drproximo
words from a nerd
Stuff I think about and share. Like, a blog sorta thing.
404 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
beardmanpr1
BeardGod
anzekopistar
No Emotions, Nothing To Be Happy About
anastasui
Everything juicy is here
1kami
BunnyHugHarbor
ge-rh-expert
GE RH Expert
Text
The Incompleteness of the Puddle Parable
In its shortest official version, Douglas Adams’ puddle parable goes like this:
If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!”
It’s primarily a response to the “fine tuning” argument, an attempt to use cosmological constants to support the idea that the universe was created specifically for us humans.
Adams’ original version is concise, and sufficient for expressing what he wanted to in its context, but I don’t think it goes far enough to combat the full implications of the way that the fine tuning argument is usually formulated and expressed. We live on a teeny tiny rock in a solar system, inside a galaxy, inside an unfathomable universe, I don’t think I have enough zeroes to properly express the decimal value of the percentage of the universe - the entirety of which was allegedly “designed” for us - can actually sustain us.
For Adams’ parable to be more apt as a response to the fine tuning argument, I propose that the puddle suppose, based only on his own fitness for the puddle, that the entire planet was designed for him.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
You Know Nothing About Nothing
Apologists seem to think they know an awful lot about nothing. When pushing cosmological arguments to prove that a physical explanation is insufficient to explain the physical world, they will authoritatively parrot the old chestnut “nothing comes from nothing”, or some version thereof.
I would like to ask them, where is the warehouse where they store samples of nothing? Where can I read the studies that have been performed on nothing to determine these allegedly axiomatic ideas? Often, the best they can do is cite “common sense”. Well, any actual scientist will tell you that “common sense” is all too often another term for “confirmation bias”. In cosmology and quantum physics especially, “common sense” is one of the worst criteria for deciding what’s plausible.
Everything you know about anything is based on something. You don’t truly know anything about nothing.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
I had been using a website called "Secret Rick Roll" to generate RickRoll links. A few days ago, I clicked on my bookmark, and discovered the site is gone. I did some searching and found another decent site to bookmark for future links. Obviously, this was the first fake link I created:
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
movie pitch: The Furrier and Otis
Okay, I know I’m overthinking this, but hear me out.
Arguably, the most iconic scene in Pretty in Pink is Duckie’s one-man lip-sync battle to “Try a Little Tenderness”. So, obviously, he’s familiar with the song, he says afterwards that it’s a favourite of his, but how did the timing work? Was he already coming into the store to say hi, and it was just a coincidence that it was playing when he came in? Or, was he outside waiting, hoping that Iona would put on a record he recognized, so he could come in and put on a performance? I timed it out of curiosity, Duckie comes in 12 seconds after the song starts. That’s just enough time to hear enough of the song to realise what it is, do a little “yes!” punch-the-air gesture, brace himself, and boom. Part of the reason I think this is a possibility is what happens at the beginning of the scene. As Iona is putting on the record, she says “the furrier next door loves this”, then she points at the wall to predict the exact moment that said furrier knocks on the wall to say thanks. We know that Duckie hangs around the record store and knows Iona, he might already know about the furrier and Otis. He could have been rehearsing this routine for weeks, or even months.
We recently heard that there’s going to be a spin-off of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, following the hijinks of the parking attendants who took the Ferrari for a joyride. I want to see a spin-off of Pretty in Pink following a week in the life of the furrier next door.
youtube
0 notes
Text
Some thoughts about apologetics
(note: this started as a Twitter thread, but it just kept growing, so here we are)
I honestly think that apologists do harm to religion. All their best arguments are just so so bad, some of them turn people away, some of them backfire down the road when people learn more about the real world. I think I'm just starting to articulate one of the main factors.
IMO, it's about corruption of what's meant by "faith". When I was religious, I acknowledged without issue that God was beyond our understanding and not provable by real world methods, and that miracles are by definition impossible but God can override the laws of physics.
Hebrews 11:1 says faith is "the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things unseen." You understand and acknowledge that these things require this type of faith to believe, because that's how unfathomable God's nature is.
