MTGNexus

Yep, just being able to more or less write it off is really nice. It's not for me and thats ok. The perpetual hype train can miss my station this time round, which is fine because these days it never stops rolling.

I'm kind of weird about thematic cards anyway. I'm not mad about crossovers, but I'm not massively into them either. This one, I don't play D&D so there's no interest for me anyway. But I think I'd also prefer to make theme decks using existing Canon cards rather than just be spoonfed a character pre-molded and pack fresh. It makes a theme deck more personal and unique, and I like that.

I do need one of the bad white ramp dogs but I don't mind picking that up

The two Facebook EDH groups I'm in are absolute dumpster fires in terms of quality. Most people complaining about the Hullbreacher ban are also arguing for there to be no banlist, that Sheldon just needs to git gud, that Sheldon profits from being on the RC (lol). Even beyond the children crying about the van the overall level of discourse is YouTube comment tier. It's great. Dunking on idiots on Facebook is a hobby of mine so this gives me an outlet for my Magic trolling

Just finished watching the Queen's Gambit on Netflix. I quite liked it, although I realized it falls into a sort of weird-feeling place for me when it comes to fiction, similar to how I felt about Inglorious Basterds, where I almost have to pretend it's historically accurate to enjoy it.

I think the phrase I've hit on that I think sums it up best is "fanfiction for reality". It's almost a whitewashing of history, that men thought women couldn't compete at chess but then, by golly, one savant came and showed everyone the error of their ways and then everything was peachy keen. When the reality is a lot less satisfying - to the best of my knowledge, while there have been women that can compete against the best male players, the sport is still largely separated by gender and all the most famous players are men, largely because so many more men play that the numbers are heavily in their favor for producing the most outstanding players. It's especially weird-feeling considering Beth is modeled after Bobby Fischer, who was pretty misogynistic and dismissive of female players.

Same deal for Basterds - it's nice to think that the Nazis got what was coming to them in a satisfying karmic justice kinda way, but afaik they mostly faced the same fate as any other defeated nation, outside of the handful tried at Nuremburg. Which is better than nothing, but it's a pretty far cry from getting hunted down and beaten to death by "The Bear Jew". Watching it kinda feels like watching someone shouting at a tombstone.

Anyway.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Same deal for Basterds - it's nice to think that the Nazis got what was coming to them in a satisfying karmic justice kinda way, but afaik they mostly faced the same fate as any other defeated nation, outside of the handful tried at Nuremburg. Which is better than nothing, but it's a pretty far cry from getting hunted down and beaten to death by "The Bear Jew". Watching it kinda feels like watching someone shouting at a tombstone.

this is straight up Alternate history and my understanding is most if not all of Quintain's movies take place in the same universe.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Just finished watching the Queen's Gambit on Netflix. I quite liked it, although I realized it falls into a sort of weird-feeling place for me when it comes to fiction, similar to how I felt about Inglorious Basterds, where I almost have to pretend it's historically accurate to enjoy it.

I think the phrase I've hit on that I think sums it up best is "fanfiction for reality". It's almost a whitewashing of history, that men thought women couldn't compete at chess but then, by golly, one savant came and showed everyone the error of their ways and then everything was peachy keen. When the reality is a lot less satisfying - to the best of my knowledge, while there have been women that can compete against the best male players, the sport is still largely separated by gender and all the most famous players are men, largely because so many more men play that the numbers are heavily in their favor for producing the most outstanding players. It's especially weird-feeling considering Beth is modeled after Bobby Fischer, who was pretty misogynistic and dismissive of female players.

Same deal for Basterds - it's nice to think that the Nazis got what was coming to them in a satisfying karmic justice kinda way, but afaik they mostly faced the same fate as any other defeated nation, outside of the handful tried at Nuremburg. Which is better than nothing, but it's a pretty far cry from getting hunted down and beaten to death by "The Bear Jew". Watching it kinda feels like watching someone shouting at a tombstone.

Anyway.

I have this weird feeling reading this, like you extrapolated data from my head and put together a resume. I totally agree with everything you said, but never put it together so well. Thanks!

Could you call this historical fiction? Like Jack and Rose were not real people but the Titanic was a real boat. It's just fiction set in a historical time.

I guess that QG and IB were just way more obviously fictional.

