Ok … as someone who knows only the superficial of Chomsky and similarly Epstein (apart from the big news items) … am I the only one wondering why or how the hell these two would be so close and even conspiratorial. Not that Chomsky’s a hero or anything … I just would never have guessed.

Was this Epstein big trick: networking really well; or was Chomsky also a giant dirtbag?

It’s shit like this that makes me glad to be completely outside of the AI hype circus. It sounds toxically unhinged. In the sense that being into this sort of dynamic and vibe, I suspect, at some point, involves some unhealthy attitudes, desires, sentiments and directions.

Like, I suspect some anti-AI sentiments come from just finding it creepy to be into having a digital slave … and, conversely, being pro-AI must involve being into that kind of energy and dynamic to some extent, all irrespective of the productive aspect.

Somehow I’m only seeing this reply now.

Like I said in a sibling response, I’m not from or in the US.

Otherwise, I was completely aware of what the character was a parody of. But I think that only contributed to my issues with the film.

Not because I’m a Trump supporter … I’m down for a parody of him any day, but because I don’t think it was done well or had anything to offer beyond what’s already out there generally … and yet, because it was a trump parody, we were all supposed to like or respect it?

If it was early or prescient (like, before 2016), sure, maybe, but in 2025, doing a trump thing without providing something meaningful and that helps us understand how he’s in power better, is probably a net negative TBH.

The lua escape hatch is interesting.

Are there other lisps like this? I’m guessing closure has some similar features re Java/JVM?

I’m not sure I understand you.

If this is a US politics thing … I’m not USian.

I’m genuinely curious to see how it goes!

Lucky you to have enjoy Lost Highway for the first time!

In a cinema no less!

Yep agreed. On the English language thing, I suspected but don’t know enough about him and haven’t seen enough of his films to be confident enough to claim it. But it certainly seemed to me that the writing-directing-editing just was not landing at all. I think my problem is that I picked up on it fairly early on in the film and couldn’t stop it from distracting me from the films positives.

Mickey 17 (I posted about it already, suffice it to say it’s flaws bugged me to the point of ruining the film despite me wanting to enjoy it)

Mulholland Drive (re-watch) -

I watched Lost Highway for the first time recently (both Lynch films) and wanted to compare. It made me appreciate both actually. MD is surprisingly brisk and varied and well paced in a way that sneakily draws you into a Lynch film without you really noticing or feeling it until the end … such that it’s “success” makes a lot of sense. But LH’s more gritty and disturbing atmosphere was appreciated by comparison too.

For someone seeing them for the first time, seeing them back to back could be quite cool I suspect.

It’s a tragedy how expensive it was though. They’ll never give him this budget again.

Yea this is partly why I posted, the “meta” story around the film is interesting (and sad) I think.

Interesting comparison. I think Mickey 17 is trying to be something different from Moon, with some overlapping themes. I’d say it’s more Starship Troopers and fifth element with moon-like themes.

I don’t think I’m a raging IMDb reviewer.

As I said in another comment:

As for a summary of “reasons”, I’d say it was thin on meaning and loud and discombobulated in its direction, dialogue, pacing and plotting beyond my threshold of enjoyment or even tolerance.

Beyond that, the review I linked captures my thoughts well.

In short I think it crossed a threshold for me that’s likely different for many (thus the mix of up and down votes here).

Objective was quoted to signal that it’s a loaded term.

I mentioned a number of other things besides not liking it and linked to a review that mirrored my thoughts well.

I like plenty of films (Bong’s included).

As for a summary of “reasons”, I’d say it was thin on meaning and loud and discombobulated in its direction, dialogue, pacing and plotting beyond my threshold of enjoyment or even tolerance.

Yea that’s an interesting perspective (and obviously I’d recommend staying away from the film, I think it’d only frustrate you).

Hear hear!

The whole thing about early internet nostalgia is definitely interesting and pertinent for the fediverse! While I think there’s something to the pre big-algorithmic-social internet, I think your point is very well made … there was plenty of trashiness too, and as you say, problematic homogeneity.

Meanwhile there’s a lot of “let’s just get back to the original Internet” energy on the fediverse … and yea … I’ve felt for a while this was a doomed mindset. Not just because there’s really no going back, but because it almost certainly is rose tinted glasses, which becomes apparent once you start assessing its libertarian premises, and how they failed, critically (again, as you say!)

Yea, also it was an established show and from what I could tell they kept a lot of the production staff at least at the high levels. All they had to do was keep things as they were as it was clearly working well.

Whether you like them or not, I’ve gotten a pretty clear impression that Amazon is a bit of a hack of a studio. There’s always a clear sense of something essential missing.

Ah yes! Thanks! The enhanced image does day “close up” after all! A bit lazy of me!

Very cool though! A zoomed inset in the main image would have helped I think.

I’m confused about what exactly the ring is in the image or the main image at least. There seems to be an enhanced image in the article that highlights the ring more clearly as an outer edge, which makes sense (I suppose).

But I don’t understand what I’m to make of the top image. It’s the diffuse light part of the ring?

Yyyep! That’s what this mind rot gets you!