again.

Like, it's an entirely valid point of view to have, and it's funny when people get mad that it exists, and it's funnier when people take the "technical" approach to its logical conclusions and whine about how you should create at least one full language with extensive vocabulary in order to write a fantasy novel.

Oh hey you went into Physics, too?

Do you regret it as much as I do :L

Infinity Biscuit wrote:Oh hey you went into Physics, too?

Do you regret it as much as I do :L

I'm still undergrad due to transfer fuckery, so I haven't reached the depths of utter bullshit that will probably dump me straight into nihilism (and then there's postdocs!), but learning about entropy, Lagrangians, etc. is cool. But nobody in the department's brave enough to do the bed-of-nails trick except me. Jeez, and they talk about trying to do outreach!

perhaps technical errors in movies are a good thing because they can get ppl talking about it and learn stuff

like srsly it is so much more fun to crunch these fictional scenarios than the regular homework stuff

Probably because it feels more like a "real" problem where you're actually doing something, even if it's just ballparking some special effects or whatever, instead of just going over something for practice's sake?

Yeah, I spent probably an hour playing with the rocket equation and deriving Isp in seconds when I got my Classical Mechanics book. It's always more fun when you're playing than when you're practicing, which explains why I never got very far with the clarinet.

one time i made an equation for how fast a person using 3DMG would end up going for a given set of parameters if they're using their zip-lines to go straight horizontally as they frequently do

it was really simple and i got a function for speed for a given distance across the zip but speed with respect to time is some fucked up differential equation

Zablorg wrote:one time i made an equation for how fast a person using 3DMG would end up going for a given set of parameters if they're using their zip-lines to go straight horizontally as they frequently do

it was really simple and i got a function for speed for a given distance across the zip but speed with respect to time is some fucked up differential equation

welcome to physics! in a few months i'll know hamiltonians and lagrangians inside out and possibly be able to convert it from an ugly diffeq into one that is elegant but still frustrating to use!

Or you may not

I mean I never did and I somehow got the degree :L

(and immediately fled to comforting safe engineering)

Infinity Biscuit wrote:Or you may not

I mean I never did and I somehow got the degree :L

(and immediately fled to comforting safe engineering)

in that case i'll just go into cosmology and send diaries from psychotic breaks in as papers and still make more sense than leonard mlodinow or michio kaku :

Zablorg wrote:one time i made an equation for how fast a person using 3DMG would end up going for a given set of parameters if they're using their zip-lines to go straight horizontally as they frequently do

it was really simple and i got a function for speed for a given distance across the zip but speed with respect to time is some fucked up differential equation

Dude I don't know what you said

But how fast is Levi in degrees of hella fast

F.J. Prefect, Esq wrote:

Zablorg wrote:one time i made an equation for how fast a person using 3DMG would end up going for a given set of parameters if they're using their zip-lines to go straight horizontally as they frequently do

it was really simple and i got a function for speed for a given distance across the zip but speed with respect to time is some fucked up differential equation

Dude I don't know what you said

But how fast is Levi in degrees of hella fast

I've never actually seen Attack on Titan, but this guy is really cool:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=dUr452RXJgw

F.J. Prefect, Esq wrote:

Zablorg wrote:one time i made an equation for how fast a person using 3DMG would end up going for a given set of parameters if they're using their zip-lines to go straight horizontally as they frequently do

it was really simple and i got a function for speed for a given distance across the zip but speed with respect to time is some fucked up differential equation

Dude I don't know what you said

But how fast is Levi in degrees of hella fast

i estimate levi clocks in at approximately 3-4 hella fast

Suddenly I want to make one of those

I swear to god if the lottery thing ever happens I'll spend most of my time making cosplay stuff

Bakustra wrote:Fraudulence Prefect is doing some bomb-ass work in that thread. I wish I still had an account so that I could say, "I am literally a physics major and I literally give zero literal fucks about this, and this was literally suggested for the first Society of Physics Students movie night this year. Sorry you all youse guys have problems with fiction putting drama above literal literalism." and get banned again.

Like, it's an entirely valid point of view to have, and it's funny when people get mad that it exists, and it's funnier when people take the "technical" approach to its logical conclusions and whine about how you should create at least one full language with extensive vocabulary in order to write a fantasy novel.

well yes but that doesn't make it OK to just go and shit all over a thread of people who do care about that stuff
if ford had been trying to start some kind of discussion RE: themes or whatever, that'd be one thing, but just going in and saying 'lol nerds' is kind of shitty

Welp, it's confirmed.

