Humanity is circling around the drain

Good god, is the world taking the fun out of existing. Everything is getting enshittified and (apparently) we can't do anything about it. Whether it's AI getting force-fed down our throats, to the anonymity of the internet being threatened, to stupid articles being pay-walled (perhaps they see the irony), I'm getting tired of being forced to find ways to get what was promised to me when the internet first began.

Back in the halcyon days of 28.8bps modems and venerated search engines going by the name of Yahoo (which kids would nowadays say ya who?), we had the altruistic view that information would always be free and search engines would, shock horror, actually aim to improve their technology to find the best results. And all was good in the world. We had people writing blogs (how old-fashioned), we had geocities, we had myspace, we even had murmerings of a new upstart going by the name of google which was promising an even better experience than the much vaunted Yahoo. And so, we accepted this new upstart and we accepted The Facebook and we accepted Instagram and we accepted ... and so on.

 

Flash-forward to today, and everything is commoditised, every internet activity is tracked, and every single ad is tailored. All our activities have become opaque to the data pillaging from corporate and, seemingly, we're unable to do anything about it. Firefox just announced that it's going to become an AI browser, Microsoft also announced that Windows is going to become agentic, and I have just announced that I would have to be catatonic if I were to accept that.

 

 

I have taken a few steps to sidestepping this. I am Technology, so I do have choices. The first choice is operating systems.

•  I have installed Linux Mint
• All my hardware was automatically detected and works flawlessly 
• It also came preinstalled with Libre Office (Microsoft Office facsimile)
• I installed Lutris / Steam / Heroic for my gaming needs
• I installed gitcola for my git repo needs
• I installed Unreal Engine for my game dev needs
• I installed Winboat (alongside a fully neutered and containered Win11 VM) that handles any must-have Windows needs
• Prior to Mozilla's announcement, I was using Firefox - now, I'm leaning towards LibreWolf (a forked privacy-focussed Firefox)
• I also installed Waterfox on my android, which is (surprise, surprise) a privacy-focussed fork of Firefox 
• I will also install a Pi-hole internet proxy which will block even my TV from presenting ads to me
• I am vengeance

Now, this may seem quite daunting for the average user but, outside of Winboat having a few challenges, I would say the switch was pretty easy. Most linux distros (i.e. variants of linux) come with a package manager. Think of it like Steam, where you pick and choose what software you want to install ... and it just installs ... and it's also free.

If this isn't the (pending) year of Linux, I don't know when it could possibly be as, for me, I've had a far better and easier experience than anything Windows is doing right now. I have always wanted an alternative to Microsoft's stranglehold and, thankfully, Microsoft has bitten my hand one too many times for me to let it slide. I've now taken this metaphorical mangey mutt out the back and finally put it to rest.

Although, perhaps not all is lost. There is still at least one plucky billion-dollar company which seemingly still fights for the people. Valve (the people behind Steam) have also announced a new Steam box and VR system which will all run native linux and provide a console/VR experience that even Grandma can use. And the best part is these systems will just be PC's so you can even install Windows if you like. You own the hardware. We may be at the end times for corporate, but Valve may have provided a glimmer of a future worth sticking around for.

AI slop till you drop

It may come as a small surprise to some of you that I, an Information Technology savant (perhaps), would be unwilling to accept teh new hotness which is AI.  

 

How is it that you work in IT, and yet, you're unwilling to accept the inevitability of AI being force-fed into every aspect of your life? Don't you know AI can emulate your voice, likeness, and show you the sex life you wish you were having (via deep fakes)? 

 

 

No, I do not want AI to paint me like one its French girls; nor do I want it to create a movie based upon a one-sentence prompt; nor do I want it to generate a track of Michael Jackson doing Gangster Rap; nor do I want it to write a track in the style of Eminem; nor do I want a chatbot in the style of Marilyn Monroe. 

 

I do not want it to be creative.

 

And yet, that is, perhaps, its biggest draw card. It is only as good as the resources at its disposal, and that, my friends, is where things get a little sticky. For we are the resource. Everything which is accessible on the internet has either been legally or illegally scraped for their AI models. Even this blog could easily be used to generate a surly and apathetic perspective of humanity ... but I digress.

 

Perhaps, if the breadth of its current uses were limited to generating things I despise, perhaps the rest of the world could live with that. But, no, its use is far more nefarious than merely exuming and forcing dead creatives to do the latest in tiktok dances on a whim. The amount of energy used by AI dwarfs the comparative toe-dip of crypto - especially as every glue-eating CEO wants to get in on the latest in tech bubble schtick and is pushing AI into every crevice of your devices.

 

At this point, I'm through caring about society. They're such complete and utter sociopathic morons that I have given up hope of any of them taking a moment to think, let alone care, about anyone else. Perhaps there are others in this world who feel like me - but not in the seats which matter. The cost to house all the data required by AI has moved into the ExaBytes (billion GigaBytes); the energy required to train these models requires Terawatts (more than 1.21 gigawatts) and, as usage increases, signficantly more than before the 'AI age.'

