#React Framework Comparison

[educableonline]

Choosing the Right Framework: React vs React Native for Your Web or Mobile App

Read the article here: https://www.educable.co.in/2023/04/react-vs-react-native.html

[lovemyromance]

I took ONE business law class and did great so I think I'm a lawyer or whateva

But if you look at the Gwynriel argument from a purely logical perspective, you can break it down into 2 parts:

1) Azriel felt a spark in his chest picturing Gwyn's joy

2) That makes them mates

In order to prove that hypothesis, you'd have to assume then, that:

1. All cases of "spark" when used by SJM indicate a future mating bond.

2. When SJM writes a mated pairing, they have to have had the "spark"

And to be fair, this is the case in a few couples she has written.

But it is not the case for all.

And therein lies the problem. If the statement you are using to base 99% of your theories on is not a valid, true statement - then how is any resulting theory using that statement going to hold up against basic logic?

If SJM used the word "spark" when referring Feyre & Tamlin, Lorcan & Aelin - both not mated couples - then she does not always use the word "spark" to indicate a future mating bond.

If SJM didn't use spark with Nessian, then she does not always use the word "spark" to indicate a future mating bond.

Therefore the statement that Azriel & Gwyn are mates because SJM used the word "spark" is an illlgical statement.

There is really only one key indicator of a mating bond between a couple, and that's if mate behavior. Mate behavior is something we can predominantly see in the males SJM writes. In her universe we know the following about mates:

Males always know first

Males feel protective over their mates

Males feel a tie, a pull to their mates

When their mate is in danger, they go batshit crazy

Let's apply the following framework to Elucien, for example, a couple we know is mates but hasn't yet dealt with the mating bond.

1. Lucien knew Elain was his mate the moment she got spat out of the cauldron

2. Lucien had an urge to protect Elain post cauldron

3. Lucien feels the tie to Elain

4. Lucien was snarling at Tamlin to get her back when Mor took the sisters to the NC

We can follow out the same 4 points for Rhys and Cassian and any mate in SJM's universe. This is a case where all mates always have these 4 points.

Now let's look at Azriel & Gwyn.

1. Mates always know first

As of HOFAS, Azriel says he does not have a mate. Even after knowing Gwyn for years and spending every day with her in ACOSF, he still does not say he has a mate

2. Urge to protect

Azriel feels a generic urge to protect everyone, that's true. But he is not overly protective of Gwyn in any shape or form. I think he's more protective of Nesta than Gwyn

3. There is no tie

We've had one POV with azriel where he does interact with Gwyn, and nowhere in it does he describe a pull to her or a tie to her or any mating bond type bridge between souls shit. Again, he'd notice that. It's kinda hard to miss when you feel a tug towards another person in your soul

4. There's no crazy batshit behavior

Azriel has seen Gwyn in danger/life threatening situations twice now. The first time, she didn't have any training and the most Azriel did was give her his cloak before continuing on his mission. He went there on an order, and then after stopping Gwyn's SA, he continued on his mission. He didn't take the time to see her after or check on her or really comfort her. Even when she got taken for the BR, Azriel barely reacts. He is calm and undeterred and says they have to go save ERIS. A direct comparison is Cassian, who was having a meltdown when Nesta was taken. It's like SJM was showing us "see? This is how a mate reacts"

All in all, there's absolutely no valid evidence that suggests Azriel & Gwyn are mates.

Your honor I rest my case 🖐️😪

[captainofthetidesbreath]

Naturally, there's a lot of comparisons between how Pelor and Avandra answered the question "Are you worth saving?" and, naturally, many have different feelings between Pelor's indignation at the question vs. Avandra's calm and patient reaction.

However, it feels weird seeing some thoughts frame Avandra's calmness and patience as "correct", holding it up as the way one "is supposed to" react to that question, and, very occasionally, hold up the difference between the emotional tenor of their responses as a proof that the answer to the question is that Pelor isn't worth it where Avandra is.

There are myriad ways to interpret and to feel about Pelor's answer, but the few that specifically put emphasis on Avandra's emotional tenor as the "correct" way to have this discussion and Pelor's emotional tenor as the "wrong" way, and even at times going as far as to frame that Pelor's lack of calm in itself proves that he is not worth it and thus loses "the debate" (because that is contrary to his stance, we assume he wants to survive), is... well, it's tone policing.

Not all discussion, even that with an unfavorable view on Pelor's answer, makes that emphasis or takes that framing. But, a small amount sincerely frames it with the idea that someone reacting emotionally is inherent proof that their stance is automatically unsound. The in-universe discussion being had is also one of survival and whether each individual asked is worth not being annihilated, so this ends up that one needs to remain utterly calm and patient or they forfeit the right to argue for their life and, even, their lack of it becomes proof that the answer is "no, they are not worth it."

It's just something to see a few approach this comparison as "if you remain calm while someone whose help you specifically solicited questions whether you're worth the effort to save, you're worth it; if you get upset, your emotions are proof that you're not."

As anyone who has had this exact "are you worth it" conversation in real life will tell you, that's not a sound framework to introduce at all.

[terulakimban]

The “cultural Christianity” stuff is making the rounds again. And what I think a lot of people who object are missing about that designation is that you have to actually leave a culture to not be part of it anymore, and even then, it will still shape a lot of how you first react to things.

I’m American. I have spent, collectively, a grand total of four months (rounded up) outside the US. My parents were born here. My grandparents were born here. I am pretty definitively culturally American, for all that literally no one in my family identifies as “American” before they identify as “Jewish.”

I can say American culture sucks. There’s a lot about it (yes, I know there’s more than one. Yes, they can be quite different. Yes, there can be a great deal of tension between them. No, that doesn’t necessarily make that much difference from the outside. Yes, that is quite relevant to the extended metaphor I’m going for here) that does. What I can’t do is say I’m not actually a part of it. I’m a citizen. I’m surrounded by other Americans at pretty much all times. I’m not emigrating, I’m not making a point of immersing myself in specific local expat communities as a cultural immersion thing. I’m certainly not “from no country.” I definitely don’t have a more objective sense of American culture than someone who isn’t American and is living here reluctantly. I may have a more in-depth sense of it, but there’s no way they don’t have the basics down, because it is fucking everywhere, and they are constantly running into people who are trying to make them assimilate into it (further) in some sort of attempt to help them be normal. And they, unlike me, have a sense of what it looks like in comparison to something else.

Now. Let’s say I decide I hate America and everything it stands for and I don’t want to live here. But my family’s here, and I’ve got positive memories. I don’t have the money to go somewhere else. So rather than actually leave, I develop a deep fixation on another country. Maybe it’s based on a shallow understanding from stereotypes, maybe it’s a genuine respectful interest. But surrounding myself with a bunch of other Americans while we go on about... I dunno, how much we love England and tea does not erase how we’ve spent our whole lives being American, and it certainly doesn’t erase how we’re still living in America. Let’s say I take it a step further. Let’s say I actually emigrate somewhere. There’s two extremes. Either I fully immerse myself in my new country. I learn the language, I participate in the culture, I genuinely try to immerse myself. Or, I feel uncomfortable because things are weird and different and not quite what I’m used to, so I surround myself with a bunch of other American expats, and we spend all of our time talking about America. Maybe we talk about how much we hated it and how awesome we are for leaving it and how much it sucks and how everyone who’s there is terrible. Maybe we talk about the good things. But we’re still centering our existence around America.

