#Daniel Sachs

[warningsine]

That's not fair. Oh, congratulations. You're right. This business isn't fair. I'm not asking for the business or the world to be fair. I am asking for you to treat me fairly, because you owe me that.

[didanagy]

BRIDGERTON SEASON 3 (PART 2)

[astrophiliaxx]

Not me watching edits of Ava and Deborah after seeing clips of them being in comparison to Miranda and Andrea.

( I don't have HBO nor do I have the money to pay for it.)

Can someone please tell me like what it the plot of the show or like just tell me if the ship is actually canon in the show.

[warningsine]

And you're okay with losing me too? I'm willing to.

[bridgertonworld]

June 2024: 📸 stills by Shondaland

[cantsayidont]

More hateration holleration. No poster art; I didn't like any of these movies and don't feel like looking at their posters again.

ABOUT HIM & HER (2023): Experimental romantic drama, set in 1989 and "based on a true memory," about an unnamed man (Callan McAuliffe) and an unnamed woman (Cristina Spruell) who are accidentally connected by a phone company mishap. Over a series of subsequent long-distance conversations, they become emotionally entangled and eventually agree to meet, but they're both so afraid that finally seeing each other face-to-face will shatter their delicate intimacy that they spend the entire second half of the film trying to avoid looking at one another, even though they both desperately want to. The characters' interactions are carefully staged throughout (at first, they're just voices, and we don't get a look at either of their faces until they're both in the hotel room), but this initially touching conceit eventually becomes SO contrived that the story's genuine poignancy is undercut by a growing resentment at being jerked around in such a heavy-handed way. This is perhaps the ultimate romantic idiot plot: Despite their insecurity, the characters are both skinny, conventionally attractive, straight white cisgender adults of similar age and class; the only thing keeping them apart is their reluctance to (literally) just open their eyes, and there's no reason to assume that even a failure of nerve on that front would be irreconcilable save for the filmmakers' stubborn commitment to the melancholy bit. (The end credits claim that the lead actors never saw each other or even learned each other's name until the film's premiere.)

I.S.S. (2023): Upsettingly grim apocalyptic drama — not really a thriller, though billed as one — about six astronauts aboard the International Space Station, three Americans (Ariana DeBose, Chris Messina, and John Gallagher Jr.) and three Russians (Masha Mashkova, Costa Ronin, and Pilou Asbæk), whose respective governments order them to turn on each other as nuclear war breaks out on Earth. Well-acted and generally well-made, but there's little real suspense because an unbearably bleak outcome is always a certainty, making the fates of the individual characters a more or less moot point; the only leavening factor the script can offer is a contrived subplot involving an experimental treatment for radiation poisoning, which is clearly too little, too late in the face of the global nuclear holocaust the characters see unfolding on the surface below. A stressful downer that makes Lars von Trier's nightmarish 2011 end-of-the-world movie MELANCHOLIA seem like a screwball comedy by comparison.

PARALLEL (2024): Unconvincing sci-fi drama, cowritten by stars Aldis and Edwin Hodge (and based on a 2019 Chinese film) about unhappy spouses Vanessa (Danielle Deadwyler) and Alex (Aldis Hodge), who are staying in a remote lake house with Alex's brother Martel (Edwin Hodge) as they struggle to come to grips with the recent death of their young son. The woods surrounding the house are also a nexus of parallel timelines, where alternate versions of the characters seek to supplant one another in what they hope will be better versions of their previous lives. It's nice to see this kind of sci-fi allegory with an all-Black cast, but it doesn't really work dramatically, marred by an over-reliance on exposition and some rather arbitrary rules (which the characters accept far more readily than it seems like they should under the circumstances) that make the plot's rapidly escalating violence hard to swallow. Aldis Hodge comes across well as always, but Deadwyler's part doesn't allow for much emotional nuance, and Edwin Hodge is stuck in an awkward third-wheel role.

PASSAGES (2023): Glum, dishearteningly biphobic French drama about a married man called Tomas (Franz Rogowski) who spurns his husband Martin (Ben Whishaw) for a younger woman called Agathe (Adèle Exarchopoulos) and then attempts to retreat to Martin after Agathe becomes pregnant, eventually managing to alienate them both. Why either was ever interested in him in the first place is never very clear, as Tomas is unattractive, solipsistic, and thoroughly unsympathetic (though Martin is no prize himself, leaving Agathe as the most tolerable character basically by default). All of the characters are thinly drawn, and some interesting directorial choices can't make up for the film's conspicuous lack of warmth or its aggravating determination to equate Tomas's bisexuality (a word the script studiously avoids) with his consuming selfishness and inability to commit emotionally.