To make matters worse, AI is not particularly intelligent. It's just a heuristic model which uses weighted gates to determine its next choice. It really is very stupid. The fact that you get anything coherent out of it at all is probably the more impressive aspect of it all. But, as they say, if you throw enough monkeys at the problem, eventually you get Shakespeare. Or at least some kind of facsimile.

 

 

The World Con

 So, the world cup is almost upon us and I'm 100% determined not to watch, support or care about such a blatant example of bribery, excess and disregard for the world as a whole ... which seems at least a little ironic - especially when you were 'chosen' as the best candidate to host the world cup.

 

 

Why, do you ask? Mostly because it's taking place in Qatar; one of the most ill-suited locales for anything other than oil refineries, air-conditioned shopping malls or indoor ski slopes (well, for one of its neighbors, at least.) This smacks of 'because we can,' rather than providing any compelling reason why players would be motivated to play in 40-degree temperatures - nor be forced to change the game to suit this inhospitable environment.

I, for one, will boycott it and I would suggest you do the same. This is a travesty to anything resembling this once great game. I would welcome a world where we witness empty stadiums, mass bankruptcy and a world where just because you bribed people to get your little world cup doesn't mean the general public is as willing to go along for the ride. The writing is on the wall; all nations whose sole source of wealth is from oil production knows that this well will soon dry. The correct response to this realisation should not be to double-down on living in this inhospitable environment, but rather, to find an environment more conducive to life. That should be the logical conclusion, shouldn't it? Shouldn't it?

Where there's money there's bias

A long, long time ago I came to the realisation that almost all mainstream award shows carry no weight to what is truly great. When there are obvious biases, agendas or picketing involved in getting the winner across the line then why would you even care what the result is?

As a classic example we have The Last of Us Part 2. A game where (I would estimate) at least 50% of fans from the first one did not enjoy playing. Dare I say it, I don't think even Naughty Dog enjoyed making it, considering the multi-year 48+ hour-week crunch to get it across the line. Personally I think the sequel was always in for an up-hill battle considering the first TLOU ended so perfectly. In the wonderful PC/SJW-compliant world we now live in, Naughty Dog (or should I say the simp going by the name of Druckmann) went full woke and created an agenda-laden game which subverts expectations so he could try and feel smart. Perhaps I'm not seeing the point but a game's main purpose should be to entertain you, shouldn't it? Having to play through forced set-pieces involving killing dogs, torture porn, sex scenes (you would rather not be involved in) and characters you wish you did not have to murder (or save) is not my idea of a good time. Maybe in a post-apocalyptic world this is seen as entertainment - but we're not quite there ... just yet.

 

And all would be fine if this game just faded away into the ether of things I do not care about - but, oh no, somehow they thought we should all recognise this masterpiece in mediocrity. And the people spoke and Druckmann was welcomed by the cold, hard facts of reality of the people preferring another game (a really, really good one at that.)

 

And then we have the 'actual' video game awards (where judges account for 90% of the final vote.) To note: Sushi Ghost did not win as much as it should have. And that is that. I put far more weight in the public's vote because, even if certain people have an agenda, any personal biases are washed away by the power of numbers. I played through (the much-awarded) God of War (at a deeply discounted price) and I still maintain that the game really isn't much fun. It's a beautifully produced game which has some fun puzzles opening chests ... and that's about it. The gameplay was boring, annoying and a slog and I got no enjoyment from hanging out with Boy - even the Blades of Chaos weren't enough to warm me up. The end-game conclusion also was dissatisfying and I can honestly say that outside of production, graphics and sound design that game should not have won much else. This was not a fun game to play and, really, isn't that the point of games: to be entertained?

twitch triggered

Ever since I was a young lad I was one of those people who enjoyed going to the arcades to watch people play fighting games well. I vicariously played the game the way it was meant to be played - even if my skills weren't quite as stratospheric. At the downfall of the venerable arcade scene (circa 2000's) we all moved indoors to play multiplayer games - but I at least still wished for a medium where I could watch people play games competently. And this was where twitch stepped in. And all was good in this world - up until now.

Perhaps it was the level of moochers or perhaps it is the ever-driving desire to wring every last dollar out of the unwashed masses but Twitch in recent weeks has made a serious misstep. In the early days it was relatively easy to watch a Twitch channel and get some instant entertainment - and possibly a few ads every few hours or so. This is no longer the case. Now, if I click on an unsubscribed (i.e. unpaid) channel I am greeted with an unskippable 15-second ad (or even five ads back-to-back) before I have even seen one second of this channel. This is incredibly alienating and, at least based upon my viewing habits, motivates me to avoid watching Twitch (for the most part.) 