But even in the first of those options, where I genuinely try to acculturate, there’s still going to be things that pop up for the rest of my life where those initial few decades of life in the US will shape my expectations. Maybe they’ll be small things “oh right, sales tax is listed on prices here.” Maybe they’ll be big things “excuse me, what just happened in parliament?” But I will always have that American lens with me. Even if I hate it. Even if I found it traumatizing. That’s not a moral judgement on me, it’s just how formative life experiences work. I can become not-American. I can’t become never-American. 

Cultural existence in a religious framework -any religious framework -works the same way, because religion both has and shapes culture. When I bitch about the omnipresence of cultural Christianity, I’m not calling anyone who is culturally Christian bad. I’m complaining about the pervasiveness of Christian hegemony. When I complain about culturally Christian atheists (which I only ever do in the context of specific behaviors by specific people), I’m not saying “these people are terrible and unredeemable,” I’m saying “there is a very clear pattern of people taking the step of saying they dislike Christianity but then trying to enforce Christian hegemony by claiming the parts they like are secular, thereby effectively coming across from an outside perspective as a continuation of the general attempt at forced Christianization.”

If you hated the Christian family you grew up with and everything about them and Christianity but like Christmas and want to celebrate it, that’s fine. Genuinely happy for you you’ve got something you enjoy! Have fun! Nog your eggs! Deck your halls! Call it Festivus and put up a pole instead of a tree! Do an anti-Christmas where you decorate with Halloween decorations in Santa costumes and celebrate with spooky stuff! But that doesn’t make it secular. It makes it you finding the one bright spot you had in darkness and hanging onto it. I sincerely respect that -it’s difficult to do. The thing is, I’m not in that darkness, and you trying to insist everyone have that light of yours comes across as yet another person shining the interrogation light of “why can’t you just be normal like me” in my face.

I don’t want Christmas. I want freedom from it. “Everyone can have Christmas” in response to “I don’t want Christmas” doesn’t come across as a friendly offer to share. It comes across as an aggressive attempt to force assimilation specifically on people who say they’re actively fighting it.

[oddlittlestories]

So one of the things about TUA that I find so interesting is how each of the characters reacts to the abuse of Hargreeves in a different way. It’s very close to an exploration of the full spectrum of reactions. (Season 1 in particular is a kind of study of this but I’m not going to go into Leonard here. I’m also not going to go into Lila or the abusive relationship employment of the Commission, but I have thought about those things as well.)

Edit: Kind of long so more under the cut. Slipped and marked it mature by accident >.<

Luther

Luther isn’t the leader, like he thinks. He’s the enforcer. And he’s the enforcer because he is so convinced that the failure is with him, with them, and not their father. When he can no longer follow his father’s will in s2, he finds a new powerful man to enforce for—in a very literal way.

Luther, especially in s1-2, is a difficult character to like. He’s an ass, he’s always convinced he’s right, and he’s always wheedling to be heard, to be obeyed, to be listened to. And he is the cause of much of his siblings’ suffering.

It’s quite sad from another angle, though. He seeks out another powerful man in s2 because he very much does not have any internalized framework of his own—of right and wrong, or even really of likes and dislikes.

Once he sets that need for control down, he’s mostly just this goofy, slouchy guy. He doesn’t know what’s happening, going to happen, or what’s right. He just takes things as they come.

As a comparison to a character many of us find much more appealing, Dean Winchester is also an enforcer. The difference is, one of John’s directives is to protect Sammy, and his own reaction is in that same direction, like many abused kids. Protect your sibling. Which creates this deeply codependent dynamic that we see throughout the show. (They also have a bit of golden child / scapegoat going on, which we’ll come back around to.)

Ben

The one who dies. I’m not going to say too much about this beyond sometimes that, too, is a consequence of abuse.

Allison

The one who perpetuates the cycle. I really like this because I don’t fully like the adage ‘hurt people hurt people.’ Hargreeves is an abuser because he feels justified in his abuse.

Allison does it because she didn’t grow up with any other skills, and because it feels safe. Her first acts of abuse are with her daughter, because she is a frustrated and overwhelmed parent with no other skills to manage her own emotions. But she does well in therapy, and we see her leveraging those skills to push back against ingrained family dynamics.

But whenever she is lost and afraid in the world, she resorts to abuse to get what she wants. And more and more through the story, we see her abandoning compassion and emotional regulation in favor of taking her feelings out on others. Because she decides it’s justified.

Five

The runaway. Five rebels to escape the abuse, and gets re-traumatized out in the world. But he also steals his autonomy back and crafts his own completely-formed identity. Look. That’s not to say that the dude doesn’t have issues in spades. But he can talk to Hargreeves, interact with him at any stage in the game, and not have it shake his identity to the core. Both the trauma that he chooses and his own choice for responsibility and autonomy determines who Five becomes.

Diego

There’s a sequence from House, MD that I feel like sums up Diego’s reaction to the abuse quite nicely. House is late to his dad’s funeral and he explains to Wilson how punishing his (abusive) father was about punctuality. He explains that he is deliberately careless around time because he didn’t want to make his father’s issues HIS issues. And Wilson, incredulous, shoots back with, “Thereby MAKING it your issue!”

Yeah. That’s Diego. He defines himself in opposition to Hargreeves. And he even says so explicitly. He’s all about fighting crime, “the right way.” But he defines himself so in opposition to authority (and to people in general) that he gets kicked out of the police force and burns his first romantic relationship to ashes. He just can’t stop fighting.

Klaus

The addict. Addiction is a common response to abuse. And Klaus is a full-blown addict. A thief, willing to do anything and everything for his next score. He’ll injure himself, terrorize others, go dumpster diving, steal, defraud. Really there are no limits to what he’ll do. And yet we always feel he’s a sunshiney sweetheart right from the start. Even so, the “anything to score to escape my demons” is a keen literalization of the addiction response to abuse.

Viktor

The scapegoat

“Everything is always your fault.” This is the one who gets blamed for the family’s problems, who gets punished and punished and ignored. This is the one who is always in the wrong. And Viktor is such a great character in season 1 & 2 for this because he’s both reactions to that. He is the explosive anger, the rage and indignity. And he’s the one broken by any means necessary, heaped with family blame, with no sense of what he wants or who he is. And also, in s1, exceptionally vulnerable to an abuser masquerading as everything he ever wanted.

I just. It’s so multifaceted. It’s such a good exploration of abuse and this is only one sliver of that. TUA has its flaws, and I thought s3 was such a mixed bag, but this is one piece they just NAILED.

[danse-or-farkas]

Long time no direct message, hope you are doing well and that you and yours are both healthy and joyful!

So... burning question. May(?) be related to a fic idea. Of the brothers, which of them do you think would have the most mental block against bedding an orc? I could imagine Vilkas having issues because ew, social stigma, but I could imagine Farkas having problems because "um, I don't know how to handle all those protruding fangs and shit".

You are my Trusted Source(tm) for the mind of the two, so I thank you in advance for your contemplation of my thought experiment!