The problem with apologists is that this rubs them the wrong way. Critics of religious thought have used the term “bind faith” to describe this type of faith as a bad thing, so instead of reframing it as per Hebrews 11:1, instead of making it a point of pride that your love for God is so great that you’re willing to believe even though you can’t give solid irrefutable scientific historical proof. I might disagree with people that take that position, but at least I can respect it, because it’s honest. People can see the world for what it is and still believe in God.
But apologists won’t accept that. Young Earth Creationists build their entire faith around twisting and distorting science, and quite literally demonizing people who just want science classes to only teach science. Plenty of actual Christians are able to accept that evolution is a fact, and that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that the creation account in Genesis is probably more of a fable than history. These things are not blasphemy, they are a matter of looking around you and seeing the world as it is, and then adjusting your God belief around that. Apologists start with their conclusion and distort the evidence to fit their view.
And, I kinda hate to say, I can understand why. Part of their particular kind of belief is about perfection. They believe that God is perfect, and the Bible is His inerrant inspired word, so when the evidence pokes holes in that idea, there’s cognitive dissonance. There’s nothing wrong with the belief, so there must be something wrong with the evidence. And they can’t accept that maybe our mortal minds aren’t meant to understand it, because they’re afraid that “the world” will mock that type of faith as foolishness.
But among the people who listen to their bad arguments and syllogisms, a good portion of them eventually learn enough to realise that this insistence on evidence-based “faith” is neither realistic nor biblical. Some just abandon that brand of apologetics and stick to a more reality-based church, but for some this realisation is the first step to noticing all the gaps and contradictions and really weak answers to big questions.
I don’t think there’s any way to get reliable numbers, but I wonder how many have been driven from religion by bad apologetics compared to how many were converted. If YouTube is any measure, the deconverts far outweigh the converts. And that’s a trend I hope continues.
0 notes
Photo
I am a middle-aged, straight, while male, and I totally agree with this woman.
I have never felt threatened or unsafe around anyone the way I feel unsafe around most white men.And I’m one of them. If I feel this way, I can’t even imagine what it must feel like to be someone without all of my privilege and plot armor.
5K notes
·
View notes
Text
Q’s crush on Picard saved the Federation.
This all flooded into my head last night while me and my mom were out on a drive. I told her even though she’s not a Trekkie, just so that I could formulate it out loud and confirm that it makes sense.
First of all, I haven’t seen any of season 2 of Picard. I know from what I’ve seen on Twitter that Q shows Picard a dark alternate timeline where “General Picard” has a collection of the skulls of his enemies, including some characters we’ve met. I don’t know if this is the dark “mirror universe” with the bearded Spock. If it is that universe, it’s possible that everything I’m about to say has been dealt with, but I wanted to commit these thoughts as they sit before I get any confirmation.
So, in TNG, Q meddled with things so that the Borg would be made aware of the Federation earlier than they would have otherwise. Eventually, this lead to the events in First Contact.
In First Contact, the Borg go back in time, prevent the warp flight that lead to the First Contact event, making Earth ripe for assimilation. The Enterprise followed the Borg, and did what they could to repair the damage to the timeline. Out of necessity, they befriend Zephram Cochrane. They’re (eventually) open and honest with him about time travel, about the future he helped secure. They found him a broken drunkard, and helped him see that he could be something better.
So how would that whole thing have gone down if the Borg hadn’t interfered, meaning that the Enterprise didn’t have to repair anything, meaning that Zephram Cochran never got properly snapped out of his drunken stupor?
That’s the Mirror Universe.
There was a 2-part episode of Enterprise, exploring this Mirror Universe and expanding on it more extensively than anywhere else in the franchise. The opening scene is an alternate version of the First Contact event. The one in which the Enterprise never showed up to fix the Borg’s mess. Instead of shaking hands with the Vulcan, Cochrane shoots him, and the humans take over the Vulcan ship.
It is suggested that this is the moment where the Mirror Universe split from the “Prime” universe. Without the Enterprise crew there to encourage him, Cochrane is still a drunken cynic and opportunist.