Ford Prefect wrote:

Napoleon the Clown wrote:Ford, would you say "Who cares?" if the movie had someone's car break down in New Mexico and they ended up having to walk to Melbourne to get to safety?

Yes.

Ford is a fucking idiot.

Actually, RogueIce put it best.

People are actually whining that people are discussing the scientific errors in a movie on a board where the banner says, among other things, that this is a place to "Get your fill of ... science ..."?

I know it's become a thing to look down your nose at the 'sad nerds' who discuss, complain about and/or analyze the scientific/technical details of a movie rather than focusing on characters, plot, themes and so on, but come the fuck on already. Get over yourselves.

RyanThunder wrote:Welp, it's confirmed.

Ford Prefect wrote:

Napoleon the Clown wrote:Ford, would you say "Who cares?" if the movie had someone's car break down in New Mexico and they ended up having to walk to Melbourne to get to safety?

Yes.

Ford is a fucking idiot.

There are two reasons why such a scene would exist- one is if the work is engaging in surrealism for some purpose, like Bugs Bunny trying to get to Pismo Beach and failing. The other is if the work is poorly put together geographically. In the first case, there is an obvious reason and "Who cares?" is, in fact, the only valid response to people getting mad. In the second case, either the work is good in spite of the research/geographic errors, or it's bad all over, and in either case "Who cares?" is a perfectly valid response, because the work shouldn't succeed or fail entirely on such merits unless it is literally a guide on what to do if your car breaks down and it is literally telling you you can walk to Melbourne, Victoria, Australia from anywhere in the globe. Like, there are all kinds of movies that make major geographical mistakes on citywide or statewide scales. Most people just chuckle at them, because if it's absolutely critical to the film that you can bicycle from LaGuardia to the Empire State Building in ~10 minutes, that just makes the joke bigger!

evilsoup wrote: well yes but that doesn't make it OK to just go and shit all over a thread of people who do care about that stuff
if ford had been trying to start some kind of discussion RE: themes or whatever, that'd be one thing, but just going in and saying 'lol nerds' is kind of shitty

Honestly, I think that getting mad over these sorts of things is counterproductive when you could be laughing at them, so yeah, I do think that threadshitting is entirely valid in this case, especially when it reveals the extent to which people respond on autopilot.

Saying that thread is getting a fill of 'science' is like saying arguments over whether the Spitfire or the P-51 are better are history.

Bakustra wrote:There are two reasons why such a scene would exist- one is if the work is engaging in surrealism for some purpose, like Bugs Bunny trying to get to Pismo Beach and failing. The other is if the work is poorly put together geographically. In the first case, there is an obvious reason and "Who cares?" is, in fact, the only valid response to people getting mad. In the second case, either the work is good in spite of the research/geographic errors, or it's bad all over, and in either case "Who cares?" is a perfectly valid response, because the work shouldn't succeed or fail entirely on such merits unless it is literally a guide on what to do if your car breaks down and it is literally telling you you can walk to Melbourne, Victoria, Australia from anywhere in the globe. Like, there are all kinds of movies that make major geographical mistakes on citywide or statewide scales. Most people just chuckle at them, because if it's absolutely critical to the film that you can bicycle from LaGuardia to the Empire State Building in ~10 minutes, that just makes the joke bigger!

Another two possibilities exist. One, they may believe that drama/themes trump any and all need for the film to make any sort of sense. I guess that's okay, but really, I just don't care for movies like that, so yeah, I'm justified in dismissing it based on that.
Two, they're so fucking ignorant that they seriously thought you could walk to Melbourne, Australia, in which case I'm perfectly justified in belittling them and laughing at their dumbassery because this is common fucking knowledge.

Honestly, I think that getting mad over these sorts of things is counterproductive when you could be laughing at them, so yeah, I do think that threadshitting is entirely valid in this case, especially when it reveals the extent to which people respond on autopilot.

What do you mean, 'autopilot'? I honestly wouldn't complain if Ford did the same thing here. I wouldn't start a thread like that on this forum because that's not what this forum is about.

god damn it, i opened my windows cuz it is nice outside

but the workers next door are fucking smoking again


the city code says grass has to be mowed for public health reasons. the pollen and other shit can bother people, they say

yet smoking is allowed. god damn it my ears hurt and it smells like crap and fuck i'm filled with rage

thejester wrote:Saying that thread is getting a fill of 'science' is like saying arguments over whether the Spitfire or the P-51 are better are history.