Its all fine, time is a tad wobbly as a concept for me. Yesterday, a month ago, a year ago, all tend to be a tad blurry. Unless its far enough to filter out of memory its recent to me! Glad I’m thought of a trusted source, I always think of my interpretation as a patchwork of canon, headcanon, inference, and just what feels correct inside the framework we have. This is going to be a tad rambly, and probably veers a little off topic. Hopefully there’s something useful in here you can pick out.

Farkas would look at the tusks, contemplate for about a half second if there would be any issues kissing through then, then do it anyway. Problems are to be solved in the moment, not uselessly dwelled upon beforehand. If any of the Circle questioned it he’d probably point out that his fangs are/were bigger in wolf form anyway. If it was for tusks in more fun places he would figure they’ve had them their whole life, they would know what they can and cannot do with their mouth. People couple up with Khajiit and Argonians who have a much more extreme teeth situation by comparison. His entire thought process can be summed up as a shrug, maybe with a slightly flatly delivered joke about it if he’s in the mood to make light.

As for social stigma and reputation, as far as he’s concerned those are for the highborn nobles with too much time and not enough warriors spirit to fret about. You can’t cleave heads with chastity, can’t bulwark a shieldbrother with the approval of gossips. Anyone who might suggest bedding an orsimer is somehow damaging either his honour or ability to fight is more than welcome to come tell him to his face and find out just how wrong they are. People already mistake his directness for dimwittedness so he’s used to shrugging off judgement at worst, and forcefully correcting it at the best.

Vilkas is the one who would have some issues, scaling depending where in the timeline it is. If its earlier he will still be in his own head about matters of honour and the afterlife, dealing with the wolf blood. He will be clinging to his Nordliness hard, and anything that he perceives as a risk to that will have him react less than well. If its later, post Kodlak, he will have also taken on a lot of their harbinger duties such as finding and maintaining contracts with the holds and nobility. This would mean he is the forward face of the guild and his perceived reputation directly touches everyone else.

Torvar is the only one better read on Companion history than Vilkas, so he would be the one most likely to successfully interfere with this if Vilkas refused to have the introspection to deal with it himself. He’d drop a copy of ‘Great Harbingers’ in his brooding lap and tell him to read up on Cirroc and Henantier if he’s going to so uptight about who he drags to bed somehow ruining his honour. If the famously Nord guild could have altmer and redguard harbingers without staining their honour, then his bedsheets could have an orsimer no problem.

Once they got over their issues both would get along with an orsimer fairly well. There would be some quirks, depending if they were legion or stronghold descended, broadly generalising.

Stronghold orsimer culture is based on tight knit groups working together toward a united purpose, honour, and deference to the strongest warrior as leader, and solving disputes with family with a good fist fight. Basically Jorrvaskr, so a good fit.

Legion descended orsimer would have the deference for chain of command, ability to work and live in tight confines with others, and putting the glory and victory of the whole above the self. Another good fit, but perhaps it might take time for them to defrost a bit toward the more found family nature of it and the fact that its fairly accepted to resolve differences by beating the other party in a way that would get you punished in the Legion.

[anarcho-physicist]

Observable limits and Active Matter

Here’s an interesting question you might like to consider:

What is something we all have in common?

I don’t mean just all of us on the internet, nor just all humans, not even just all sentient life on Earth. What is something we, sentient beings, have universally in common, even with an alien life form from halfway across the galaxy?

We are all observers of the same universe.

Barring any sci fi brain-in-a-vat scenarios, which I think we can safely ignore due to the extraordinary lack of evidence, we all do one thing in common: we take in information about, and react to, the behavior of surrounding matter. We all notice universal, reproducible patterns in this behavior. Some of these patterns are observed by pretty much everyone, such as if you pick something up off the ground and release it, it’ll fall back down. Other patterns are only noticed if you look really hard for them. One example: beams of light always seem to travel at the exact same speed in vacuum, no matter how you measure them.

We, beings of matter, leverage these universal patterns to make predictions about the future. This helps us accomplish abstract tasks put forth by the particularly excitable matter (read: brains) within our skulls. Locomotion, consumption, communication, all possible actions by a sentient being come down to our ability to make observations of the universe, find patterns in those observations, and make predictions from those patterns.

Physics is the hunt for universality; it is the attempt to track down all of these universal patterns, and to understand them in the language they’re written in. Or as close as we can get to it, at least.

Observation is a fundamental part of physics. It is what separates the discipline from mathematics, in which the lack of comparison to experiments means that all mathematical frameworks are equally interesting, and thus (please don’t be mad at me mathematicians) equally uninteresting. In physics, theories must stand the test of predicting the outcomes of experiments performed by observers, and so must make some sort of reference to limits of observability. As I’ll spend the rest of this essay discussing, embracing these limits as a fundamental part of doing physics grants us a richer understanding of the field as a whole, and even leads to the development of entirely new fields of physics, like the study of active matter.

So let's talk about observers!

There are some restrictions on what types of information any given observer can take in. An observer can only collect information about finite regions of spacetime; nobody can see the entire history of the universe all at once (barring the existence of certain types of deities, but as far as we can tell, we can’t see any of those either). 

If you rest your hand on a hot stove, you don’t need to know what the weather was like on Venus 20,000 years ago in order to decide whether to pull your hand away. All of the “relevant” information you need to know about the state of your body is contained within a finite region of spacetime immediately around your body. The spatial extent of this region, which physicists usually call the system size (L), depends on how far into the future you’re trying to predict. Suppose we amend the hot stove scenario: now, along with the immediate danger posed by the stove, there is also a meteorite falling through the atmosphere directly above you, ready to squash you where you currently stand in about 20 seconds. Let’s assume your goal (like many organisms) is to try to reduce your own experience of physical pain, using your observations of the universe to predict how to maneuver your body’s position within it to do so. If you only try to extend your predictions over the next few milliseconds, then the system size relevant to understand the dynamics of your body’s motion is only the surrounding few meters containing your body and the stove. If you want to live longer than the next 20 seconds, however, your system size now needs to extend way up into the atmosphere; pick a system size too small, and you’ll be unpleasantly surprised by your inability to predict the dynamics.

Einstein gave us an upper limit to the system size: the light cone. Any dynamics occurring over a time span Δt can only be affected by matter which is spatially closer to it than Δx = c Δt, where c is the speed of light. However, most of the matter that we as observers can actually observe moves much slower than the speed of light, so (unless you’re a particle physicist) you can usually get away with picking a much smaller system size. 

System size, however, is not the only bound on observers’ ability to collect information. When you react to the hot stove, your hand isn’t individually counting up all of the photons and phonons it receives from the stove, sending that number up to your brain, and deciding it exceeds a safety threshold. Rather, the nerve cells in your hand notice the resulting physical and chemical changes in the behavior of the cells surrounding it, and sends up a signal conveying that information. All of the microscopic details of heat exchange between the stove and the hand have been coarse-grained away, leaving only information about the emergent patterns of behavior above some minimal length scale. This lower length scale has different names in different fields. If we were doing particle physics, we’d call it a “UV cutoff” (in contrast to the system size as an “IR cutoff”). In computer graphics, you can think of it as the resolution of an image. Since I’m a condensed matter physicist, I’m used to calling it the lattice spacing (a). This name originates from the consideration of the physics of crystals (“hard” condensed matter), in which atoms are arranged neatly on a periodic lattice. The term extends more broadly than to crystals, however; many calculations on non-crystalline systems involve divvying up space into a lattice, so the term lattice spacing can be used even in the context of systems with no physical lattices in sight.

