Bartimaeus

Yeah, they're whatever. Stop bothering if you know they're not for you - that's what I did, . Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975). Yes, that's the name of the film. Quite possibly the slowest movie I've ever seen and that I will ever see in my entire life. Clocking in at nearly 3 and a half hours, this film features zero camera movement - no panning or zooming of any kind, thereby moving only through hard cuts in between some ridiculously long single takes - and more or less just shows the daily routine of a mother going through her chores. There were a lot of really nice things about this film, including the aesthetic, the unique filming style, the main character portrayal, the presumed themes and symbology...but it kind of overstayed its welcome for me. I can easily see this being a great deal many people's "most boring film of all time" for how indulgently slow and long it is on top of how few events of typical movie noteworthiness happen (there's just about exactly one scene like that, actually, and it's arguably the weakest scene of the movie). Overall, it was more of an...interesting see than a necessarily strictly enjoyable one, but that's just me.

RG3 lasted longer than Andrew Luck. Yikes. Another reminder for me to appreciate Rodgers while he's still here...

Yeah, this format sucks. I would prefer something like scheduling each candidate to get an hour to talk unchallenged, uninterrupted about their campaign and the platform they're running on like a week in advance (maybe one candidate for an hour each night?), THEN having this yell-for-time shouting match...err, I mean, debate, where they and the moderators can challenge each other on the ideas they previously presented. Networks probably aren't interested in that because it wouldn't get much views, but giving each candidate a chance to talk televised (preferably live) at their own pace about what they want would probably be useful at informing us what kind of personality and campaign they intend to project rather than only being able to listen to all of their desperate attempts to simply get air time.

I actually thought this was the idea - if forced, what stupid populist solution for solving violence do you prefer on whatever basis you desire? For me, it was "well, they can't actually stop me from playing video games that are at least currently out, so I guess that". Admittedly, I can't read the original post, though, so it could be that the intent was different than how I interpreted it with that further context.

Viridiana (1961). That was really bizarre, different, and pretty good. Got it a while back but held off until I was in the mood for it as I often do for odder/more random movie picks. Usually works pretty well. Probably my favorite foreign film out of what I've watched so far (which isn't a great amount yet, admittedly, but hey, I'm trying).

What in particular is drawing you to her? This is better than the lukewarm at best support you usually give, so I guess we should be taking notice. On a side-note, it's been noted by some analysts that Russian media, spambots, and astroturfers have been weirdly very supportive of her. That's not necessarily her fault or indicative of anything, but is an oddity nonetheless.

"Week 1 against the Texans: 24 missed tackles. Week 2 against the Ravens: 19 missed tackles. [Packers Head Coach] Matt LaFleur: 'We really have to concentrate on 'thudding up' and stopping the runner's feet. I don't believe in taking to the ground. '" Our coach doesn't believe in making tackles - only hits that our players consistently whiff over and over. That's just grand.

Should probably stick an "OrTrump" at the end there, .

Yeah, don't think other players should be expected to follow Brady's example (and almost literally nobody has - it's a business, after all). Actually, Brady was somewhat unreasonable - in the opposite way, so much so that IIRC the NFL player's union has been unhappy with him for "devaluing" players by taking such small amounts of money. A top 3 quarterback of all time that is also the ultimate team player combined with the greatest of all time head coach and a hands-off owner has been a frightening combination. Those types of "team players" create terrible unbalance in whatever sports they appear in. But yeah, at 35 million a year, that's more than Aaron Rodgers with his new contract that he signed just a year ago, haha. There's really not much of a choice, though - I know you mentioned "tanking", but tanking doesn't really exist in the NFL for the simple reason that it's, again, a business and players (and coaches!) aren't going to intentionally perform badly and lose contract earnings and fame and prestige because of it. Teams would rather overpay their starting QBs and be relatively guaranteed a decent season (even if not quite a playoff-level one) rather than risk a bunch of miserable seasons in a row looking for a new QB. Game and TV numbers go down, FAs don't want to come to the team, more of your core players want to *leave* the team or get overpaid to stay themselves, and there's no guarantee that you'll get out of QB purgatory anytime soon - it's just a terrible proposition and these QBs know it and use it for maximum leverage. The good news is, outside of Tom Brady and the Patriots, this is applicable to every team except those which have their QBs on rookie contracts (e.g. Mahomes)...which will remedy themselves soon enough (and teams should be rewarded for drafting exceptionally well anyways), so it's kind of fair. You guys had a great shot at winning a SB in 2016 when a bunch of star players were cheap and already performing at their highest - what a shame and a pity it all came to crashing halt against some awful garbage heap of a team coasting on old has-beens that barely even made it into the playoffs, .