[princetonarchives]

Daniel M. Sachs '60, ca. 1958. Sachs played football and lacrosse for Princeton University. Tragically, Sachs died from cancer June 20, 1967 at the age of 28. A memorial scholarship was established in his honor.

Undergraduate Alumni Records (AC199).

[two-hearts-beat]

Als wollte Sträßer für mich/uns ganz eindeutig klarstellen mit wem er zusammen ist 😂

[designscene]

MONA’s Founder Talks Collabs With Tom Sachs and Daniel Arsham

[xtruss]

“Hegemonic, War Criminal, Conspirator and Genocidal US” Targets One-Third of All Countries on Earth with Some Form of Sanctions

Washington (Sputnik) — The United States is the all-round champion in the number of sanctions imposed on its adversaries and rivals, with one-third of all countries on Earth subject to some sort of restrictions, according to a new analysis by the Washington Post published on Thursday.

Starting in the 1990s, successive US administrations have made economic punitive measures and economic warfare the main instrument of their foreign policy, which all too often are ineffective and backfire, the analysis said.

Decades-long sanctions on North Korea for instance have failed to dissuade Pyongyang from advancing its weapons programs and developing intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the analysis said.

Jeffrey Sachs, Professor of Columbia University: US Sanctions Against Russia and China Destined to Fail!

Some Excerpts:

"When it comes to Russia, the idea that this would be some kind of a 'knockout blow' for the conflict in Ukraine was utterly naive and predictably a failure," Renowned Economist and Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs told Sputnik. "But I think the Russian economy also was clearly vastly underestimated. And what the West gets wrong on all aspects of the Ukraine crisis is that the World is not united with the West. The West is just a small part of the world. Most of the World wants to stay clear of this crisis."

"Well, clearly, Russia has a lot of resilience because it has a vast food production base," Sachs said. "It has a vast mineral base, it has a vast industrial base. The assumption in the West was that it did not have a high-tech base. So as was said by the German foreign minister, I believe, Russia would be scrounging washing machines imported from Germany to get the chips for its military capacity. These kinds of absurdities were part of the mythology, and Russia's high-tech capacities were clearly constantly neglected and discounted. Russia obviously has a very sophisticated digital industry, and that's both for civilian and for military purposes."

"All of this is to say that there are two dimensions to this question about whether Western sanctions will destroy Russia's long-term growth. One is that it completely overestimates the US chokehold on cutting-edge technologies and underestimates Russia's indigenous capacities, as well as those of its partners. And second, it completely misjudges the scale of the so-called US-led alliance, which is now smaller than the group that Russia firmly belongs to, BRICS+. And even beyond BRICS+ most of the developing world and emerging market economies just are going to continue to have normal relations with Russia, though they will find the US secondary sanctions and threats and cajoling uncomfortable. But they don't want to succumb to a US determined and dominated order."

"Let me just say, if you've been around long enough as I have, you see this kind of, again, wish fulfillment writing come in waves," Sachs said. "In the 1990s, we had articles, for example, by Paul Krugman on The Myth of the East Asian Miracles, I think was the title, but basically saying, 'Look, there's nothing there to East Asia's rise, there's nothing there to China's rise. China's going to collapse, an authoritarian or totalitarian state can't succeed. It's all a house of cards. It's all going to crumble.' This comes in waves. What's funny for me this time is that last year was 'China's the great threat to the world, taking over the world!' Suddenly the narrative changed. 'China's in collapse!' And as soon as the narrative changed, every columnist, including many I'm sure there who have never been to China, started writing articles about the Chinese collapse and the Chinese failure and the end of the Chinese economy. It's all nonsense, basically. It's just nonsense."

Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University

"There is an active policy to break China's growth," Sachs said. "The US denies this. The US says, no, no, no, no, no. We just want to prevent a few technologies getting into the hands of the Chinese military. Nonsense. One reads, really, the US's approach and you can find it in many, many places. It is that 'China's a threat and we have to stop China's rise'. We have to find ways to create an international system that is unfavorable to China's continued rise. One part of that is the controls on technology exports to China, which we've discussed. Another part is basically more intensively closing down the US market to China's exports."