It really disappoints me - and I would presume the content creators - that Twitch has turned to this model for making teh moneys. But, rather than simply complaining, I would suggest a few different options which may prove more palatable:

• Have the heavy-handed ad break 15 minutes into previewing the channel - that way at least you get to see whether you like the current stream
  
• Integrate the ad break into a break-out panel - rather than overriding the live stream (and missing out on clutch plays)
• Buffer any lost content while the ad is playing and then allow the viewer to fast-forward (at their own volition) or continue watching from the buffered offset
  
• Allow the channel creator full control of when ads are shown with, possibly, a minimum ad quota on an hourly basis
• Provide the Twitch viewer an x-minute window of free viewing before forcing an ad break - ideally with some kind of count-down

Dependent upon Twitch's desires to maximise ROI any of these options are better than the current solution they have in place. Unless Twitch is very careful they will lose their audience (and their content creators) to better solutions which don't have heavy-handed revenue models which penalise new viewers and dissuade you from discovering new content. 

 You have been warned, Twitch. You have been warned.

 

How not to fix racism

So, I came across an article which points out that one of the Microsoft gaming heads stated that there needs to be more black leaders ... whatever that means. My first thought, even before I even read the article was, aren't you missing the point? How exactly do you fix this 'racist gaming industry' by simply appointing a person not based upon their abilities but the colour of their skin?

Now, before you think I'm some kind of bigoted white supremacist, don't you think I have at least an iota of a point? I'd like to think I would never judge a person based upon their outward appearance but rather their actions. That is not to say that I haven't prejudged - I am human after all - but at least on a few occasions my initial prejudice has proven to be incorrect. We as a society have yet to reach the zenith of treating all humans as equal (until their actions say otherwise.) It is unfortunate that in many circumstances we have yet to even strive towards removing these biases - but that doesn't excuse taking the opposite approach of promoting <under-represented minority> for the sole reason that they are an <under-represented minority.> This is working under the misconception that every gender, race, creed and so forth should be uniformly represented in their institution ... which is fundamentally wrong.

Dave Chappelle, you genius

If you still remain unconvinced, I will point you to mathematics as your source for what should be deemed a truly unbiased representation. In mathematics, if you were to graph an unweighted and truly random distribution, you would note that with a reasonable sample size there would be perceived clumping and outliers - that is, certain areas of the graph would be perceived as being 'unfairly weighted' in comparison to other sparser sections. This is to be expected. What would not be expected, however, would be a uniform straight line distribution - this, contrarily speaking, would be perceived as a non-uniform distribution. That is not to say that it isn't possible - just that the chances of a completely balanced distribution being graphed from randomly-generated values would be astronomically unlikely.

 

By taking a truly unbiased perspective and employing, promoting and befriending based upon a persons' actions, you will truly reach a moment in humanity where biases can be set aside. That is the future I look forward to ... but I don't think I'll see in my lifetime.

When it is okay to YOLO

Even if the kids created the term, I don't think they're using it correctly. When I think YOLO, or You Only Live Once, my mind regales back to cheesy Bond Films or, quite possibly, that you do only live once. 

Whereas the kids would yell out 'YOLO' when they're about to do something horribly irresponsible like jumping off a cliff or hitting themselves in the nuts, I would instead mutter 'YOLO' (thankfully under my breath) while drinking a fine wine or experiencing something new. Although, I shouldn't denigrate the kids too much; they did have the right intention. You do truly only live once (unless you're a Buddhist) and as long as you treat your time on this planet as such it makes it easier to motivate yourself to experience what life can provide. Perhaps there is an after-life but, if there isn't, isn't it worth doing everything you can in your power to ensure your flitting existence is worth your time?

It is quite easy to be paralysed with the fears and doom conveyed on the news; such that you are unable to live any part of your life due to the looming decimation of everything we have become accustomed to having. Perhaps it was the YOLO's of yesteryear which resulted in us being in this current predicament - but I don't think that's going to change unless we all become mental cases like myself (joking!). We can remain mindful while still getting the most out of life - or at least that is my goal; that is my YOLO.

My spirit animal

I will preface that it's taken me a while to come to the realisation that Charlie Brooker is my spirit animal. He is pensive, introspective, industrious and, for the liberal lavishing of icing on top of this steadfast foundation, he also has a good command of the language. It is nice to find someone else who skewers cultural devolutions and hypocrisies with such a driven consistency.

He first entered my consciousness at the point where I was first discovering Doug Stanhope - and much to my chagrin, some of his best bits came as a result of this unholy tryst (although I don't really mind - I just wanted more gold to be mined from Doug). Charlie was able to give me Doug and I was happy. Initially I wrote Charlie off as merely a TV host with nothing more to say than the words he read from the teleprompter. But I was wrong. Interestingly his views on film almost always aligned with mine. It was nice that he thought in a similar way to me and had similar views to me. But similarities do not mean you are the same entity.