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I have this weird feeling reading this, like you extrapolated data from my head and put together a resume. I totally agree with everything you said, but never put it together so well. Thanks!

Could you call this historical fiction? Like Jack and Rose were not real people but the Titanic was a real boat. It's just fiction set in a historical time.

I guess that QG and IB were just way more obviously fictional.

I think the difference is that QG and IB feel like they're trying to correct some kind of historical wrong? Titanic does have the 21st (well, late 20th I guess) century values being imbued onto early 20th century characters trope, but it doesn't feel like it's trying to rewrite history. For all we know that stuff could have happened more or less, it just wasn't important enough to capture the headlines.

If Titanic was more like QG or IB, Rose would have rushed onto the bridge just as they were approaching the iceberg. The captain would screech "Women don't know how to pilot ships! Their brains are the size of Kalamata olives!" She would have pushed past him and jerked the steering wheel to the right, narrowly avoiding certain death. Then everyone would clap and sexism would be solved. Roll credits.

(note: the above is pure stupid satire written under a severe lack of sleep and should not be taken seriously. QG and IB are both quality fiction I just find them a little offputting in certain ways)

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I have this weird feeling reading this, like you extrapolated data from my head and put together a resume. I totally agree with everything you said, but never put it together so well. Thanks!

Could you call this historical fiction? Like Jack and Rose were not real people but the Titanic was a real boat. It's just fiction set in a historical time.

I guess that QG and IB were just way more obviously fictional.

I think the difference is that QG and IB feel like they're trying to correct some kind of historical wrong? Titanic does have the 21st (well, late 20th I guess) century values being imbued onto early 20th century characters trope, but it doesn't feel like it's trying to rewrite history. For all we know that stuff could have happened more or less, it just wasn't important enough to capture the headlines.

If Titanic was more like QG or IB, Rose would have rushed onto the bridge just as they were approaching the iceberg. The captain would screech "Women don't know how to pilot ships! Their brains are the size of Kalamata olives!" She would have pushed past him and jerked the steering wheel to the right, narrowly avoiding certain death. Then everyone would clap and sexism would be solved. Roll credits.

(note: the above is pure stupid satire written under a severe lack of sleep and should not be taken seriously. QG and IB are both quality fiction I just find them a little offputting in certain ways)

lol love the disclaimer

I think the extreme opposite end compared to Titanic is something like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I feel like QG is closer to Titanic than Lincoln, but that IG is probably a bit closer to Lincoln. I guess these are all historical fiction, but some of them are more pseudohistory than anything.

It does bug me a little though. I really hated when the Basterds killed a certain historical person. Just too pseudohistorical.

Hermes_ wrote: ↑

2 years ago

this is straight up Alternate history and my understanding is most if not all of Quintain's movies take place in the same universe.

Which is also the same universe as Spy Kids.

i'm gonna finally commander with my group in person in an hour or so

Hermes_ wrote: ↑

2 years ago

i'm gonna finally commander with my group in person in an hour or so

I'm glad to hear it. Enjoy!

BeneTleilax wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Hermes_ wrote: ↑

2 years ago

i'm gonna finally commander with my group in person in an hour or so

I'm glad to hear it. Enjoy!

yeah we had to call off due to folks getting called into work

Hermes_ wrote: ↑

2 years ago

this is straight up Alternate history and my understanding is most if not all of Quintain's movies take place in the same universe.

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

lol love the disclaimer

I think the extreme opposite end compared to Titanic is something like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I feel like QG is closer to Titanic than Lincoln, but that IG is probably a bit closer to Lincoln. I guess these are all historical fiction, but some of them are more pseudohistory than anything.

It does bug me a little though. I really hated when the Basterds killed a certain historical person. Just too pseudohistorical.

I think for me the thing that bugs me more about IB and QG is that I feel like I can see the motivations of the author in those pieces - more than in something silly like lincoln (I assume, haven't read/seen it). Of course I don't know for sure, but the feeling I get from the creators of both is that they're unhappy about a historical wrong and want to replace it with their own, more satisfying story. I don't know anything about Tarantino as a person (except he has a foot fetish apparently) but I'd be pretty surprised to find out that he's middle-of-the-road in his feelings about the holocaust, for example. And for whoever wrote QG, I suspect they're especially bothered by the misogyny which has been common in chess. Which is kind of fair, both those things are obviously bad, but what I want from my authors (in most cases) is a level of dispassion in the framing. The characters should have strong points of view and opinions, but I shouldn't be left with a strong feeling of what the author feels about the topic. It's the same feeling I got when I read amateur fantasy stories in high school, except back then the feeling I got from the framing was more "I think this character/super power/hair color is super cool" than "I'm frequently upset about historical injustices".