"So to sum it all up, the US is aiming to stop China's growth the same way that it aimed to crimp Japan's growth at the end of the 1980s, in the early 1990s, and the same way that it worked overtime to halt any kind of economic progress in the Soviet Union. China, of all of those cases, has both the internal capacities, orientation and the geopolitics to surmount the US challenge," Sachs underscored.

"Well, I think certainly there is a huge boomerang effect of these sanctions. Europe is the biggest loser of the sanctions, this is for sure, because Russia's low-cost production, both of primary energy certainly, but also of fertilizers and many other commodity-based manufactured goods going to Europe are now going to China and going to the rest of Asia. And Europe is in outright recession," said Sachs.

"And as Russia therefore turns to the broader BRICS world and the rest of the world, it's those countries that benefit from these linkages," the professor continued. "And it's Europe that is absolutely left behind. One of those beneficiaries is China. Clearly. Because China is a crowded, densely populated economy with natural resources, but on a per capita basis, relatively low. So it's very complementary with Russia. Add in the common shared high-tech element, and that's an added benefit of this increasingly strong relationship between China and Russia on the economic side, because there is a lot of technology transfer that can go in both directions. Add in the building of infrastructure across Eurasia, connecting Russia and China in a number of ways. That also is of great strength."

The US sanctions on Nicaragua and Cuba have proved completely ineffective in removing the respective administrations of Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro (now Miguel Diaz-Canel).

While the United States at present imposes three times more sanctions than any other country or international body, the overuse of such restrictive measures is increasingly recognized at the highest levels of the US government, the analysis said.

The Biden administration has never been able to say "no" to the temptation of the power of sanctions and the apparent ease of their application, as Treasury Department staffers have had to shelve their drafts on the restructuring of the sanctions system and give way to new economically suffocating measures.

The thousands of sanctions have made lobbyists and former US officials richer due to the billions of dollars paid by foreign countries and oligarchs to help them safely navigate the changing geopolitical and economic environment, the analysis added.

Between February 2022 and January 2024 alone, the United States imposed sanctions on more than 16,000 individuals, over 9,000 companies, and more than 3,200 institutions from Russia, making the country the most sanctioned one in the World.

Russia Will Recover, ‘Not Disappear’ Due to Sanctions - US Investor Jim Rogers!, June 30, 2024

"Russia is not going to disappear. There have been sanctions against Russia in history, there will be again. There have been sanctions against everybody in history. Russia will recover," Rogers said.

"If any country has a lot of sanctions against it, they would hurt the country for a while. So, Russia is going to have to deal with the fact that there are many sanctions against it," Rogers said.

"Russia is finding a way to get around the sanctions. But this always happens whenever somebody imposes sanctions. Many people try to find a way to get around the sanctions and they do," Rogers said.

"I can remember when Americans wouldn't even talk to Russians. And the Russians wouldn't talk to Americans. That will change again," he said. "Russia is a huge country, America is too. Of course, there will be communication and trade again someday. There always has been and there always will be after the war."

[tenth-sentence]

The Bar Association lawyers also suggested that Illinois might, if and when the feat became technically possible, require from applicants the correction of the genes for certain race-specific maladies – for example, Tay-Sachs or sickle-cell anemia – before it issued a marriage license.

"In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity" - Daniel J. Kevles

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Because recessive disorders tended to occur disproportionately in consanguineous marriages, Haldane and even Penrose suggested discouraging the marriage of first cousins. Haldane estimated that stopping such marriages would reduce the incidence of amaurotic idiocy by about fifteen percent, of congenital deaf-mutism by some twenty-five percent, and of xeroderma pigmentosum, a fatal skin disease, by nearly fifty percent.

"In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity" - Daniel J. Kevles

[richdadpoor]

Silicon Valley Tech Moguls Want to Build a New City in California

When rich people start buying up land, it’s always fairly disturbing. If and when those same people start telling you that they’re going to use the land to make the world a better place, it’d only be natural to feel certifiably creeped out. Unfortunately, this is what’s been happening in northern California, where some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent bigwigs have snatched up a huge amount of…

[secretsandwritinggs]

If Terry is Miranda, wouldn’t that make Daniel Andy?