His next notable foray was when he created Black Mirror which (I came to realise) is a series of disconnected episodes which almost always had a strong commentary on societal disconnects or the superficial, vapid desires which make up our culture today. But it all started with the first episode. I didn't like it, which was a problem. I was under the misconception that the next episode would follow on chronologically from this - and unfortunately I didn't enjoy the setting. But then, months later, I gave it another go and, lo and behold, the next episode was completely different ... and it was actually good (well, to my taste). This was my in - my gateway into bingeing everything else. I also realised that this Brooker fella couldn't be pigeon-holed (outside of having intelligence and high production values). Each episode was a present, waiting to be unwrapped - and then immediately tossed away. Watching on Netflix makes even great content disposable but the good shows still resonate in your subconscious even if they have seemingly been forgotten. Which brings me to my review of the latest season of Black Mirror.

Would you believe that a season could be as short as three? Nor did I but I don't mind. It had notable stars and very high production value (I would estimate at least 20 million per episode) but overall I was a little disappointed. The first episode was a bit bubble gum and a little too on the nose, with the evil music producer commoditizing a burned out pop star - and a cutesy CG robot doll. It was too meandering and not as subversive compared to the earlier seasons. The second episode was good, following the story of two old friends connecting through an innocent VR fighting game. It posed some pertinent questions which still resonate in my subconscious - even if I wish they wouldn't. Then we have the paint-drying hostage negotiation story with some bludgeoned-in cues around the evils of social media which is a little annoying. All in all I think Brooker is running out of cool ideas to pose. Perhaps it was just that he was contractually obligated to deliver a season and was forced to throw out a few B-roll ideas. I can't blame him, though - it's just that I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get more scathing social commentary. For those of you who haven't, check out Black Mirror - and stick through the episodes you don't like because I can guarantee that at least a few episodes (and, dare I say it, seasons) will stick with you - even if you don't enjoy them directly.

For technology's sake

Sometimes I wonder whether they thought things through. Or maybe I wonder if there's some other agenda in play. For privacy (as per Snowden) he recommends physically disabling the camera/mike in your phone and using a wired headphone instead - which may explain things. All I know is that wireless headphones don't work for games. I bought 'low-latency' Bluetooth headphones recently and I can say it's great at audio and great at battery life but terrible at latency. Perhaps it's Android but I get around a one-second lag between the sound and action in games.

Let's all let out a resounding 'ugh' in response.

That's not to say that they can't 'hack it' by artificially buffering the video inline with the audio lag in (e.g.) YouTube but, in the end, it's still a hack. The wired simply is superior and that just annoys me. It has taken LCD screens about 30 years to be on the cusp of breaking even with the visual fidelity of CRT technology which ain't great. It's the same story for WiFi - you get about 40% of the performance of wired - but only as long as you camp your butt on top of the router.

In conclusion, all this technology just proves to old codgers like me that we had it better in the good old days - and it ain't due to rose-coloured glasses tainting my view. As good old Joe Friday stated:

And that's what I live by.

Thought police on patrol

I now turn my focus towards political correctness ... or, as I like to call it, bloody stupid people expressing their discontent for anything they deem sensitive toward some under-represented minority group.

Now, I'm sure I've riled some person with my use of bloody (you offended those with anemia or those presently suffering from stab wounds), stupid (you offended me or those of us unable to think for themselves) and people (you offended those who choose not to identify as a people even though they are presently bloodied and stupid) - but that is my point. You should not have to second-guess every word you utter (or write) just so you don't put someone's sensitivities ever-so-slightly askew. That is not to say that you should be given carte blanche and allow every hate-speech monger their moment in the sun; just that you could take a moment not to get riled up if I say 'all hippopotamuses are ugly.' In the end it's just one opinion amongst a sea of seven billion. My perspective does not represent the collective perspective but it is still valuable as it is my own which was formed within the dwellings of my mind - now back to the task at hand:

Political Correctness is a doctrine enforced by a minority for the sake of their own flagellation. We are steadily moving towards an Orwellian state which may not be ruled by force but by being publicly vilified for not towing the line of a steadily double-speak language. I've already noticed untruths being thrown into conversation and a far-too-long bow being drawn on irrelevant things (personally I still think Capcom should posthumously be held accountable, those philistines). It is becoming quite ridiculous. In a not-so-distant future our current speak would be translated into something like this:

'All-entities-are-perfect-in-their-own-way (unless said entity wishes to conform to no known measure, in which case, simply referred to as a non-deceased entity)'

- oh wait - that would mean that deceased entities are now ignored. Let's try that again ... 

'Entities/non-entities-deemed-undiscriminated / ungendered / pertinent / impertinent / undetermined / unable-to-be (but perfectly capable of being)-categorised access way'

or Manhole. 

'Possible cancer causing (not that cancer is something which should be deemed bad for those who presently have it), pregnancy (although being able to create a child within your womb is an amazing thing, this does not mean that those who do not have wombs nor are associated with the female gender should be deemed inferior to those who are)-aborting (we do not condone in any way whether to or not to abort your unborn person-who-is-perfect-in-all-ways-but-not-to-the-point-of-alienating-any-other-person-who-is-deemed-inferior-due-to-having-something-other-than-that-which-said-original-person-has nor do we believe we have the right to provide a perspective on whether it is truly correct - or incorrect - (or possibly some limbo state) as to whether we deem the whole process of a woman's right to choose whether they retain their unborn individual should be that of the ...