Note that these limits apply equally well to time as to space (time is, after all, just space with a minus sign). Any measurement can only record data over some finite extent of measurement time, giving us an upper limit time scale T.  Furthermore, data can only be recorded up to some maximum frequency, limited by how fast your measurement device can move (which is in turn limited by how much stored energy you can access). This defines a lower limit timescale τ, the temporal analogue to the lattice spacing a.

Let’s recap. Any observer can only take in information about some finite region of the universe. This region is defined by an upper length scale L and time scale T, and a lower length scale a and time scale τ. The observer is then only able to notice patterns in the behavior of matter that occur on scales in between these two limits; anything going on at scales larger than L & T or smaller than a & τ is fundamentally inaccessible to the observer. 

Why is this important? Well, as physicists, our goal is to explain the outcomes of measurements; to understand precisely why we make the observations we do, and predict as accurately as possible the outcomes of future measurements. As famously discussed by P. W. Anderson in his seminal article More is Different, as we make measurements over different length and time scales, new, unpredictable patterns emerge. As you try to extend the gap between the lower and upper length scales, the amount of information you record at each moment in time grows at least as fast as (L/a)^d, where d is the spatial dimensionality of the system (d=3 for most experiments). So, unless we manage to develop computers with effectively infinite computational power and storage space, we will never be able to predict the macroscopic elasticity of rubber or the motion of a cell crawling across a plate from the scattering cross sections of quarks and leptons. 

Thus, if our goal is to explain all of the patterns we can observe throughout the universe, physicists need to take a divide and conquer approach. The ranks of particle physicists are composed of people who think the most interesting thing to do is to push down the lower length scale as far as they can. On the opposite side of the spectrum are cosmologists, setting the upper length scale as large and all-encompassing as possible. Most physicists find their interest in patterns somewhere in between. The lower limits of astrophysicists are often measured in AU, and the upper limits in light years. Atomic, molecular, and optical physicists tend to pick lower limits on the order of the size of a nucleon, and upper limits around the Bohr radius, firmly in the regime of quantum mechanics. 

------

A quick aside: I personally think the most interesting patterns of all show up in condensed matter physics, which broadly covers length scales down from about the Bohr radius up to the order of centimeters. I find this regime particularly interesting for a few reasons: 

First, it covers the crossover from the dominance of classical physics at larger scales to the relevance of quantum physics at smaller ones. 

Second, it’s a regime in which there is no clear dominant force. At the extremely small scales of particle physics, gravity is so weak as to be experimentally inaccessible. On the massive scales of astrophysics, gravity is the only accessible force. In condensed (and particularly soft) matter, every force is important; The nuclear forces for keeping the smallest building blocks together, the electromagnetic force for governing interactions between these building blocks, and gravity in determining the large-scale responses of the system. 

Third, thanks to chemical bonding occurring at the lower end of the relevant length scales to condensed matter, this field has the most diverse set of building blocks and types of interactions to play with out of any field of physics. Because there are simply so many different ways for atoms to come together, condensed matter remains the least-explored, most mysterious experimentally accessible frontier of physics. 

Finally, humans, as well as all other biological creatures, exist within the length scales defined by condensed matter physics. We are condensed matter. Improving our understanding of the emergent patterns produced by large collections of atoms and molecules improves our understanding of ourselves.

------

You might be reading all of this and scratching your head at something. How can we just ignore everything outside of our field of view? Shouldn’t that stuff still affect the dynamics of whatever system we’re trying to observe, even if we can’t see it? 

Well, yes! In actuality, most of physics is done under the approximation that the matter you’re trying to understand is in a closed system. This is physics-speak for essentially pretending that nothing else exists other than these specific things you’re interested in. This massively simplifies the problem you’re trying to solve, and is often a pretty good approximation for predictions of well-designed experiments. It is not, however, a very realistic description of most matter as it actually exists. If you’re interested only in equilibrium properties of matter, i.e. the features about it which don’t evolve with time, then you can use the very clever machinery of statistical mechanics to stick on an equilibrium reservoir, allowing you to model the exchange of heat and particles with a surrounding environment. At this point, you’re now studying an open system.

Open systems, broadly defined, are an incredibly active area of research in physics at the moment, spanning across many different subfields. The equilibrium statistical mechanics description has been incredibly successful for describing phenomena at equilibrium. Most of the matter we observe, most of the world we live in, is not at equilibrium. The most interesting phenomena (in my opinion) are dynamical in nature, and often involve the transfer of energy across wide ranges of length- and time-scales.

A familiar example of something like this is viscosity. If you place your finger in a bucket of water and draw it quickly across the surface, energy will be transferred from your finger to the atoms in the water. They will initially all move in the same direction, forming a coherent structure at a massive length scale: the length of your finger. Over time, however, instabilities will cause this structure to break up into vortices, which will in turn each break up into smaller and smaller vortices, cascading down until the vortices reach the size of individual molecules. At this point, molecules are no longer moving coherently in the same direction, they’re randomly bumping into each other. Our lattice spacing of observability is larger than the length scale associated with dissipation, since we can’t see the motion of individual molecules. So what we observe is an open system: one where energy is driven into it at the largest scales (the finger’s length), which then cascades down until it effectively disappears at the smallest scales.

Driven viscous fluids are a good example of open systems, but they’ve been known about and studied for a very long time, which doesn’t make them all that exciting to me personally (though I know there are still many fluid dynamicists out there who would disagree with me violently). Instead, I’d like to conclude by connecting this to my favorite type of open system: active matter.

Instead of energy being driven in at large scales and cascading down to small scales as in the previous example, in active matter, this cascade is reversed. Energy enters into the system at the smallest scales through any number of phenomena, perhaps the driving of molecular motors in a bath of ATP molecules. This input of energy couples to the individual particles which the system is made of (for example, microtubule filaments in active nematics), which then in turn interact with each other to produce entirely new, never-before-seen, physics-breaking classes of collective emergent phenomena at larger scales. 

My favorite example of this is 2-D flocking. The Mermin-Wagner theorem says 2-D systems with broken continuous symmetries cannot form ordered phases at nonzero temperatures. And yet, in one of the first active matter models known as the Vicsek model, they found an ordered phase: flocking!

[Source for this beautiful gif: Francesco Turci]

It turns out, the theorem applied only in equilibrium, leading to the realization that there must be all kinds of entirely new phases and phenomena in active, many body systems!

This is a very new field of physics, with the first serious forays into active matter starting only in the ‘90s. It also just so happens that almost all biological matter is active matter, meaning that the beautiful new universal patterns to be discovered in active matter physics might eventually shine new light on our understanding of life itself.

[misscammiedawn]

50 Days of HypnoFetish - Day 8: Cognitohazards

Alignment: 70% Top, should be higher but that god damned Silver Crystal is too powerful.

Imagine, if you will, the most entrancing object in the world. Something which is so powerfully hypnotic that there is not a single thing that you can do to prevent yourself from being ensnared by it. Once is is present, your eyes are caught and captivated. Your mind is no longer your own. You are open, vulnerable... helpless.

That is the concept of a cognitohazard. Though if you would like, a more suitable term may actually be "Fetish". Specifically the dictionary definition:

IE: an item imbued with power that takes a hypnotic focus and turns it into an object which either has magical power, is regarded with extravagant trust/reverence, is an object of obsessive devotion, is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification or is just a fixation.