Q’s fascination with humanity/Picard indirectly allowed the Prime timeline to exist. The dark Mirror Universe is the “what if Q didn’t have a crush on Jean-Luc” timeline.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Original Versions of Songs You Didn’t Know were Covers
Originally published for Geeks and Beats, August 2017.
https://www.geeksandbeats.com/2017/08/songs-didnt-know-covers/
I love a well-done cover song, and I especially love a well-done cover that deviates from the original. There’s something endlessly fascinating about how two different people can arrange such dramatically different interpretations of the same source material. What makes this especially fun is when you discover that a song you’ve been enjoying for years is itself a reinterpretation. Sometimes it even goes a step further, and a song that you knew as a cover turns out to be a cover of a cover. Researching this list became a much more involved “rabbit hole” than I ever anticipated, and I am delighted to share my findings with you. I’m confident that, like me, you’ll have more than a few “whoa, I didn’t know that!” moments.
Bruce Springsteen – Blinded by the Light
youtube
When a WatchMojo video got me digging into this awhile back, this was the one that surprised me most. This is one of those songs that I feel like I’ve been aware of for as long as I’ve cared about music. So it was a bit of a shock to discover in my 40s that, not only is it a cover, but it was originally by The Boss. There are differences in the arrangement and the lyrics, but the Manfred Mann version is generally considered the definitive rendition.
Tina Turner – Don’t Turn Around
youtube
While “Blinded by the Light” was the big surprise on my first dive into this topic, this next one blew me away even moreso. Ace of Base’s third most successful single was originally a Tina Turner song, the B-side of her 1986 single “Typical Male”. Bonnie Tyler, whose repertoire of covers is expansive and impressive, also did her own interpretation on 1988’s Hide Your Heart.
I’ve Got My Mind Set On You – James Ray
youtube
Time for a little history about “Weird Al” Yankovic. In 1988, Al released his album Even Worse. The title had two meanings. First of all, the lead single was “Fat”, a parody of Michael Jackson’s “Bad”, and the album cover was also a direct parody of Jackson’s Bad cover. In other words, since Jackson was declaring himself to be “Bad”, Al decided he was “Even Worse”. Second, all of the other parodies were of covers that had recently been hit singles, by Tiffany, Billy Idol, Los Lobos, and George Harrison.
The last one was the one that surprised me. Harrison’s most solid 80s hit was actually a cover. I owned 45s of the originals of all the others, but I had never heard James Ray’s original of “I’ve Got My Mind Set On You” (which Al turned into “(This Song’s Just) Six Words Long“).
The Tide is High – The Paragons
One of Blondie’s most distinctive qualities was, and still is, a blending of several sounds and moods. As such, this reggae ditty, which was their third #1 single on the Billboard Hot 100, didn’t raise many eyebrows. So, few at the time knew that it was a cover of a 1966 rocksteady song by The Paragons. Although, the fact that the gender-swap screwed up the rhyme scheme could have been a clue.
Torn – Ednaswap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OoEdfB7l18
This one’s a little weird. Shortly after Natalie Imbruglia had her breakthrough hit with “Torn” in 1997, there was a short-lived minor controversy. Apparently, some people were upset when they found out that Imbruglia didn’t write the song. It was a cover of a 1995 song by a relatively unknown alternative act called Ednaswap. Nobody claimed had that she wrote the song, however, and there was nothing new about singers having a cover be their first hit. So the “controversy” was quickly reduced to a footnote, whose most prominent documentation is a mention on Pop-Up Video.
Adding to the weirdness, Ednaswap’s “original” wasn’t technically the first recording of the song. Two years before they got around to releasing it, a Danish translation,“Brændt” (“Burned”), was released by Lis Sørensen.
Girls Just Wanna Have Fun – Robert Hazard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLNwOxPsjg
I almost didn’t include this one because, quite frankly, the original is awful. And, let’s be real, there’s something creepy about a guy breathily singing about what girls want. Thankfully, Hazard’s recording never got past the demo stage, so I’ll choose to consider Lauper’s version “technically a cover but sort of not really”.