I'm tired. 

I was attempting to write the PC-edition of a warning label on a packet of cigarettes. But, for the record, not all hippopotamuses are ugly:

Dare I say it, they are cute.

Following the money

I  am either turning progressively into a cynical curmudgeon or perhaps it's merely the result of peering behind the curtain and seeing more of the under-workings and its pursuit of the mighty dollar. It could, in all fairness, be a combination of the two ... but I'm not here to discuss my internal demons at this point in time. I'll save that for my imaginary shrink.

Forgive me if I've stated this in an earlier post but I think it's worth restating - even if I may be my only recipient. As my titular title states, it boils down to following the money but I thought it might be nice to summarise a few areas where you, the general public, may not realise that you are being duped. That is not to say that I am infallible of their guiles ... but I will list at least a few areas where I believe I can point out an outright lie:

Milk does the body good

Ignoring the incredibly poor English, you've heard milk is good for you, right? That you need calcium for strong bones? Well, it turns out it isn't. For your body to even be able to absorb the calcium in dairy you need equal parts magnesium ... or, alternatively, you could simply stand in the sun, eat your greens and do a little exercise. Then there is the study which correlates increases in bone disease directly proportional to dairy consumption. Here's a simple question: How much milk do cows consume to keep their half-tonne frames strong? How much dairy do animals consume after infancy from a completely different species? If you answer: none you would be correct.

Recycling is eco-friendly

Ensuring that you separate your glass from your plastics, paper from your trash is very important if we wish to keep Mother Nature looking her best, correct? Well, it turns out that this is mostly incorrect. How, do you ask? Well, it comes down to the amount of effort required to recycle your by-products back into functional items once again. If the amount of energy (and pollution) is more than the energy used to create a new plastic bottle (say) then it's eco-unfriendly. The whole point of recycling is to reduce the burden on the Earth but that gets lost in all the good intentions flying about. I guess the only area where there may be a case is if the core elements were in limited supply, thereby forcing us as a society to salvage that core element (e.g. precious metals in smart phones). The better solution to recycling is reuse/re-purposing. For example, in many parts of Europe they use glass bottles for their beers which, upon having been consumed are returned, washed out and filled once more with delicious, delicious beer. Now that's something I can get behind.

I'm sure I could cover the whole industry if I looked hard enough (e.g. Diesel engines / Dieselgate, Privatised war profiteering, democracy, denialists etc.) but I won't. In the end, the only question you should be asking is why would they lie to us? And, I'm sure for most of you, the answer would be obvious. None of these organisations are in it for our benefit and merely in it to bolster their numbers. It hurts to admit but who am I to stop the deluge of lies?

I think I know why

I think I've cracked why I hate new movies so much.

It's all comes down to a sense of perspective in the end. I came to this realisation while watching the original remastered Star Trek series. It's wonderfully schlocky, (by today's perspective) misogynist, and yet, I was enthralled. How could that be? Well, it comes down to the wonders of imagination, characters, heady subjects, strong plots and competent and logical progression. Spock would be pleased. It was not because I was captivated by the set design - although it does still hold up surprisingly well - it was because they had well-realised and starkly individualised characters. I would think that if Bones were to be cast today he would be as a 20-something ex Days Of Our Lives automaton who was vetoed for his sex appeal rather than as the best choice for the role. I don't think even Leonard Nimoy would be spared. And herein lies the problem.

Where once we had characters, actors and stories at the forefront of the directors and producer's list, they now focus on CGI, mass-market appeal and a movie which is more geared towards making a good trailer than a story we care about. Even fairly gifted directors like Ridley Scott have not yet realised this lesson - even though he has had more than enough time to do so. He still puts out pretty amazing-looking trailers ... but pretty poor films which most people hate due to their lack of coherent plot, believable characters or a film which makes any sense in the end. Unfortunately I don't think this current trend is going to subside any time soon, so all we can do now is simply look to the past for solace and remember a time when stories, characters and plot were still revered. It could quite be that movies of yore were forced to do this simply because they couldn't use the visual spectacle to curtail our ability to identify a stupid plot or poorly-realised characters.

So, given what we have learned, directors could simply drop the production value so we can forgive their failures as writers - or at least give a passing grade. And this is why The Room is so good ... because it's so bad. You have your out, Hollywood. I've given you a way of even further maximising your ROI, eh?

The unlucky country

Ah Australia. With your alluring beaches and your desires to put arthropods upon searing metal, you should have been great. You were meant to live up to your promise of being the lucky country but for those living there this has not necessarily aligned. For me, the problem was not your beaches but the political arena and, apparently, this view is not limited to just myself. It has recently come to my attention that Australia will probably have 6 prime ministers in 6 years. From the lobotomized antics of Tony Abbot to the mismanagement of Malcom Turnbull, Australia has been in a drought.