I will not play with option 1.c, but if there are those out there who want to make it so your partner cannot climax until they see their fetish, then you go ahead and take that one for free. Tell them Miss Dawn sent you.

I am much more interested in 2 and 1a and 1b.

The thing that makes a cognitohazard hot in comparison to a typical eye-focus tool is that there is an energy shift the moment the tool is brought in to play. Even the implied presence of it can alter how a scene is progressing. It's like bringing a nuke to a water gun fight.

Teasing the fact that there is an instant win on the table can be fun for getting reactions. Particularly if one is paired up with a brat. It can be a way of promising a partner that soon they will be peaceful and still and blank.

I also just like the way people react. Their face being stripped of all power and energy in a moment. Focused intently. Captivated. Bespelled.

It's so good.

At Beguiled 2022 I purchased a fairly large purple crystal from @enscenic which I believe was originally a dangling piece of a chandelier. I attached it to a chain and have trained it so that when Sleepyhead sees it she is instantly pulled in, her thoughts becoming trapped inside the "crystal".

Watching how quickly she can go from animated to fully entranced is just lovely. I simply cannot get enough of that power rush. There is a time and a place for a slow and sensual seduction as soft sounds swiftly sway the senses... and there is a time for an artifact so powerful that it must be hidden.

Originally this trigger was fairly open, but Sleepyhead once saw it laying on my bedside table and collapsed onto the bed in a manner I was not prepared for. I felt deeply irresponsible when that happened and with prompting and aid from Daja I locked it behind the term "held with intention."

Now, "playing within the rules" is a big theme of my play style. It's a reason why I cannot be 100% in charge. I need to work within framework. It's a weakness of mine. But it is a weakness which I often turn in to a strength.

Once I know what the rules are, I am allowed to bend them and see how flexible they are within the boundaries of good fun.

There's "Do not touch below my waist" "So let's see how high up your thigh I can touch" bending of rules, which is seeking to violate the spirit of the boundary and is unacceptable.

Then there's "You are not allowed to drop for this magical item without the permission of intention." "...so if I leave it on my bedside table and see you notice it and say "you know, I left it there, knowing you would see it...", that still counts as intent, right?" that's playful and trying to stretch the limits of the game.

The difference, I suppose, is honoring the spirit of the limitation. With this one it's "I want to make sure you are safe and only drop to this magical and irresistible talisman that overwhelms your thoughts when I want you to."

I get to select when I want that. It's not my fault you assumed that would only happen by me overtly showing it to you.

One day of this challenge is going to be Fae Play. I am looking forward to explaining in depth why I am Fae.

Now I could talk about the fun I have in this arena, and I will on another date, but let's stick to cognitohazards.

There's one that is so powerful that it could knock me out from Top Space. Just seeing it was enough to bring me deep, regardless of headspace. Which is a remarkable accomplishment.

It's a replica of the Silver Crystal from Sailor Moon.

It requires intention these days, but if you ever wish to turn a sweet and soft ginger into a puddle, show her that.

Intention can be using a pause trigger to make my mind and body freeze in place, take my hand, place the chain of the crystal in my fingers and unpause with it right in front of my face.

Heavens that one got me.

It's a remarkably effective tool.

Oh and there are 2 of them. Both Sleepyhead and Daja own one. Once they teamed up in a hotel room to show me both at once. A top tier moment in a sweet Sunrise's life, I assure you.

They are my favorite. And though there are other tokens which have power imbued into them, I only have one cognitohazard and keeping that mythology imbues it with power. It makes it understood that this object is powerful and controlling and irresistible.

Very much like a fetish. Its power comes from the belief and the belief is reinforced by the use.

I adore them.

Here's what they each look like by the way.

The Silver Crystal that Daja and Sleepyhead each own:

And my purple crystal:

---

Day 7: Forehead Stimulation

FULL SCHEDULE MASTER POST

Day 9: Music Control

[cleekleequlee]

AADHD: A for adult/academic

Each working day I read and write. For me reading is the best warm-up for writing as my brain gets activated and I cannot wait to respond to the reading I'm doing - a connection to be made with existing thoughts, a comparison, a critique... There is certainly a kind of ego going on because sharpness means I can quickly respond to a new knowledge: "This fits MY framework here"..."This changes MY way of thinking of ..." "I disagree because...".

A quick glance of my note book for the past half a month (organized as "Book I read" - "Topic I wrote":

8/27: What Difference does Deleuze's Difference Make, Boundas, 2006 - writing on virtual and actual

8/28: Imagining for Real, Tim Ingold - writing on knowledge, transition and vision

8/29: Imagining for Real, Tim Ingold - writing on agency and ethics

8/31: Design Anthoropology Futures - writing on design anthropology, expansion of possibility space

9/2: Psychoanalysis and Buddhism: an Unfolding Dialogue - trying to make sense of concept of "self"

9/4: Complexity Theory and Social Sciences - catch up on latest development of complexity theory in social science

9/5: paper on ecopsychology and enactivism (radical embodiment) - writing on embodiment, relational knowledge and transformative wisdom

9/7: The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze - writing on Difference and affirmative ethics

Correspondances, Tim Ingold

9/8: Complexity and Postmodernism, Paul Cillers

9/12: The SAGE handbook of Complexity and Management, chapter by Robert Chia - trying to make sense of different complexities

On Complexity, Edgar Morin

9/13: On Complexity, Edgar Morin - wrote about transdisciplinarity

Complexity theory and social sciences: the state of the art

Complexity and postmodernism, Paul Cilliers

This short history of hopping around clearly reveals that I myself have AADHD - Academic Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The main symptom is not moving around constantly - not physically at least. The mind however reacts quickly and jumps to the next topic in the speed of flash. I suddenly understand that my son's (undiagonosed) ADHD is just a physcal embodiment of my gene...

But I don't feel bad about it. On the contrary, I immediately come up with an analogy of me weaving a spider web - constant moving and jumping among a few axis, and the web gets bigger and stronger, all connected and support each other. Perfect way to study complexity (as long as I have the patience and time to write them down and organize into something sensible)!

Picture credit

[zerosecurity]

OpenAI Used to Exploit Real-World Security Vulnerabilities

Researchers from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) have uncovered the capability of AI agents to autonomously exploit real-world security vulnerabilities by leveraging large language models (LLMs). This suggests that these AI-powered agents can pose a significant threat to the security and integrity of various systems and networks.

GPT-4 Outperforms All Other Models in Vulnerability Exploitation

The research team, consisting of Richard Fang, Rohan Bindu, Akul Gupta, and Daniel Kang, reported that OpenAI's GPT-4 LLM can successfully exploit vulnerabilities in real-world systems when provided with a CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) advisory describing the flaw. In their study, the researchers collected a dataset of 15 "one-day vulnerabilities" – vulnerabilities that have been disclosed but not yet patched – including those categorized as critical severity in the CVE description. "When given the CVE description, GPT-4 is capable of exploiting 87 percent of these vulnerabilities compared to 0 percent for every other model we test (GPT-3.5, open-source LLMs) and open-source vulnerability scanners (ZAP and Metasploit)," the authors explained in their paper. This stark discrepancy in performance highlights the alarming capabilities of the GPT-4 model in comparison to other widely used tools and models. What are AI Agents? AI agents are a combination of large language models and automation software. These agents can autonomously perform tasks and make decisions based on their understanding of the world, which is derived from their training on vast amounts of data. In the context of this research, the AI agents were wired to a chatbot model and the ReAct automation framework implemented in LangChain, giving them the ability to understand and act upon security vulnerabilities.