It's Ecclesiastes 1:9 - one of the very few I actually know the chapter and verse numbers for by heart. I'm reading that both "novo" and "novi" mean "new", but the former is plural while the latter is singular (e.g. it is "homo novo" for "new man", "homines novi" for "new men")...and "novum" is a combo that means "new thing". Thing is, "nihil" already means "nothing", so "nihil sub sole novum" would seem to mean "nothing under the sun is a new thing", while "nihil novi sub sole" would seem to mean "nothing new under the sun". Interesting to note that "nothing" is apparently considered plural in Latin, but singular in English.

I've always been confused on whether it's this or "nihil sub sole novum". Both have plenty of results on Google (with the edge going towards the second), and both claim the same origin (Vulgate Latin translation of the Bible).

Regardless of the law, nobody can really "stop" you from playing video games, so my answer was that. It'd cause a horrible, horrible development crash in the U.S. due to the difficulty of buying them (everyone needs to get a VPN to keep buying them digitally, I guess? This would also have the benefit of encouraging more singleplayer games since all our connections would be unbearably bad in multiplayer, ), so that kind of sucks, but whatever.

Sorry man, . A couple years back, my grandpa finally got diagnosed with lung cancer after having suffered coughing fits for years while the VA kept telling him that everything checked out fine. Until he went to a non-VA clinic and they found that he had metastasized lung cancer that was much too advanced to have any realistic chance of making it go into remission. He started chemo pretty soon after in a "prolong life as much as possible" sort of treatment, but his body was just too far gone already and he died within like a month and a half. I saw him in person right before they sent him home for hospice care (i.e. to die, for anyone that doesn't know what this term means exactly - I only mention it because I actually didn't before my own experience here). It was a little shocking to see his physical state - was looking pretty close to an Auschwitz victim at that point, and it was especially bad because he could just ever so barely talk...but I'm still glad that I saw him. Hope you had plenty of chances to see your dad before he went. When these things start going south, there seems like a lot of time to do these things but unless you very conveniently live in the same area, you can easily end up taking more time than a person's got - that was nearly my case, and I think I would've regretted it for the rest of my life if I hadn't seen him.

Oh, no, she was dead already from a couple of years back. Well...yes...but no. He was the most major factor in driving her to suicide (her words in the what I guess you could consider a suicide note she texted minutes before her death). I'm not sure if that qualifies as "killing her". Suicide is usually more complex than being able to just blame one person's actions for it, so that's probably not completely fair to him...but on the other hand, I thought he was a psychopath for years and now he's actually a bonafide murderer, so I'm not feeling exactly charitable towards the guy right now. @Malcador : Don't worry about it, I'm horribly flippant and irreverent about these things myself...most of the time. It's how I deal, but of course, that approach doesn't work for everyone, . I've made lots of quips about both my dad's and sister's suicides to friends and family (...though not generally to the faces of those most sensitive to them). @TrueNeutral : Yes, but am now having to deal with my other sister, who is a diagnosed bipolar schizophrenic, lawyering up and trying to sue for custody of them because she has some sick, twisted delusions about being their "mommy" (???). I am pretty sure it's not going to go anywhere because there's literal years and years of evidence that paint her as a totally unstable individual completely unfit for childcare, but it's something I'd rather not be dealing with right now. @LadyCrimson & all: Thanks for the sympathies!

Kakistocracy in action. ...I'm fairly certain that my browser thought "kakistocracy" wasn't a word a year or two ago, and now it does. Hmm.

Still alive, unfortunately. This actually happened a little while back, but I've been waiting to hear on sentencing before I wanted to say anything about it. I still haven't, but I sort of realized that it may take...I don't know, months, maybe literal years before that happens? Hoping for a nice, long sentence (I can't imagine less than 20 years at the absolute minimum, particularly given the level of violence involved - literally caving in people's heads in with a baseball bat doesn't seem like something you get off easily for). I guess I should also be a little more forthright: this is my brother-in-law that I am talking about. Well, actually, I'm not sure how that works because my sister is also dead. As a side-consequence, we currently have custody of their/his two toddler children, my nieces. It's been a fun last couple of months (...and years).

A while back, I wrote this post: They ended up murdering some of their family instead. I guess that takes care of that. ...At least it wasn't me?

That's less specific than I was expecting, so I'm glad I asked. Was expecting something to do with specific communities (e.g. if you're a computer user and a hacker does something bad, as you mentioned earlier, obviously you should feel shame...and yet this explanation would still give no concrete rationale for doing so). I don't think shame is as effective of a motivator as you might think, especially because when overused, it loses meaning and stops even registering for a great deal of people. Speaking extremely generally here, people with a strong sense of empathy are usually very keenly aware of the literally endless tragedies and crises of the day, and seem to tend to eventually become overwhelmed and consequently numb to them, or at best stick to a very select number of issues that they feel they can make a difference on while trying to manage their own life affairs. For people without much empathy, those feelings seem to generally turn back to the self - i.e. it's about them and how they can get over their sense of shame. They might be motivated to do something good out of it, but it's predicated upon what they currently feel and ultimately fleeting. I am much more interested in ways of encouraging growth in empathy that doesn't involve constant negative reinforcement, personally, especially given my background in coming from a family rife with depression and mental illness, and where multiple people have literally killed themselves as a result of guilt complexes over things they didn't feel like they could solve.