Even though that level of turn-over is impressive in itself, they now have the unenviable task of having to vote in the next imbecile. Unsurprisingly, this has ended in a stalemate. The Australian people have spoken and they are under the resounding conclusion that there is literally no choice. It is a funny situation. At this point they need to clear house as neither party is remotely capable of coherent thought. Other aspects are that their GDP is buoyant while salaries and unemployment rates remain relatively poor. Inflation is at close to 2% (compared to the US/UK <=0.2%); even though their interest rates are at record lows and currency is significantly under-valued.

Now, outside of the numbers, this is not what irks me. It's that a country with such potential is so poorly managed. Australia has a near limitless source of core resources, beautiful beaches, deadly animals and a can-do population and yet they are hindered by a political culture whose only desires are to benefit themselves rather than make Australia great again (to paraphrase Trump). Australia is at a point where they cannot keep playing the retard card. They need a real leader with people under them who are competent. The Joe Hockey's of this world should just go back to selling used cars or working at the local chip shop.

It seems so obvious

Now, unless you've been on under a rock for quite a while, you would probably know that the weather hasn't been aligning with our expectations and is trending ever-warmer as this animation shows pretty effectively. Naturally, people are getting exasperated because they're towing the line by, you know, recycling and driving a hybrid and buying locally-sourced food stuffs and cycling and using reusable shopping bags and ... But that is not enough. The smoking gun is not your living habits.

It's pretty simple because it's a just a game of numbers. If each person on average produces 200 kilos of carbon a year, if you translate that over the rest of the world, that results in 1.4 billion tonnes of carbon being generated each year. So, whether you're able to reduce your own impact to 25% of the average, as a whole, that doesn't make a lick of difference. So, that really isn't a solution as third-world countries are industrializing, our average environmental footprint is set to go up.

Then there's the projection which states that by 2050 the world's population will balloon to almost 10 billion people. Let that sink in. So, really, your altruistic desires to save the dolphins are not going to have much of an effect on the world's problems. Even David Attenborough is of the belief that we're heading towards our own demise. Simple factors like clean water, sufficient fuel, sufficient food become a much tougher balancing act when you have 10 billion people to satisfy. The other problem is that we are trending towards an aging population. How long will it be until the governments impose an age limit and start weeding out the oldies? Or possibly imposing a military mandated one-child policy? As the Aztecs can attest, at some point the land will reach the physical limit of what it can provide and result in cataclysmic famine.

The simple solution is to follow the great Doug Stanhope's message of love and acceptance (very NSFW) or make friends with the venerable Mad Max. Enjoy!

... by any other name

On my quest to play racquet-based sports, I made the resolution to join a league so that I could hone my skills and maybe get a little more exercise as well. And all was well; I registered with the USTA and then went on with my naïve quest to join a league. This should be easy. Now, either I am living in the most affluent part of America (nope) or they are expecting the average pleb to fork out mucho dinero to become a member of their Scooby Doo Club. So, irrespective of whether I use any of the other facilities, this equated to $2500 for the membership and an ongoing $2500 per-year to use the facilities ... which also includes Tennis, thankfully. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.

Back in the days of living in Australia, a six-month season of Tennis would be less than $200 (with balls) and a season of Football (RE:Soccer) would be even less. Apparently in America you need to take out a second mortgage on your house to play - in comparison to the rest of the world which somehow feel less interested in 'gentrifying' all the sports. I don't understand the mindset that exclusivifying sports is somehow a good thing. Yes, private lessons will still cost but the actual cost to play should be open to all those who have any desire to compete. So this might just be one more reason why the BMI of the average teen is moving skywards.

However, I did find a work-around. Thanks to meetup.com which provided a willing troupe of players to bunk the system of exorbitant fees and actually play some Tennis rather than weigh up whether they would be eating a meal this week. Thank goodness for alternatives.

Something something dark side

So, it has come to my attention that Australia (where I formerly lived) is doing their best little brother impression of the US. It has got to the point where they are not content in simply replicating American culture or implementing favourable US sanctions. They have now turned their attention to raising the price of education and privatising health care. In the words of my favourite meme:

But, really, it is. For those who have read 1984, you would know that the best way to control the general public is by ensuring that they are permanently in debt. Having a mandatory private healthcare system and an overbearingly expensive education system (which was once free just a few decades back) would ensure that the average 20-something would have a prohibitive debt right out of university. They would be paying that debt for at least the next 10 years (on average) and would basically result in more taxes against the average Australian. All I can say is I'm happy I'm no longer in Australia.

What were they thinking?

I woke up to news of The Oscars winners. Finally, old boy Leo wins one of his own, George Miller wins a slew of awards for his Graphic Novel opus: Mad Max ... and Sam Smith wins best Original Song?

HANG ON: that unhummable ball-twisting rendition of something loosely resembling music which was then forcibly impaled into the torso of the Bond franchise has somehow been presented with something more than a wooden spoon? In what world does that even make sense?