And again - that's a fair thing to feel, just like it's fair for someone who just lost their spouse to burst into tears on the subway. But I still feel viscerally uncomfortable seeing such strong feelings laid bare.

What I find different between the two is that IB feels more like it's reveling in its historical revisionism - Tarantino knows he's letting his veil slip and he doesn't really care. Whereas QG feels a lot more covert - up until it got to the last few episodes, it wasn't obvious to me as a layman that it was fictional.

It in part is to make a historical story more palatable to a modern audience. I think you summed it up really well Dirk;

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think the phrase I've hit on that I think sums it up best is "fanfiction for reality". It's almost a whitewashing of history, that men thought women couldn't compete at chess but then, by golly, one savant came and showed everyone the error of their ways and then everything was peachy keen. When the reality is a lot less satisfying

DirkGently wrote: ↑

2 years ago

If Titanic was more like QG or IB, Rose would have rushed onto the bridge just as they were approaching the iceberg. The captain would screech "Women don't know how to pilot ships! Their brains are the size of Kalamata olives!" She would have pushed past him and jerked the steering wheel to the right, narrowly avoiding certain death. Then everyone would clap and sexism would be solved. Roll credits.

We all would rather believe (to use the QB but other things can fit) sexism in gaming (looks at the camera) is a thing in the past and/or something that can be fix by one person who just won't give up to make things right. It also works for traditional storytelling where often the central conflict gets solved by the end. Which is also why you likely enjoy IB more as its very clear they are playing in fiction and likely not trying to seem 100% historic.

On a similar note this why I really loved Jojo Rabbit (as I have a quote from it for my signature) since it really balance both the comedy as well as the horrors of living under Nazi at the time.

To clarify, I think I like QG more than IB overall. Mostly because I just find that sort of story more compelling, though, not because of the historical revisionism. Or maybe just because I watched QG in bed with my gf, and IB alone on my couch, lol.

As far as the revisionism is concerned, I think in a moment-to-moment sense I was less bothered by QG since it's played like a historically-accurate drama so it fits more easily into those expectations my brain is already used to - I guarantee there are plenty of people who think it's true - whereas IB kinda rubs your face in its revisionism and is more unique and thus more jarring.

But from a more meta perspective, when I'm reflecting on both pieces, I find QG more unsettling because it's played so straight, that it feels like the truth isn't even being acknowledged. IB feels like its anger is derived from an understanding of the real history, whereas QG feels more like it's trying to ignore it.

I was kinda disappointed that I didn't like Jojo Rabbit more. I don't think it was an issue of historical revisionism, so much as that the tone just didn't quite gel for me for some reason.

all this reminds me of when The Martian came out and people were like "I can't believe he survived like that on Mars".
And I am just there shaking my head like "you know this is not a true story right?"
And the more you think about it the more this 'great movie' is forgettable.

There is something odd about our brains. Nobody watches Star Wars and thinks it is a true story. But the when the setting is not futuristic, when there is nothing that is overtly fictional (like magic or zombies or events that clearly didn't happen like 2012), our brains trick us into thinking it is based on true stories. How many times I have watched something, googled it to learn more about the history of it, only to find out it was completely fictional.

Queen's Gambit would have been accepted by most of us as plausible historical fiction if not for the fact that you just know in the back of your mind no women were beating Russian chess masters at that time. So here you are, watching this show your brain has convinced you is plausibly accurate, and then you are suddenly confronted with the surreality of it all.
Same with Basterds at the end. The film seems more or less plausible (disregarding gratuitous violence) and then you are confronted with the obviously fictional. It can sour the experience.

But if you are watching XMen and they say JFK was a mutant and Magneto tried to deflect the bullet you don't care, because from the start you knew it was fiction.