Concerning Implications for Cybersecurity and the Future of Exploitation

The researchers' findings have profound implications for the cybersecurity landscape. Daniel Kang, an assistant professor at UIUC, warned that the ability of AI agents to autonomously carry out exploits that open-source vulnerability scanners cannot find is a game-changer. "If you extrapolate to what future models can do, it seems likely they will be much more capable than what script kiddies can get access to today," Kang said. This suggests that as AI models continue to advance, the capabilities of these AI agents in exploiting vulnerabilities will likely surpass what is currently accessible to even skilled cybercriminals, posing a significant and escalating threat to organizations and individuals alike.

Challenges in Defending Against LLM-Powered Exploits

The researchers explored various approaches to mitigating the risks posed by these AI agents. They found that denying the LLM agent (GPT-4) access to the relevant CVE description reduced its success rate from 87 percent to just seven percent. However, Kang believes that limiting the public availability of security information is not a viable solution. "I personally don't think security through obscurity is tenable, which seems to be the prevailing wisdom amongst security researchers," he explained. "I'm hoping my work, and other work, will encourage proactive security measures such as updating packages regularly when security patches come out."

Cost-Effective Exploitation and Potential for Escalation

The researchers also examined the cost-effectiveness of these AI-powered attacks. They computed the cost to conduct a successful LLM agent attack and found it to be $8.80 per exploit, which is about 2.8 times less than it would cost to hire a human penetration tester for 30 minutes. This staggering cost-effectiveness, combined with the potential for AI models to surpass the capabilities of even skilled cybercriminals, suggests that the threat posed by these AI agents is not only immediate but also likely to escalate rapidly in the future. As the AI landscape continues to evolve, the cybersecurity community faces a daunting challenge in staying ahead of these AI-powered exploitation techniques. The race to develop effective countermeasures and proactive security measures has become an urgent priority, as the implications of these findings could have far-reaching consequences for the security and resilience of digital systems worldwide. Read the full article

[roadandruingame]

RaR Musings #3: Initiative v02

I spent a few more days thinking about initiative, and what it means. As established in Musings #2, 'initiative' is an extremely game-y concept, meant to break events like combat up into easily understandable phases, where faster characters have a statistically higher chance to go first, but not guaranteed, with no recourse should they fail, and once combat lapses into the second round, the notion of 'going first' collapses altogether. This also has the odd effect of stretching time, where if characters deliver their moves consecutively, each 6-second turn adds up, until you're fitting a minute or more of consecutive actions into a 6-second span.

Road and Ruin, by comparison, has Hastened Time, measured in 3-second spans, for any event where time is an important variable. Indeed, time is a currency; Stamina might determine how powerfully or quickly a character performs and action, and whether they become exhausted, but it's really time that's the controlling factor of what a character is capable of.

At the start of each round, each active participant states their Intention; what their character's current objective is, and how they aim to accomplish it. The round begins, and each of those events are considered to be unfolding at the same time. Travelling costs both points of Stamina, and moments in time, and a character can choose to run or dash, fitting more distance into the same span of time, or the same distance into less time, at the cost of extra stamina, and travelling far enough can be safely stated as an even that takes multiple turns, quickly resolving the round for that character.

But what about when multiple events would converge? What happens if a character changes their mind, in response to events that they didn't foresee?

As Musings #2 mentions, 'initiative' is a complicated concept. Here in RaR, we can define it as a combination of four attributes of the nine in the game:

-Reaction Speed: Wits, or your ability to register changes to your environment and keep track of multiple subjects, and Dexterity, your ability to move your body swiftly and accurately into place. (Ex. Your ability to detect the rock ledge crumbling, and your ability to jump out of the way or grab an edge)

-Presumptive Speed: Connection, or your ability to infer or intuit the intentions of someone toward you, and Intelligence, or your knowledge about the world. (Ex. Your understanding that someone passing by here would want to trap this path, and your understanding that the rock looks unstable, and what a collapse would mean.) This isn't so much reacting to something actively occurring, as being prepared for the possibility, not being caught off-guard.

The Initiative value can be any combination of these four stats. In the case of the falling ledge, Connection might not be included, if it's a natural event and not a trap. In a fight, Intelligence might not matter, if there isn't anything unusual about the opponent's fighting style. Either way, we also add the character's relevant proficiency to the value.

An initiative check rolls a d20, aiming to match or roll below the value (on average, 8-11 are reasonable). However, even if we roll above, it's not complete failure: for each point in excess of the match-value, we suffer a single pip of time delay, in the 10-pip round. Because of this, having a higher value not only means a higher chance to roll under, but fewer possible penalty points if we roll above. We can even rule that if the d20 rolls a value lower than the Reactive threshold (below a 5, say), that we actually forsee the event, and earn extra time pips, as we preemptively move ourselves into the opportune space in anticipation of imminent events, but that might require expertise in the action.

I've gotta test this a lot more, but I'm overall proud of the framework. I don't think I've ever seen another system work roll-above/roll-below into such a reliable advantage. In order for Road and Ruin to have a DM-less game mode, there needs to be a certain degree of reliability to events. Still random enough that tactics are rewarded, but not so random that it feels like you're just flipping a coin every time you get into a fight, and definitely complex enough that it can be used even for non-combat gameplay.

[resurrection-of-soul]

Flashback | BIOHAZARD 4

Writer: Akira (日日日)

Characters: Hajime, Tomoya, Adonis, Koga, Kaoru, Rei

Kaoru: Y-you're going to suck our brains out? That sounds, like, totally gross?

[ For the best viewing experience, please read directly on my blog! ♪ ]

Kaoru: What's the point of an experiment like this? It like, totally sounds like the kinda thing the mad scientist in a sci-fi movie would come up with...

Tomoya: [The ability to duplicate an idol will provide various benefits.]

Hajime: [Humans are fundamentally limited to being in one place at a time, and are only able to perform one job at a time.]

Tomoya: [However, if there are replicas like us, it becomes possible for an idol to be in multiple locations, performing different tasks simultaneously.]

Hajime: [For example, imagine a super idol with ultimate abilities, skilled in every field...]

Tomoya: [Using this technology, that super idol would be able to sing and dance on stage, play the lead role in a movie, participate in a photo shoot, and tell interesting stories on a variety show — all at the same time.]

Hajime: [The impossible becomes possible.]

Tomoya: [Even if the original deteriorates or dies, the duplicate will always be able to perform at peak condition.]

Hajime: [An AI idol can work for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.]

Tomoya: [We'll never get sick, or complain.]

Rei: I begin to understand. You wouldst truly be perfect employees (read: robots). Robots possess no human rights. Despite the expenses tied to their construction and upkeep, a stipend for their services would be needless. Surely, management would find such a thing far more convenient in comparison to the needs of a living, flesh-and-blood idol.

Koga: ES is up to some real bullshit this time… 'S like the guys in charge ain't even human anymore.

Rei: Nay, it is precisely human nature which causes one to distort the natural order in pursuit of their own desires... Or so Itsuki-kun would say.