You didn't answer the question. What is the rationale for feeling shame in these situations? Why should I feel shame when a hacker does something bad when I myself had nothing to do with it? I think I have an idea of what your explanation is, but I'd rather actually hear it rather than make assumptions (especially since I think I emphatically disagree with it...but would rather not launch into a counterargument without actually being clear first).

I probably would, too. Don't like the player, he's really only been a "good", not great RB in terms of skill (but he's been crazy reliable when on the field, which is an understated "skill" for a RB), keeps doing stupid stuff that gets him looked at by the league office, and RBs just tend to not be worth the cash in general.

I wouldn't say "no leverage". So much of that offense runs through him (and IIRC, Dak had the worst stretch of his career when he was out, right?), and he's on the last year of his 4 year rookie contract which pays him relatively little to what he'll make on the 5th year option next year ($9 million) or the franchise tag the next (somewhere in the ballpark of $13 million). This is also the last year the Cowboys don't have to pay Dak Prescott, which means the Cowboys are going to start having money problems after this season and may hemorrhage talent just like every other team that has to pay out the big bucks to their quarterbacks (and though Dak Prescott is not worth $30 million a year, the reality of the modern game is you need a franchise QB, and he qualifies...even if not by leaps and bounds, as one). So if there's a year that he can force the Cowboys' hand, it's the last year where they're "all-in" on winning (Rams last year style) and when their roster is arguably going to be at its best for the next however so many years. Only have to look at the Packers and how much talent we've lost over the years as a result of difficult monetary decisions on who to keep and who to cut to see how difficult it can be to get back on top once you've started paying a core group of stars. Of course, it also doesn't help when you let a few of the wrong guys go - Casey Hayward and Micah Hyde... - while also paying a couple of the wrong guys...Nick Perry and sort of Randall Cobb. He can't be out the entire year, unlike Le'Veon Bell, but he might be out long enough and be in bad enough shape that there's not much of a difference. It's probably the Le'Veon Bell situation that he's attempting to pre-empt, actually - a reliable workhorse RB tends to have a very short lifespan in the NFL, and outlasting your 4 year + 1st round 5th year option rookie contract just to get franchise tagged twice in a row (especially as a RB, which has by far the absolute worst usage/performance-to-price franchise tag money) and then discarded is a pretty crappy way to get treated as a star player. If the team has a multi-year investment in a player, they have ample reason not to horribly overuse and abuse him, which in turn makes it more likely he lasts in the league long enough for a second contract, all of which gets him lasting money and security.

No major injuries yet. Not sure what to expect this season from the Packers this season, given a new coaching staff and so many young players. I think we'll be a better team than last year, but it might not necessarily be reflected in the wins (where we honestly should've been more like 4-12 but were very lucky to escape with a number of last-second wins that felt borderline unndeserved if not for the heroics of a few players). If we somehow make it to the playoffs in any form, I'd be pretty darned impressed, but I'm setting my expectations at around the 6-10-to 9-7 area, with the caveat that we hopefully don't look incompetent for half of the season before the team realizes they'll really need to pull some magic out of their butts now, which has seemingly happened every season since 2014 to varying degrees of success.

Either it's something to do with alcohol (is Romania particularly known for its alcoholics?) or the Sultanate of Rum (more or less the precursor state to the Ottoman Empire), I'd guess. But yeah, I don't get it either.

I mean, the Democrats have attempted to pass election security bills specifically for fighting against the Russians, but McConnell has prevented them from being voted on. Not much more they can do about it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/jeffrey-epsteins-black-book-trump-clintons-prince-andrew.html "The "black book" of Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier and now-accused child sex trafficker, is a smorgasbord of high-profile, powerful people, including Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Britain's Prince Andrew and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and convicted sex assailant and comedian Bill Cosby, Epstein's former neighbor. Also in Epstein's address book is supermarket mogul Ron Burkle, Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and John Kerry, late Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, and media titan Rupert Murdoch, New York magazine noted in a new article." If all of these people were actually involved (and just to be clear, the fact that they're named in a book of contacts does not prove it in of itself - it's unlikely every kind of relationship Epstein had was for the same purpose, after all), I would literally not regret it for even a moment if they all went to prison. I guess it's too late for Khashoggi and Bill Cosby, but yeah.