#david gilbert

[staffan]

O’Sullivan-effekten

Mer än någonsin tjatas det om ”O’Sullivan-effekten”: alla förståsigpåares övertygelse om att mötet med den största gör var och varannan spelare vindögd och paraplegisk. Var det rentav en tourspelare som dryftade att några av O’Sullivans titlar under året kommit sig av uteblivet motstånd?

Allt detta är givetvis trams, trams, trams. Ryan Day skulle inte spela bättre mot John Higgins, och han skulle definitivt inte ”slappna av och spela sitt eget spel” mot en medelmåttig kvalspelare. Misstag är en del av spelet, men de glöms bort snabbare när de inte straffas. Kyren Wilson vinner inte sina matcher för att motståndarna skakar av skräck; han vinner med bättre spel, bättre nerver, bättre uthållighet. Och färre misstag. Samma som Ronnie.

Nåväl, alla försöker vi tyda snookergudarnas tecken. Och ingen renlärig trodde väl att Luca Brecel skulle bryta ”The Crucible Curse”, förbannelsen som säger att ingen kan försvara sin första titel, och orimligt ofta åker ut redan i första omgången. Brecel mötte den tidigare semifinalisten David Gilbert, en personlig favorit som mer än en gång har visat på storartat spel i VM. För åtta år sedan höll Gilbert en träffsäkerhet på 93 procent mot O’Sullivans 95 när han föll 7–10 i första omgången (så mycket för O’Sullivan-effekten). Han hade varit min favorit mot Brecel även utan förbannelsens assistans. En bekväm seger mot Robert Milkins följde, men kvartsfinal mot Maguire blir tuffare. Att dessa herrar är rankade 31 och 28 i världen är häpnadsväckande, men visar också på VM är ett säreget vidunder som vissa är bättre lämpade att tampas med.

Så en drömfinal för mig och kanske bara mig: Gilbert – O’Sullivan. Naturally.

[micaelabrody]

tribeca gallery tour today:

ann toebbe, "friend: susan"

david gilbert, "genesis"

lauren clay, "lover's knot"

jae yong kim, "funky mini chrome donut (100 donuts)"

emil alzamora, "apopheniac 11"

shanna waddell, "s/heness sows seeds in the early spring"

shanna waddell, from the "society" series at jack barrett gallery

hayal pozanti, "a glimmer to build your world on"

hayal pozanti exhibition, timothy taylor gallery

[garadinervi]

David Gilbert, Memories of Nuh Washington, 2000 (pdf here) [The Freedom Archives, Berkeley, CA]

Nuh Sparkling eyes, warm wit, ranging mind, and a heart full of love and struggle

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

Here's my problem with moral realism:

I value "economic freedom" (as one big nebulous category that includes various specific things like "the right to work," "the right to a college education," "the right to own property," etc.).

It turns out, though, that all the various rights that make up "economic freedom" are linked, and I'm not sure I can completely isolate and separate them.

Economic freedom (as I value it) requires a pretty high degree of trust between individuals, the gears of the market not grinding to a halt whenever people randomly decide not to trust each other. When people don't trust each other enough, they find a way to avoid working with each other or selling to each other or buying from each other.

And from an economic point of view, being present is what matters. What matters is . . . not helping your friends buy groceries or something like that, but having economic activity.

It's sort of a weird thing to say, because it sounds like saying that no one should be friends with anyone else. And yet it seems very hard to separate out the economically functional from the socially/emotionally nonfunctional without making no real-world sense. I mean, there is "people who like each other but have no trouble working together" and "people who do not like each other and have no trouble working together," but the social/emotional/feeling distinction does not seem to map to an economic one, at least not as well. (Maybe these different types of relations have different costs? I dunno.) I think this is one of those "bullshit examples" -- sort of like "the right to own a guitar," which is somehow not a real right because owning a guitar is not (in this imagined world) a practical thing that everyone does . . . maybe you don't think I should "own" a guitar, and think "the right to OWN a guitar" doesn't matter much, but I can still be upset about how I can't have a guitar. (Similarly, you might not think me having friends is a "real right," but if I "lack" friends, and I'm "upset" about "lacking friends," I'm still upset by something and you can be the one causing me to be upset.)

Sure, you can be upset about the wrong things. You can have rights to things that are impractical or that hurt you. You can worry about things that are bullshit. It's fine to worry about things that are dumb, and worrying about something doesn't automatically give you the right to have that something. But when I worry about things, I worry because I have a sense that those things are hard to change, or that it's not very practical for someone to change them, and that I can't change them myself. (I can't change the personality of the person I'm worried about being with, say. I can't manufacture healthy friends out of thin air to make up for a shortage of friends. I can't stop the world from being a "bad place" for the sake of someone who will probably never find the world a good place.)

Or, to put it another way: I think I "have the right to an electric guitar" for much the same reasons I have a "right" to "not starve to death." There is a broad, fundamental set of things that I need to live and function, and that set of things includes, well, food, shelter, safety, and a certain amount of fun. And if I can't get any of these things I'll be screwed.

It doesn't matter if I were "able" to eat rocks and have fun doing it -- if I need to eat in order to be functional, then eating is a real right, even if I'm the type of person who can't eat rocks. It's not about not being able to do things, it's about necessity. The necessity is what makes a right.

Similarly with my "right to have friends" -- I "need" to have a certain amount of contact with other people, and I need to relate to other people in a particular way, and this has a certain sameness across people, even if some people are "the wrong type" to be friends with me. "Why" the thing is necessary doesn't matter, nor does the fact that I'm "the wrong type" to be friends with some people. What matters is that the thing is necessary for the type of organism I am, or I need it to be an organism at all, or whatever.

(This feels somewhat unsatisfactory, but I think it's a good start, anyway.)

[travalicious]

[shoeboxgoblin]

The Brian David Gilbert episode of Very Important People is funny front to back but the best part is right after the reveal when Brian is clearly experiencing some kind of mad scientist gender euphoria. Me too.

[emily-e-draws]

RANDOM DASHBOARD INSPECTION!

[jen-kellen]

All the corrupted namecards from Game Changer episode Deja Vu

[glockzap]

'someone draw bdg as winter king' i say as i do so myself

[windoftime]

Brian David Gilbert getting himself adopted by Dropout is one of the best trades of the century

[staffan]

Efter att 10–10 istället blir 9–11 går luften ur David Gilbert och missarna kommer allt tätare. Även Kyren tappar skärpan och bjuder inte på några mästartakter, men håller ihop spelet nog för att dra ifrån till 14–10.

[reineydraws]

i think, if they were real, they would hang out while waiting for the mortals in the time loop to reset. and they'd be buddies.

[skipppppy]

So. About that new episode huh

[a-somewhat-wiser-sicilian]

I had to go back and check because I had a feeling but

Computer... Enhance

My suspicions were confirmed

THAT'S what was filling me with dread this entire time. They not only had the guy who made one of the best horror shorts I've ever seen as a silly character, but as a consultant because they decided they ALSO wanted to do some fucking scary VHS timeloop stuff.

[keirashark]

So glad they have Brian David Gilbert employed in so many positions at Dropout, like live-in fact checker and podium inspector

[featherlouise]

It was like a vision from an angry god