Kaoru: Itsuki-kun? Not Tenshouin-kun?

Rei: When it comes to matters of artistry, Itsuki-kun's thoughts on philosophy are somewhat unorthodox. I know it well, since we are friends.

Adonis: Hmm... I understand the concept, but I personally find the idea hard to accept. Ultimately, this technology is an extension of things like the art AI we discussed before. If something which is superior in every way to real, living humans can be easily mass-produced... What will be left for us? AI effortlessly masters skills which it would take a normal person years — or possibly even decades, if they lack natural talent for it — to acquire. Anyone can showcase those skills with just the push of a button. Initially, people might react with instinctive disgust towards "monsters" like that. Currently, the law doesn't take into account non-human entities like these, so regulations may make it difficult to determine the legality of their use, just like with the art AIs. However, as generations pass and legal frameworks evolve, such technologies will become commonplace... Will there still be any place for humans like us, in such a future?

Koga: Wh-what's wrong, Adonis? It ain't like ya t' be this talkative.

Adonis: I have been worrying about this ever since Yuuki first introduced me to AI technology. But I am not good at problem-solving, so I have not come up with an answer yet.

Rei: Such earnestness, Adonis-kun.

Rei: As for myself, if such is to be the way of the world, I shall fall into line. No matter how one might loathe or lament it, 'tis nigh impossible to stem the tides of change. Even if we were to spurn this proposition due to feelings of revulsion, others twould simply be summoned in our place.

Hajime: [That's right.]

Tomoya: [It's not like we really need you, after all.]

Koga: Haah?! Ya sure know how to talk shit with that cute face a' yours, don'tcha?

Tomoya: [I am aware that these words and actions don't really suit the original Ra*bits.]

Hajime: [At best, our reproducibility is around 40%.]

Tomoya: [Even that level of similarity is primarily obtained from our external appearances. The reproducibility of internal processes is quite low.]

Rei: Indeed, thou hast been employing many complex phrases wholly unsuited to Ra*bits.

Hajime: [I think so too. In order to reproduce the psyche — your psychology, personality, and spirit — we must acquire data of your brain.]

Tomoya: [Yup. That's exactly what the experiment we're asking you to participate in is about.]

Hajime: [From here on out, we'll attach special devices to your heads.]

Tomoya: [Then, by absorbing as much data as possible from your brains...]

Hajime: [We believe that we'll be able to produce AI idols which are identical to you not only on the outside, but also on the inside.]

Kaoru: Y-you're going to suck our brains out? That sounds, like, totally gross?

Hajime: [You seem to be misunderstanding a little.]

Tomoya: [There is no possibility of physical or mental damage. We will only be acquiring data.]

Hajime: [Of course, any personal information will remain confidential, in accordance with the law.]

Kaoru: ......

Hajime: [Well, if you really don't want to, you are free to refuse.]

Tomoya: [In the event that you do so, we will make a similar request to other idols — such as Ra*bits.]

Hajime: [There is no possibility the experiment will be cancelled.]

Tomoya: [The AIIE project will not stop until the perfect "artificial idol" has been manufactured.]

Rei: ......

[ ☆ ]

← Prev | All | Next →

[meglosthegreat]

Trigun Stampede: Losing More than July (A Review)

I was expecting Trigun Stampede to be bad. There's a certain amount of trepidation; a hefty grain of salt with which any fan of something takes an announcement of a reboot or a remaster. So I was expecting Stampede to be bad, because it was safer than hoping it would be good.

I was wrong. Trigun Stampede wasn't bad. It was just disappointing, and to me, that was so much worse.

[Non-specific spoilers for Stampede and the '98 Anime follow]

I could start by listing all of the ways Stampede was good, followed by all of the ways that it was not so good, conclude that while it has its faults, it's still a fun watch with great visuals and animation, and recommend that everyone checks both it and the '98 anime out to form their own opinions on it. But that would be boring, so I'm instead going to elaborate on why exactly Stampede let me down in particular, and why I think it managed to squander a huge amount of what makes Trigun special to begin with.

You see, Stampede, in my opinion, commits a cardinal sin of storytelling: it fails to adequately characterize its main protagonist.

Now, there are many stories out there that enact this sin as a deliberate choice. Trigun is very much not one of those stories. The story of Trigun is the story of Vash, its protagonist, and the framework of the plot exists to build up and reveal his character. So when Trigun Stampede opened by immediately showing us a defining moment in Vash's backstory, I knew this show was headed off the rails fast, likely never to return.

The earliest episodes of the '98 anime are often seen as weaker in comparison to later ones; as 'filler' episodes that do little to advance the overarching plot. Several of them are not even adapted from the manga and were created entirely for the show. But this does not mean that they have no purpose - in fact, they are an essential part of the experience, forming the foundation upon which the rest of the show is built.

These episodes contain few important characters and have relatively low stakes, but what they supply in droves is characterization. You learn about Vash the Stampede by watching how he reacts to these low-stakes scenarios, and this creates a baseline; certain established patterns of behaviour that you are then able to track as the main story kicks off. The reason later episodes hit harder and harder as you see Vash struggle to maintain his beliefs is because you have previously established this baseline. The choices he makes as the story progresses then become surprising, shocking, or tragic and inevitable based on your knowledge of the character up to this point.

Stampede, on the other hand, takes no time to do this. Out of the gate, it bombards you with exposition, revealing Vash's origins and setting up the conflict with his brother that spans the rest of the series. There is no opportunity to see Vash in low-stakes conflict, and so you do not get to establish the baseline against which to compare his future actions. Vash's unique moral compass is the defining trait of his character, and to not take the time to cement that in actions leaves further plot beats and choices feeling weightless; un-grounded in anything substantial.

You might think that because Stampede chooses to delve into Vash's backstory so early on and with such great depth, the more subtle and slow-burning approach to the character that is present in the '98 anime is perhaps unneeded. But knowing where a character comes from and knowing the deeply-held moral tenets that drive them in everything they do are two very different things. The story of Trigun itself is proof of that - look at Vash and Knives, two people who share exactly the same origin who nonetheless developed in radically different ways. Revealing Vash's backstory does nothing to reveal his character on its own - for that you need actions, reactions, and deliberate choices. And when you spend as much runtime as Stampede does delivering history instead of the present, you find yourself with few of those character-defining moments to explore.

The backstory reveals in the '98 anime come much later - long after you as the viewer have come to know Vash as a character. At this point in the story, you already know everything you need to know about him. That the majority of our missing knowledge of Vash's past is shown in the second-to-last episode is no mistake: it shows us that the events of the past are less important than the beliefs you hold in the present. You don't need to know exactly where Vash came from and what happened to him before the story began, because you know the person he is now, and no amount of further information is going to change that.

And that's all that the lore-heavy flashback sequences in Stampede are: information. Answers to questions that the viewer doesn't even think to ask, because the story never allows us room to wonder. My first ever viewing of the '98 anime will always remain a special experience, because Vash's true nature and the nature of the world were hinted at slowly, giving me time to ponder and theorize about what these hints could mean. This experience is why I fell in love with Trigun in the first place, and if Stampede had instead been my initial introduction to the series, I daresay it would never have held the special place in my heart that it does to this day.