To think that Sam's biggest hit 'Stay with Me' is basically just a pitch-shifted rendition of a song by Tom Petty explains a lot (and now has the songwriting credits to prove it). Having said that, the result is a little uninspired; I would like to think it's more the fault of Sam Smith failing to interpret a decent track rather than Tom Petty providing the foundation for mediocrity. Although, if you break it down, it is a very simple melody to begin with - kind of along the lines of Frère Jacques / LOL Smiley Face or Baa Baa Black Sheep / Somebody I used to know so it might just have been a coincidence.

But could it be that Sam Smith is nothing more than another Darren Hayes? That is, his songs aren't any good unless he's copying (or had someone else compose) his music and so, in a fit of not-so-quiet desperation, resorted to high-pitched wailings to hide the lack of musical coherence? All signs point would point to yes. It would explain a lot. At the point that Darren separated from Savage Garden was the point that his musical career took a nose dive. I guess it would be the same thing for Mr Smith, at the point where he's not stealing music from (at least my) musical luminaries.

I can only assume that the shambling corporate presence was somehow behind the push to incite interest in James Bond / Sam's career prior to the inevitable downward spiral into irrelevance. Kind of along the lines of Ryan Reynolds getting the accolade of Sexiest Man alive; it's just a puff piece to rally the mobs' interest in the elements surrounding the artist (in that case: Dead Pool). I have already known for a long time that The Oscars were nothing more than a ceremony with an agenda. I'm not sure it means anything any more to win an Oscar. Still, congratulations, Leo. It's been a long time coming.

Please think of the children

I had such high hopes for you, JJ Abrams. With your pseudo intellectual 50's glasses and Kramer-esque teased-up hair. I thought you were going places. And, yes, you are - but not in the direction I would have hoped. I even forced my girlfriend to watch Episode 4-6 in anticipation of sharing in the enjoyment of this new film. Full disclosure: I have not seen your new ode to old but I have seen Into Darkness. 

Similar to the missteps in Into Darkness, I cannot help feeling cheated when the 'best scenes' from the movie are exact facsimiles of scenes from the original film. So, Into Darkness is Wrath of Khan but with a switcheroo (Spock = Kirk and Kirk = Spock for the Khaaaaaannnn!!!! scene) and sadly no mullets. 

Similarly, The Force Awakens is just A New Hope with a switcheroo on the gender / character names / planet / moon. And of course this will still make a bajillion dollars despite being a retread. I just feel uneasy supporting such lazy storytelling. Heck, I would rather have another Phantom Menace than something that amounts to warmed-up last eons' dinner.

So, despite being really excited to see this film I cannot in good conscience watch it. I would be supporting a film that should not exist in its present form. All I wanted was something that had:

1. Actual characters with actual emotions (like episodes 4-6)
2. New plot points and minimal retreads of past story arcs
3. Reasonable pacing - a good balance of action to character to story progression
4. A story which makes sense and avoids the unnecessary plot holes
5. No 'kitchen sinks' thrown at the action scenes (like episodes 1-3)
6. A distaste towards the over-reliance on CGI (like episodes 4-6)
7. Less screen time to the original actors (no one likes to see their heroes age)
8. Maybe a few winks to the past just for teh fanzzz
   NOTE: A few

And maybe JJ's troupe did tick a few boxes in my list but they failed at the fundamentals when they decided to insult our ability to recognize the chronic amount of recycling on display in this film. Think green, I guess. Also, the girl powerrrr movement is getting a little tiresome. When Mad Max is not the hero and Rey is the hero of this, it just feels like we're pandering to the fairer sex rather than vindicating the need for the main role to be female. I still think the poster child for Girl Power is Ellen Ripley. Her role in the film was justified - I cannot help thinking that this is not the case here. I'm pretty sure that Rey's gender could be changed without even a line of dialogue needing to change. Even (poor old) George Lucas laments the film's devolution into fandom. I would even be curious to see what he had originally planned. Dare I say it, it might have been better (or at least semi-original) - but only if JJ helmed the directorial duties and the political bits / novelty characters were cut out. I guess we will never know what that vision might have been but I can at least imagine a better scenario than the one that was rehashed.

My basic plot points:

• The Empire is a shell of its former self, brought into disrepair after the events from Return of the Jedi / death of Emperor and Vader
• Bolstered by their former success, The Rebels are the new peace keepers. They now control trade and order within the galaxy, with the last remnants of the Empire being merged into their forces (or decimated)
• Luke Skywalker helms The Rebels and oversees the stamping out of any remaining Empire resistance. Han / Leia leave to raise their children  (fraternal twins) in a 'safer' environment after forces of the Empire almost destroy their ship. Luke wants them to remain so he can train them. Meanwhile, despite their waning strength, the clashes with The Empire intensify with sneaky terrorist-like techniques like IED's and suicide bombers etc.
• Han and Leia move to a lush palatial planet where Chewie returns to his home planet with the Millenium Falcon. Han Solo dies of a nasty cough (love the anti-climax) and Leia brings up their children alone
• A few years later, Leia is inadvertently killed when Luke feels compelled to take her children away so he can train them and maintain order. One of the children escapes while the other becomes his padawan
• Luke becomes the new Emperor; no longer held in check by his friends or Mentors and compelled by his desire to decimate all those who oppose the Rebels
• The child, compelled by grief, learns a new way, taught by the ghosts of Leia / Yoda / Obi-Wan / Vader; one which turns out to be far greater than any who have preceded him/her (gender doesn't matter) and picks up some new side-kicks (former Storm troopers, aliens etc.) along the way
• The child opposes his/her sibling and then old uncle Luke and cool things happen (use your imagination)

It would be relatively easy to break this story arc into three episodes and would be thoroughly satisfying to watch. Who wouldn't want to see an evil Luke Skywalker? It would even live up quite nicely to 'The Force Awakens' moniker, too.