I think compelling stories can make up for inserting current day ethics and values into historical contexts, like QG. But they can be a bit jarring.

I think the reason why, to me, QG and IB are things I will rewatch one day, is that they have great characters. They are emotional stories.
The Martian is not something I will ever watch again, unless I need to prove to someone that Sean Bean doesn't always die.

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think the reason why, to me, QG and IB are things I will rewatch one day, is that they have great characters. They are emotional stories.

This is a bit of a segue but I really wonder if rewatchability is a thing anymore. I'll still rewatch things here and there from when I was a young adult, but it's really infrequent and there was a lot less TV when I was say, 20. I had a fun time rewatching the American NInja franchise from when I was a kid with some friends and making fun of it, but it didn't really hold up.

Most of the things I've watched produced by Netflix especially have a bit of a throw-away vibe. Even QG which was well produced has lots of glaring issues that make me think the odds of me rewatching it say, 10 years from now, are basically nil.

I wonder if I'll rewatch other stuff recently that I liked like Psych or Justified too, or if they'll all just be buried in the vast sea of content that is increasingly tailored to us. They'll probably be allowing you to customize your endings and pick from a grab bag of potential protagonists in shows before too long and I can't help but think we'll eventually see stuff that is designed specifically for us by our AI attention-obsessed overlords

(As a fairly technical guy I know that AI is mostly buzzwords for bulk statistics at this point, but it doesn't mean they won't get there)

I barely rewatch anything, especially shows. If I've already seen it, I feel rewatching is a waste of time, and I hate having my time wasted. Movies get a little more leeway, but not much. I still haven't watched Queen's Gambit. Maybe after Mare of Easttown.

pokken wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think the reason why, to me, QG and IB are things I will rewatch one day, is that they have great characters. They are emotional stories.

This is a bit of a segue but I really wonder if rewatchability is a thing anymore. I'll still rewatch things here and there from when I was a young adult, but it's really infrequent and there was a lot less TV when I was say, 20. I had a fun time rewatching the American NInja franchise from when I was a kid with some friends and making fun of it, but it didn't really hold up.

Most of the things I've watched produced by Netflix especially have a bit of a throw-away vibe. Even QG which was well produced has lots of glaring issues that make me think the odds of me rewatching it say, 10 years from now, are basically nil.

I wonder if I'll rewatch other stuff recently that I liked like Psych or Justified too, or if they'll all just be buried in the vast sea of content that is increasingly tailored to us. They'll probably be allowing you to customize your endings and pick from a grab bag of potential protagonists in shows before too long and I can't help but think we'll eventually see stuff that is designed specifically for us by our AI attention-obsessed overlords

(As a fairly technical guy I know that AI is mostly buzzwords for bulk statistics at this point, but it doesn't mean they won't get there)

So I really like rewatching things. I get a different appreciation for them and catch things I previously missed. I know I am a bit unorthodox though. I have read Lord of the Rings 5 times and seen the movies at least 20 times.

I would say that most things I really enjoy will get a second viewing within a few years. But I also remember seeing Interstellar twice in theatres and 5 times in the first 10 days of owning the film.
I have rewatched Les Miserables at least 5-6 times. I used to watch it on the bus on the way to school.

Even now, with Amazon, Disney and Netflix at my disposal, I am rewatching Naruto (while also getting through Supernatural, Futurama, The Bad Batch and The Expanse for the first time).

Anyway, that's just how I am.

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I have rewatched Les Miserables at least 5-6 times. I used to watch it on the bus on the way to school.

I have a question to people in more technical part of industry.
Does the cognitive science as a study field is useful anywhere? Or is it just a bunch of theories with a little practical impact?

pokken wrote: ↑

2 years ago

This is a bit of a segue but I really wonder if rewatchability is a thing anymore.

I think the issue for me is that there are so many new things worth watching. TV has kinda pulled a WotC (or has WotC pulled a TV?) and every other week there's another must-watch show. There are plenty of shows I have fond memories of, but unless it's so far in the past that I barely remember it (I recently rewatched the old Mr Bean episodes, and went through MPFC a few years back) I generally can't justify rewatching a full-length TV show rather over something new.