Downtown Train – Tom Waits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLtZKkCIVmI
If you asked a random sampling of people around you, there’s a good chance that many of them wouldn’t be able to name a Tom Waits song. On the other hand, it’s almost a guarantee that they’re familiar with at least one of his songs, but covered by someone else. The Eagles, Alison Krauss, Sarah McLachlan, Bruce Springsteen, and The Ramones are among the many big names to contribute to this. Heck, actress Scarlett Johansson recorded an entire album of Tom Waits songs (it was kind of awful, but I digress).
One of the most successful Waits covers is Rod Stewart’s “Downtown Train”. The original was a standout track and minorly-successful single from Waits’ 1985 masterpiece Rain Dogs. Stewart’s 1991 cover starts off with a similarly restrained sound, but gradually swells into a much “bigger”, almost celebratory sound.
Piece of My Heart – Erma Franklin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0QAxIKf8G4
First off, the more well-known recording, with Janis Joplin on vocals, is properly credited to her band Big Brother and the Holding Company. Second, covers generally draw from that 1968 version, but the original was by Erma Franklin (Aretha Franklin’s older sister). Faith Hill’s 1994 atrocity seemed to be an attempt to destroy the song’s legacy, but Melissa Etheridge managed to restore it a little bit in 2005, even though it was a clumsy attempt at a comeback for Etheridge.
The First Cut is the Deepest – P.P. Arnold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-g5VG2pWg
This is one of my favourites. With many of the entries on this list, it’s fun to play the original for someone and watch their face as they slowly realize what they’re hearing. P.P. Arnold’s original recording of “The First Cut is the Deepest” (written by Cat Stevens) also happens to be a fantastic song in its own right.
In 1977, Rod Stewart (him again?) released what most would consider the definitive version, and in 2003 Sheryl Crow covered it as one of two new songs recorded for her best-of collection.
Nothing Compares 2 U – The Family
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZlzN0Gtpp8
In the 80s, there were a lot of Prince side projects and spin-offs. Morris Day and The Time may be the most memorable, with their mega-hit “Jungle Love“. Wendy & Lisa, Vanity 6, and Apollonia 5 also enjoyed a little time in the spotlight. One of the lesser-known projects, however, was The Family. The Family was often tasked with bringing life to songs that Prince wrote but wasn’t interested in doing himself. So even if you knew that Prince wrote Sinéad O’Connor’s 1990 breakthrough hit “Nothing Compares 2 U“, you might not have known that The Family had recorded it 5 years prior.
Prince would eventually record a live version as a duet with Rosie Gaines, which was included on the various iterations of his 1993 compilation The Hits. Also included on this compilation were Prince’s originals of “I Feel 4 U” (covered by Chaka Khan in 1984), and “When U Were Mine” (covered by Cyndi Lauper in 1983).
Killing Me Softly – Lori Lieberman
youtube
In 1996, the Fugees released their breakthrough mega-hit, “Killing Me Softly“. Not everyone knew it was a cover of a 1973 Roberta Flack song, but many did. Even fewer knew, however, that Flack’s rendition was itself a cover. The original, by Lori Lieberman in 1972, was a soft acoustic rendition of a poem. “His song” was Don McLean’s “Empty Chairs”.
The first cover could have turned out quite differently; according to Wikipedia:
Helen Reddy has said she was sent the song, but “the demo… sat on my turntable for months without being played because I didn’t like the title”.
Roberta Flack’s successful 1973 cover is still soft, but with some defining chord changes, and a slightly more soulful sound.
Further mutating the tune, The Fugees laid down their hip-hop version in 1996, to much acclaim.
If you poke around YouTube looking for versions of this song, you’ll probably find about a dozen copies of a crooner version credited to Frank Sinatra. It does kind of sound like The Chairman, but he never actually recorded it. That’s Perry Como, from his 1973 album And I Love You So.