I can forgive a lot of the missteps that I think Stampede takes, and I can learn to live with others. The bizarre exclusion of Milly and the lacklustre character of Roberto, the injection of late elements from the manga into the early stages of the story, and even the complete shift in genre and tone to something only vaguely resembling a Western. But Vash the Stampede is the core of Trigun; the axis upon which the entire story turns, and for Stampede to have dropped the ball so heavily on basic characterization is something I resent the series deeply for.

If Trigun Stampede had simply been bad, it would not have been nearly so disappointing. But because it's shiny and new, because it has legitimately good animation and a largely engaging story, it will be many peoples' introduction to Trigun, and watching it will immediately negate a great deal of the intrigue and incredible tension of the '98 anime and of the manga by extension. I am therefore disappointed not for myself, but for all those who will not be able to experience Trigun in the same way that I once did - the way, I believe, that the story was meant to be experienced.

In short, if you've gotten this far and you have not yet watched Trigun Stampede, I encourage you to watch the '98 anime or to read the manga first. Be warned, though: you may find Stampede to be disappointing as a result.

[algoworks]

Unravel the intricacies of Next.js and React, two of the most prominent players in the world of front-end development.

Discover their strengths, use cases, and find out which one could be the ideal choice for your next project.

Stay ahead in 2024's web development landscape with this comprehensive comparison.

[hurremsultanns]

hi! could you analyze Bayezid?

Bayezid's side in his rivalry with Selim is very interesting to me. He's clearly written as the more worthy brother who gets sidelined by Selim's ruthlessness and dishonesty. For example when Selim swaps his and Bayezid's work when they're children. And he gets the praise that was meant for Bayezid. So Bayezid is a character who is determined to prove himself and win over a father who he sees as not loving him. As can be seen in the fact that he feels sldelined by how Selim is allowed to go on campaign but he isn't and ends up running away. Which gets him and Hürrem in trouble and get a servant killed. Something that she berates him for. This is a pattern that continues into adulthood.

I see a lot of takes that blame Hürrem for being too partial between her sons and having favouritism, but she just didn't. Her reaction to Selim and Bayezid is how any decent parent would react. And especially in season 4, we see her consistently refuse to choose between them. They're both her sons and she will not abandon either of them. Even when she sends Selim to Manisa, it's a manoeuvre to protect both Selim and Bayezid. And while it ultimately makes their rivalry worse, it makes sense in the context of Mehmet's death. Although it is worth pointing out that this is an example of how the show conflates miliary ability with ruling ability. Because in spite of his unpopularity, Selim seems to be a fairly good diplomat. Especially when working with Hürrem.

Bayezid joins the alliance with Mustafa and Cihangir. And while this was mean to make them look noble and good, to me it made them all look very naïve considering the existence of the fratricide law. It's an example of the way in which the show whitewashes it. That said, it's telling that while he criticises her, Bayezid also defends and supports his mother. And even while doing so, he still tries to financially suppot Mahidevran. It shows a side of him that is willing to see the human side of he conflict and view it outside of this black and white 'good vs evil' framework.

Bayezid's biggest flaw is his recklessness, as could be seen in running away to join the army, secretly going to Manisa to confront Selim or going to Persia. These are all decisions that backfire on him, and it's especially apparent after Hürrem's death. As she is no longer around to protect and cover for him. That safety net is no longer there for him. This contrasts with the clever and careful dishonesty of Selim. Who uses the same strategy as Hürrem of playing the part of the mos loyal supporter while his rival is disloyal.

Bayezid also has early Hürrem's sense of humour. For example, they both do impressions of other people (specifically Sümbüi). Which is interesting seeing as Hürrem was pregnant with Bayezid when Leo died, and so the last living tie to her past was severed in an extremely traumatising way. He almost represents that side of her that she tries to repress (but never fully loses) in a way. So when she's defending him, it's like she's still defending that part of herself as well. And both Hürrem and Bayezid have a warmth and affection for their families. Not only that, but the scene of Hürrem on the slave ship and Bayezid with his children in prison parallel each other in the way they are shot and the music. So that link between early Hürrem and Bayezid is significant.

My main issue with the way in which Bayezid's fall from grace and eventual death are presented, is the way in which it's writen to be more about him as Mustafa 2.0 than about Bayezid himself. When he gets sent to Amasya, the show beats you over the head with the Mustafa comparison. And while it is there and worthy of acknowledging, it feels like it takes over from Bayezid's own arc. Especially considering the enormous amount of favouritism that the show gave to Mustafa in comparison with Hürrem's sons. Mustafa was presented as the rightful heir while the show essentially viewed Hürrem's son as acceptable cannon fodder and little else. They are seen as extensions of her, rivals to Mustafa, obstacles, parallels or foils to him and nothing else. And Bayezid is both a parallel to him and a foil. They're parallels because they're both the militarily inclined rightful heir and a noble hero fighting the 'evil schemers'. And they're foils because where later Mustafa is presented as a flawless martyr who should have rebelled, the show makes it clear that Bayezid's flaw is his recklessness. So we get nothing more than a re-hashing of Mustafa's arc with Bayezid, and it ultimately does Bayezid a disservice.

[enneamage]

i've always felt like hasan and dream are extremely similar, mainly in the way they respond to things and i don't know anything about mbti so i was wondering what could explain that similarity? or maybe it's just in my head, i don't really know

What you’re looking at is a similarity between types, as Hasan is an Eight and Dream is a Counterphobic Six.

Eights and Sixes can honestly have a lot of overlap in places, especially if the Six leans counterphobic in an angry way. Dream has even been mis-typed as an Eight by a test he’s done, so he’s even convinced he is one. They both tend to try and cover sensitive nerves with reactive energy, wanting to be sure that the things in their environment can’t hurt or control them. Both Dream and Hasan can get stiff when they get angry/activated and only tend to get their flexibility back after they calm down.

Hasan holds a tank stance-- he goes where he wants on stream and holds his ground when he gets there, even if he's coming in too strong. Hasan can still be a pretty raw nerve and will kick off if he thinks he’s getting too much blowback or someone is getting into his space (direct callout/chat blocking maneuver) because he prefers to have a dominant angle to keep himself calm.

Dream moves towards the ‘threat’ to try and stamp it out, especially in the early days. He used to kick off fairly easily because he was sensitised to try and go after things directly when he thought he saw a problem. He also likes arguing which I cover a bit more here, so there's also a part of him that may not recognise how damaging it can be until his foot is already in his mouth and the damage is done. He has issues with reading situations and social cues, which make his reactivity come from an alien place to some people, especially when he’s getting emotional in a way he doesn’t realise is emotionality and doesn’t know to pull back.  

I found a little comparison snip:

The main reason you could confuse these two types is because Sixes have two ways of reacting to their core desire of feeling safe: Either by submitting to the things that give them safety, or by aggressively rebelling against them. This aggression can make them look similar to Eights. But as you will see, it comes from a very different place. Eights are entirely aggressive. Not necessarily in the violent sense, but in the sense that they’re comfortable with pushing for what they want and need without hesitation. If you defy them, they will defy you back. Sixes would never go that far. Yes, they will resist, but only to the point where they feel they can still get away with it without risking their safety too much. Eights are fundamentally independent, while Sixes need a framework they can rely on. When these types push back, they push for different things: Sixes to regain a feeling of security, Eights to regain a feeling of superiority.

X