Of limits and sliding scales

I've recently been watching and enjoying Quantico, with the exploits of Alex Parrish (or Anisha Punjabi, as I like to call her) on her quest to initially work through the trials of the FBI training course  held at Quantico and then the apparent framing for the bombing at Grand Central station.

I was originally reticent to start Quantico as it was chock-full of beautiful 20/30-somethings, and so, I naturally thought it would be a relatively vapid and dallianced-centric story. And, yes, I was right but it also had a bit of fun with training exercises and a good dose of back story and conspiracies that ticked a few boxes.

Personally, I think it would be wonderful if Ms Parrish turns out to be the master mind behind this whole thing. It would tickle my brain to see the main protagonist as the big bad ... and yet this possible avenue has not yet closed even as it nears the finale. Anyway, the person who plays her is a former Miss World and so we get lots of glamour shots of her attempting to remain inconspicuous while doing her 'blue steel.' Needless to say, it's quite ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, I'll give you the following examples:

• One Quantico application is faking being gay, needing glasses and has hidden the time he served in Syria from the FBI
• One Quantico applicant had sex with an under-age girl who then died during an illegal abortion
• One Quantico applicant continually wires large sums of money to midde-eastern contacts through FBI networks
• Middle-eastern twins are masquerading as a single Quantico applicant
• One Quantico applicant maintains a fake scar behind her ear for the most inane possible reason
• Pretty much every person in the alumni has a questionable back-story which wasn't divulged to the FBI

And, somehow, the FBI were incapable of doing even the most basic of background checks on their recruits. Colour me skeptical or very, very afraid if that's the level of ineptitude to be expected from the FBI.

In addition, (I would guess) the 5-year-old writing team for Quantico decided to write a 'clever twist' to the story by getting Ms Parrish to publicly declare herself as guilty ('To make the real master mind behind the bombing relax') and then immediately, upon her public incarceration, get transported back to FBI HQ, get unshackled and then state to every possible terrorist candidate that 'it's just a ruse (nya nya nya).'  Hmmm ... I don't think they thought that through. If you know that one of the fresh Quantico graduates were responsible, why would you 

1. Get them to investigate themselves
2. Get the publicly-declared martyr to be secretly involved in the investigation
3. Have anyone, who could possibly be involved in the terrorist plans, perform the formal investigation

At this point I've given up trying to glean any logic from the procedings. I will probably still watch until its season finale, but it's well-and-truly moved into Transformers territory on the gray-matter scale. My recommendation is to put your brain in neutral and watch the pretty people and 'splosions and you'll do just fine.

Do Republicans dream of vindicated policies?

Yes, this might be a contentious topic for some but I'll soldier on ...

I have to wonder what is going through the average Republican's mind when they knee-jerk reject every good/new/alien policy put forward by a non-Republican. Maybe Obama's ability to appeal to the general public doesn't work as well on his main opposition but you would think that good policies would also be accepted if they made sense. 

Now, I should preface that I don't vote for any party (I can't legally) and have no real issue with a policy from any camp ... as long as its aim is to serve the general public. The purpose of this post today is to discuss the Affordable Healthcare Act (or Obamacare) as put forward by Obama/The Democratic Party. You would think that a policy that makes healthcare, well, affordable, competitively priced and reduces the impact on your tax dollars would be appreciated by everyone. You would think that, wouldn't you? Well, apparently the answer is obviously no. I'm not sure why but the Republican party is doing their darnedest to destroy/demolish/implode any remnants of Obamacare (hey, it's easier to say). Maybe they're happy if something like one-third of the US population doesn't have health care and there is no competitive motivation for private healthcare providers to provide an affordable payment option. Maybe I don't see the bad things that are apparently the result of allowing people to fix their broken leg, poor eyesight or skew teeth without having to take out a mortgage. I don't know. Maybe it's just one step closer until the communists take over but I would think you would want to help your fellow man ... especially if they cannot help themselves.

I can't be the only one that sees this Republican movement as a little childish, surely? All I would like is for them to help the general public rather than fighting a battle that no one wants them to win (outside of private health care). Apparently premiums would go up by 75% if they're able to get Obamacare kicked out through a single-sentence legal loophole. It defies logic. Maybe I'm missing something; maybe I don't understand the big picture; I don't know. The wonders of progress, eh?