Some Guys Have All The Luck – Persuaders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3NWbvFsBVo
First released in 1973 by R&B group The Persuaders, Rod Stewart’s cover of “Some Guys Have All the Luck” served as one of the important hits of his 80s comeback (and his third time appearing on this list, what is it with this guy and covers?) In between those two versions, Robert Palmer also recorded his own version, with significantly altered lyrics and arrangement. Palmer’s version is probably the strangest, kind of a gritty new wave thing, reminiscent of Pete Shelley’s “Homosapien“.
There have been several other covers, including a gender swapped country version. Of special note is Maxi Priest’s 1987 rendition, which (mostly) returned to the original lyrics and arrangement, but with Maxi’s signature “reggae fusion” sound.
Tainted Love – Gloria Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSehtaY6k1U
When Marilyn Manson covered “Tainted Love” in 2001 for the Not Another Teen Movie soundtrack, it was fairly common knowledge that he was covering a Soft Cell song. Soft Cell’s 1981 arrangement, however, was not the original. American soul singer Gloria Jones’ Motown-influenced version was a B-side for “My Bad Boy’s Comin’ Home”, which failed to make a lasting impression domestically. Jones herself, however, had very much made an impression in England, where she was dubbed the “Northern Queen of Soul”.
Eventually the song entered the radar of the synth-pop duo Soft Cell. Their 1981 version became their only major hit in North America, and one of the defining songs of the 80s.
Side notes and honorable mentions:
You might already knew that The Isley Brothers recorded “Twist and Shout” a year before The Beatles, but did you know that a group called The Top Notes recorded it a year before that?
“I Love Rock n Roll” by Joan Jett & the Blackhearts, arguably one of the most ubiquitous and recognized songs of the modern era, was originally released by The Arrows in 1975.
Animotion’s “Obsession”, unofficial theme song of the fashion world for more than 30 years, was originally recorded by Michael Des Barres & Holly Knight.
Madonna’s “Ray of Light” was adapted from “Sepheryn” by Curtiss Maldoon, though it’s not a direct cover.
Led Zeppelin have a storied history of borrowing, adapting, and straight-up stealing. A cursory Google search will provide many articles and videos discussing this, but the two examples which I think best fit the theme are “Dazed and Confused”, originally by Jake Holmes, and “Stairway to Heaven”, adapted from “Taurus” by Spirit.
Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues” was adapted from “Crescent City Blues“, written by Gordon Jenkins and sung by Beverly Mahr. Also, more than half the songs on Cash’s 5 American Recordings albums are reinterpretations of a diverse selection of songs.
#music#cover songs#madonna#weird al yankovic#tom waits#beatles#cyndi lauper#bruce springsteen#killing me softly#twist and shout#johnny cash
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
When inventing a new writing system, here are the main advantages of the main 4 directions, from the point of view of someone who is used to a writing system that goes left to right.
left to right: accessable
right to left: exotic
top to bottom: mysterious
bottom to top: a little trollish, if I'm being honest.
0 notes
Text
"So why is it that some worlds have magic and others don't, but there are none without gravity or without light?"
Imagine each realm as a barrel, but instead of two iron rings holding it together, there are patchworks of interwoven metal strips. Most are silver, but some are gold. The way the weaving is arranged, if any silver strip is removed, the whole thing fails and the barrel falls apart, spilling the contents. The gold pieces, however, can be removed, replaced, and relocated, without any effect on the structural integrity of the system.
The silver pieces are the basic laws of physics. If any of them are absent, the universe barrel doesn't ever get a chance to even form. The gold pieces are the mystic forces. They manifest in different ways across different realms. Their direct effect on the universe manifests in what is usually known as magic. Their indirect effect is that sometimes they also alter how "absolute" the various laws of physics are. So, for example, some magic might allow flight by a force which weakens gravity. They also facilitate the manipulation of those forces by beings with the genetic capacity to do so. Given how many planets in any given galaxy likely have life, it's a good bet that a handful of planets have spawned beings that eventually obtained this capacity, while others don't have any connection at all.
So you see how not every realm has magic, and in realms that have magic, not all worlds with life have magical beings.