Female terry is so miranda priestly coded

[dailybridgerton]

So far, the announced Bridgerton Season 4 cast is: 

Luke Thompson (Benedict Bridgerton)

Yerin Ha (Sophie Baek) 

Jonathan Bailey (Anthony Bridgerton) 

Victor Alli (John Stirling)

Adjoa Andoh (Lady Danbury)

Julie Andrews (Lady Whistledown)

Lorraine Ashbourne (Mrs. Varley)

Masali Baduza (Michaela Stirling)

Nicola Coughlan (Penelope Bridgerton)

Hannah Dodd (Francesca Stirling)

Daniel Francis (Lord Marcus Anderson)

Ruth Gemmell (Violet Bridgerton)

Florence Hunt (Hyacinth Bridgerton)

Martins Imhangbe (Will Mondrich)

Claudia Jessie (Eloise Bridgerton)

Katie Leung (Lady Araminta Gun)

Luke Newton (Colin Bridgerton)

Michelle Mao (Rosamund Li)

Emma Naomi (Alice Mondrich)

Golda Rosheuvel (Queen Charlotte)

Hugh Sachs (Brimsley)

Will Tilston (Gregory Bridgerton) 

Polly Walker (Portia Featherington) 

Isabella Wei (Posy Li)

— via Netflix Tudum

[opheliagreif]

Hendrik Hölzemann und die Spiegelungen

Bedingt durch Adams Lachen am Ende von "Der Fluch des Geldes" ist eine Idee aufgekommen, die nicht ohne ist. Diskutiert wurde sie kurz in großer Runde, dann haben sie @quelquunberlin und ich sie uns etwas näher angeschaut und würden gerne ausführen, was uns so durch den Kopf gegangen ist.

Die Theorie ist:

Adam und Leo werden zu einem Spiegel von Roland und Boris.

Worauf stützt sich das?

Adam sagt ganz zu Beginn von "Fluch des Geldes", dass das Geld sein Erbe der Dreckssau ist. Aus dem Bankraub seines Vaters. Er akzeptiert mal wieder etwas Strafbares und moralisch Graues als einen guten Lösungsweg und als sein Recht. Das steht diametral seiner Aufgabe als Polizist entgegen.

Als er sich während seines Homeoffices (ja, auch das ist für LKA-Beamt:innen möglich) im Garten betätigt, gleicht er sich auch Outfit-technisch seinem Vater an:

Die moralischen Graustufen werden immer wieder sichtbar und auch der Stolz, der damit von Seiten Adam auf Leo einhergeht:

Luisa wird umgebracht und es gipfelt alles in Adam, der die Hände auf Leos Wangen legt und ihm gut zuredet:

"Hör mir mal gut zu. Du wolltest Gerechtigkeit, dafür bist du losgezogen. Und die hast du jetzt, kapiert? Das heißt, es gibt für dich nur noch eine Sache zu tun. Brav fröhlich sein, dass der liebe Gott das alles ganz genau so eingerichtet hat, okay? Fertig, amen."

Leo hat sich bislang immer dadurch von Adam abgegrenzt, dass er Recht vor Gerechtigkeit gestellt hat. Hier versucht Adam Leo davon zu überzeugen, dass der Gerechtigkeit Genüge getan wurde, indem Luisa umgebracht wurde. Das hat aber mit Recht nichts zu tun, sondern mit Selbstjustiz. Adam impliziert, dass Leo sich keine Vorwürfe für den Tod Luisas machen soll und das, was passiert ist, akzeptieren soll.

Und dann kommt es zum Showdown ab Flughafen und Adam zeigt, wie sehr sein Lachen dem von Roland gleicht. Als Vergleich dient hier gut die Szene zwischen Roland und Lausch im Auto aus "Der Herr des Waldes". Sie klingen sehr ähnlich.

Dann ist da noch Leo. Leo, der Adam sagt, dass er mit ihm bis ans Ende der Welt gehen würde. Das hat Boris für Roland auch getan und ist in den Knast gewandert. Im vorherigen Teil hat Leo sich noch geweigert, in diesem Teil wird er zu einem Spiegel von Adam und damit rückt er näher an die Rolle heran, die Boris bei Roland hatte.

Und zu guter letzt gibt es noch einen Hinweis dafür.

Im Vorgriff zur aktuellen Folge hat Vladimir gesagt, dass sie fast wie Brüder seien. Das wurde bislang auch von Daniel gerne wiederholt.

Adam nennt Boris "Onkel Boris", wenngleich Boris und Roland nicht verwandt sind. Das macht sie...fast zu Brüdern.

Meinungen?