Notable exceptions are when I'm showing it off to a friend/SO who wasn't seen it yet. I rewatched breaking bad and GoT over skype with one of my friends who hadn't seen them during the pandemic, because I wanted an excuse to rewatch them. And I've got a long-ish list of movies I love that me and my gf are going through atm, although it's a lot easier to justify rewatching a movie than a whole show.

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

pokken wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Dunharrow wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think the reason why, to me, QG and IB are things I will rewatch one day, is that they have great characters. They are emotional stories.

This is a bit of a segue but I really wonder if rewatchability is a thing anymore. I'll still rewatch things here and there from when I was a young adult, but it's really infrequent and there was a lot less TV when I was say, 20. I had a fun time rewatching the American NInja franchise from when I was a kid with some friends and making fun of it, but it didn't really hold up.

Most of the things I've watched produced by Netflix especially have a bit of a throw-away vibe. Even QG which was well produced has lots of glaring issues that make me think the odds of me rewatching it say, 10 years from now, are basically nil.

I wonder if I'll rewatch other stuff recently that I liked like Psych or Justified too, or if they'll all just be buried in the vast sea of content that is increasingly tailored to us. They'll probably be allowing you to customize your endings and pick from a grab bag of potential protagonists in shows before too long and I can't help but think we'll eventually see stuff that is designed specifically for us by our AI attention-obsessed overlords

(As a fairly technical guy I know that AI is mostly buzzwords for bulk statistics at this point, but it doesn't mean they won't get there)

So I really like rewatching things. I get a different appreciation for them and catch things I previously missed. I know I am a bit unorthodox though. I have read Lord of the Rings 5 times and seen the movies at least 20 times.

I would say that most things I really enjoy will get a second viewing within a few years. But I also remember seeing Interstellar twice in theatres and 5 times in the first 10 days of owning the film.
I have rewatched Les Miserables at least 5-6 times. I used to watch it on the bus on the way to school.

Even now, with Amazon, Disney and Netflix at my disposal, I am rewatching Naruto (while also getting through Supernatural, Futurama, The Bad Batch and The Expanse for the first time).

Anyway, that's just how I am.

I do the same, with TV, film and books. Before having a kid my wife and I did an annual LOTR marathon at least. and I kinda find it comforting to rewatch stuff that just has a feel good vibe. I've done parks and rec a ton recently, brooklyn 99, the good place, the last Airbender sometimes. Film wise Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the aforementioned lotr and a couple other pieces. And with books ill jam a Malaxan read through every couple years - less frequent because its just so enormous and even with something I know quite well I'm not a quick reader. Also even on my 6th read through now theres nuances I've.missed before. It always astounds me, Erikson is actually fairly to the point despite the length of the books, and yet almost every conversation and event has layers of meaning.

I think rewatching and such it comes down to how much you like something because its good vs how much you like it because it gives you nostalgic feelings. Those can be attributed to anything. As a kid I loved Labyrinth and the Neverending Story, but they've both aged terribly. The stuff above, at least to me, is good enough to rewatch and still enjoy because they're good enough to stand the test of time.

Lorn Asbord Schutta wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I have a question to people in more technical part of industry.
Does the cognitive science as a study field is useful anywhere? Or is it just a bunch of theories with a little practical impact?

Can you clarify a little? You mean psychology or neuroscience?

There've been advances in both but my general impression of the field (as an undergrad in psychology who bounced out into CS) is that psychology has advanced meaningfully in some respects but feels somewhat plateau'd in comparison to the advances in neuroscience and anatomy-focused treatment (drugs, imaging and surgeries).

I have a friend who asked me how he ought to get into brain studies and my advice remains the same there which is to get into a hard science field - there are good things about psychology but it's got a lot of problems with being so, well, fluffy. The science side is not as developed in psychology, the research is absolutely filled with trash research. I'd lean toward med school or pharm school or advanced biology/chemistry/physics (for imaging) if you want to be doing brain stuff. Tons of the top end brain stuff is being done in radiology for example.

pokken wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Can you clarify a little? You mean psychology or neuroscience?

I was more intrested in lingustics/AI part of cognitive science.
The thing is that it is a high time I decided which studies I will pursue. And due to circumstances I have a seat on cognitive science in the top univeristy in my country, but at the same time it is a field that is little-known here. I do not want to spend 3~5 years to be able to talk much, but help a little, so I want to know wether those studies are useful anywhere.