The important thing about the existence or non-existence, the placement and manipulation of them, is that on their own they don't have a direct effect on the laws of physics and the worlds bound by them, they usually need a sentient conduit, a thinking being with intent who is able to clearly define that intent, and focus enough to make it happen.
Usually.
Sometimes, through quirks involving certain minerals also getting mystical properties, certain magical events happen on their own. The results can be varied. Sometimes it just means something strange happens that a community talks about for a few generations, sometimes entire worlds are destroyed.
Anyway, I'm tired, come back tomorrow if you want me to explain more.
___
A lot of times I have these conversations in my head. Sometimes it's a conversation between two fictional characters trying to explain a fictional concept, sometimes it a pop culture discussion like some of my favourite Cracked videos before The Great Purge. I've decided to start actually making effort to type them out. I'm not expecting all of them to be useful or even good, but some will hopefully be worthwhile.
0 notes
Text
I love that people are just learning that the woman from Schitt's Creek played the mother in Home Alone. Some folks are complaining about it as if it's stupid to not have already known, but I get it, a lot of today's young people weren't around for Home Alone and Beetlejuice and SCTV, and even if they saw those movies and shows, you don't memorize every actor's name from every "old" movie you watch. It's not a "travesty" that some people are just now learning Catherine O'Hara's, just like there's some kids who don't know the Beatles, that's just how culture works.
And it also means more potential for the experience of discovery. Right now, somebody somewhere is experiencing, for the first time, the discography of a legendary act like the Beatles or Pink Floyd or the Everly Brothers, and that's beautiful.
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Geeks & Beats podcast has come to an end, and the website will soon be only an archive of the podcast episodes. The articles I wrote for the site will soon be removed, and I will retain ownership of my works. I will start republishing them here, with updates and corrections.
0 notes
Text
Reasons why "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain" is bullshit:
1) Your vote doesn't really matter that much.
Gore got more votes than Bush. Hillary got more votes than Trump. The electoral college is a racist holdover, has no place in a modern system, and only serves as a means to defy the will of the people.
Also, a 2014 Princeton study found that "economic elites and organized interest groups play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence." The politicians who end up in office are beholden to their donors, not the people. Their job is to put on a kind face to fool the people into thinking you're working for them, while giving the corporations everything they want and thanking them for the opportunity.
2) TAXES!
The idea that voting is what gives you a right to speak your mind is a nebulous concept, a guilt trip, it's not rooted in any reality, theory, or law. Do you pay taxes? If you do, then you have a right to have a voice in how your tax dollars are spent. Whether you vote for the winner, vote for the loser, or don't vote at all, your money pays their salaries, you're their boss. If you vote for the loser, the winner doesn't get to say "I don't serve you because you didn't vote for me"; they also don't get to do that if you didn't vote.
3) complicity
If you're presented with two candidates, and you have every indication that both candidates are only interested in perpetuating the status quo, and that status quo is literally killing people, it's reasonable to feel that voting for either of them will legitimize a terrible system, and give the powers that be permission to keep doing what they're doing. Basically, if you only have bad choices, and someone says "you must choose one of these two, otherwise you don't get to participate in society", that's not democracy, that's tyranny. And don't trot out dead veterans to guilt me, they fought for my right to NOT vote just as hard as they fought for my right to vote, because that's what freedom means. Given the choice of a bowl of shit or a glass of arsenic, nobody should shame you for abstaining from both.
0 notes
Text
It was 4 years ago that Colin Kaepernick made news with his first public kneeling protest. He was just one person, so there was a lot of news and a lot of discussion, and almost no action. For 4 years. A few other scattered players here and there joined him (usually people with relatively little to lose), but for the most part it was a single figure, not a movement.
Now entire teams are striking and commentators are walking off the job in the middle of broadcast. Instead of just sparking conversation, they're shutting this shit DOWN.
Progress is slow, and sometimes outside agitators like Trump and his snowflake squad will derail specific efforts, but it's a movement, and it's not going to be stopped.
If that bothers you, I guarantee you're on the wrong side of history.
1 note
·
View note