But it has equations therefore science!

Seriously though, the site the forums are attached to is all about this sort of technical analysis of movies, so going into threads looking down on the "silly nerds and their analysis" is still dumb over on SDN because that is, in part, what the forums were made for originally.

If it was http://bbs.LiteraryAndThematicAnalysisOfMovies.net sure, be as dismissive as you want, but that's not the case on SDN.

Bakustra wrote:

evilsoup wrote:well yes but that doesn't make it OK to just go and shit all over a thread of people who do care about that stuff
if ford had been trying to start some kind of discussion RE: themes or whatever, that'd be one thing, but just going in and saying 'lol nerds' is kind of shitty

Honestly, I think that getting mad over these sorts of things is counterproductive when you could be laughing at them, so yeah, I do think that threadshitting is entirely valid in this case, especially when it reveals the extent to which people respond on autopilot.

You could say the same about "getting mad ... when you could be laughing" over inconsistent characterization and dumb plots, too, in which case why even bother with criticizing at all?

My issue is the attitude that seems to have cropped up wherein technical criticism is inherently inferior and only worthy of mockery and derision, which is crap. There's no One True Path when it comes to discussing and critiquing movies, and if you don't happen to enjoy and/or care about the technical stuff, good for you. Go make a new thread (if the technical thread was started specifically for the tech stuff) or just discuss your plot, characters and themes while ignoring the tech stuff (if it was a general discussion thread), there's not need to just waltz in there and shit all over what other people are discussing just because you find them to be inferior or whatever.

RyanThunder wrote: Another two possibilities exist. One, they may believe that drama/themes trump any and all need for the film to make any sort of sense. I guess that's okay, but really, I just don't care for movies like that, so yeah, I'm justified in dismissing it based on that.
Two, they're so fucking ignorant that they seriously thought you could walk to Melbourne, Australia, in which case I'm perfectly justified in belittling them and laughing at their dumbassery because this is common fucking knowledge.

Honestly, I think that getting mad over these sorts of things is counterproductive when you could be laughing at them, so yeah, I do think that threadshitting is entirely valid in this case, especially when it reveals the extent to which people respond on autopilot.

What do you mean, 'autopilot'? I honestly wouldn't complain if Ford did the same thing here. I wouldn't start a thread like that on this forum because that's not what this forum is about.

Well, for example, Guardsman Bass doesn't seem to have read the OP before jumping on Ford, because he's talking about how it's valid to talk about these kinda things, and I'm pretty sure Ford would agree with me that it's fine to talk about them, but getting mad and condemning the entire movie because of it is pretty dumb. In other words, most of the time, people in the know laugh about these kinds of things unless they're tedious, unpleasant people or the fuckup is on a deep, conceptual level (for example, I would probably get mad IRL if a movie confused astronomers with astrologers with no sign of irony, just like Ford admitted that he can't read/watch To Kill A Mockingbird anymore).

Like, Gravity is literally using a concept from space science to drive the basic plot, which is really, really cool. It's like watching old high-concept "hard" sci-fi on the screen, like a Larry Niven story that has become populated with actual human beings. So why is changing the orbital inclination of the ISS/HST to make the names more recognizable so bad that it outweighs this? It seems like a gigantic lack of perspective, and coming from people that are not actually involved with the field (barring Simon_Jester, who is in any case not who I'm talking about), it starts to seem creepy, like physics and astronomy are having a religious cult built up around them. So, basically, people can totally note that, yeah, this couldn't actually happen IRL. You could even parlay that into a little didactic thing about why this couldn't happens because of potential scenarios like this, along with other potential nightmare scenarios that could have happened in the early space program, NASA has implemented rigorous safety procedures. This can then lead into Challenger and Columbia, and why rockets are so expensive to produce, and a general discourse on the space program. But this wouldn't have happened.

Where that thread would have gone without Ford provoking an actual discussion is a brief pathetic dance of triumph followed by death in under a page. Or, at best, a lengthy circlejerk where people whine about everything except their favorite space opera series. Basically, I want a higher level of discourse and discussion. I have standards, and if you don't meet up to them, I'll be very disappointed in you for not living up to your potential, and I'll also be sneering, because I am a deeply flawed human being and I like to tear down anything that seems too noble or forthright to avoid bathos.