thrawn
I have to rant a little, this will add nothing to your day and you should skip it. John Wick is one of my favorite movies ever, but every expansion pokes holes into the universe, and reduces the realism of the choreography. I love the first, and the character, but I think it’s past time the series end.
And look, I’m not saying it needs to be or ever was realistic. But the armor is so comical that it feels like a bad video game. In the fourth, enemies would visibly be staggered, act out a flailing animation, then recover right when it was time for them to be hit with a flashy execution move. I’m not a movie snob— I can even enjoy Transformers 2— but I kept getting distracted by background enemies doing nothing but biding time until their cue to die. Not unlike the Praetorians in Star Wars: The Last Jedi. The choreography was still masterful in that the stuntmen were immaculate, but the predictable dizziness animations made me feel some sense of real sadness remembering JW1 and even 2.
The story also got offensively stupid. The Osaka Continental staff felt like vaguely racist caricatures, bringing swords to a gunfight. The manager forcing Donnie Yen to kill him (effectively suicide by duel) purely for “honor” and making his daughter watch was particularly unimpressive. Really, every region felt like they took the most marketable bits with nearly no real culture; even the assassin society solely portrays the cool bits. I’m not the type to usually care about cultural respect in movies but it felt like distasteful stereotype. These plus the extremely disappointing choice to keep working with sexual predator Taran Butler make me wish it ended at the second.
So it doesn’t terribly surprise me that the spinoff is bad too. I can’t see any movie in this universe of barely-inhibitive juggernaut armor and nonsense worldbuilding being good again. I’d expect less than respectful portrayals of ballet, poorly thought out heavy handed commentary on female assassins, and bullet sponges conveniently dying because they were hit in a place that made them flounder. Every Wick installment has only made worse the problem, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see that here too. Hopefully I’m wrong and will eat these words, but ehhhhhhh. Probably not.
No hate to those who liked JW4, I understand the video game aesthetic can be appealing. I don’t even think the series should end purely because I didn’t like it, it’s great that there’s an audience walking away satisfied. Just wasn’t for me and I miss the older movies.
apologies for coming in hot on that last comment
No worries at all, there is a distinct frustration in having to worry about the sexists. I myself rather loathe to consider them. In a more rational society, we wouldn’t need to win or lose by a razor thin margin in a handful of states. I feel that sense of “why are we giving them anything?” too.
I kind of wonder how many of those women might buck the norm simply because it would be a historical novelty to vote for a woman
I fear we may have already had that in 2016. Per CAWP, a slightly smaller percent of women turned out in 2016, and a significantly greater amount turned out in 2020. I’m not sure how accurate that source is, but if it’s correct, women voters responded more to the threat of more Trump than the novelty of Clinton.
I believe a younger candidate will be more impactful to turning out undecided low-info voters than anything based on the focus groups and polls I’ve seen thus far
Agreed. Youth and charisma, I think, would win handily. From the 2020 primary and her polling, I don’t think Harris is enough. How badly I wish Whitmer was VP now.
Make it about women’s rights
Without women’s rights, the campaign fails altogether, regardless of whoever is on the ticket. It must be focused on. I think steadfast focus on three points— women’s rights, Project 2025, and economic improvement— covers every rational American who can still be convinced. The other things are important too, but keeping those in the minds of voters should do the trick I feel.
Thanks for the rational and respectful commentary. I look forward to a future where we don’t need to think about racists, sexists, or other bigots.
I unironically miss when it was still Android Market. It was a clear name. What is a Play Store, really?
Edit: I searched it up and the reason is acceptable, you don’t need an Android device to purchase and utilize some of the content. I still think Play Store is a bad name tho
Nah, it’s a valid concern. Securing more votes than Trump didn’t secure her victory because they didn’t come from the states that matter, and lowkey sexism is a genuine concern there.
I will say that Michelle Obama would be a good candidate too, since she’d check off “broadly charismatic” and is probably more than enough to overcome the loss of incumbency. I don’t think the number of people who wouldn’t vote for a woman is huge, so a popular woman candidate is obviously better than an unpopular man. Hence why I mentioned Whitmer to begin with. I think she’s popular enough to overcome sexism, but I also believe it’s a factor. Contrast that with Harris who is not popular and will still suffer that small percentage who simply won’t vote for a woman.
Democrats do not win without the women’s vote
Yup, and they aren’t more focused on whether the candidate is a woman over the rest of the nonsense in the country. Male voters are more likely to be boneheaded and feel they want need to vote for a woman. Male voters don’t have their rights at stake and thus have less incentive to vote. The amount of women voters who won’t vote despite the significant threats to their rights but will vote because a woman is the candidate is not high. I’d be truly shocked if anyone disagreed with that. Comparatively, the amount of relatively disinterested-in-politics men that might be dissuaded by a woman candidate feels a lot higher.
And that’s the thing right— it feels that way to me. I can’t prove it. You could feasibly convince me that isn’t true, but I’d need evidence. I would genuinely, truly, painfully love to believe it, but I simply don’t have that much faith in the swing state voters. The moral choice is excessively clear and yet here we are. I posit that Michelle Obama is a popular person in general, and I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman.
Until that evidence arrives, it’s less about the quality of the candidate and more about democracy surviving. I would love President Whitmer. I would love President Michelle Obama. But 2016 came down to a relatively tiny amount of swing state voters, so every single vote counts. Sadly, I’d rather account for the casual sexists than let the vilest ones win.
(Please do provide evidence that sexism does not influence swing state voters though. I was serious when I said I’m open to the idea, and would prefer if it was true)
Edit: an extra thought:
sexists who are already largely under the Trump banner?
If we could replace largely with every, I obviously wouldn’t be worried about this. I’m not looking for the hardcore racists. Just the casual ones who don’t outright hate women and could be convinced to fight for democracy. I loathe to say it, but when things are this bad, it’s worth considering them.
I try not to get vitriolic but I fucking hate the DNC. They slanted things towards Clinton in 2016 and we got Trump. They slanted things towards Biden in 2020 and we’re now in a truly unimaginable spot trying to just keep a vague democracy thing going. The country is in such bad straits— really, the world— all to screw over one guy just because he said socialism.
Far right ideology is rising shockingly quickly since Trump brought it to the west. Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that Bernie’s policies would have calmed the brewing storm of far right fury. Politicians could scream all they want about it, but Medicare is so objectively better that I think enough lower class right-wingers would’ve loved it. Like the guys who got their loans forgiven and were like “oh shit an actual benefit, if it’s for me I guess it’s not so bad”
I think so too. Kelly and Whitmer are the only ones I would comfortably nominate. I’m really worried about Harris— she barely polls better than Biden and has room to drop, and if she could win, I think Biden would’ve too. Not confident she’d be a better president than him so I see that as a poor trade.
I have some ethics issues with how Tidal pushed MQA snake oil for years, charging more for less. Outright deceptive advertising for nothing but the money. I have bigger ethics issues with Spotify funding Rogan though.
Now, Apple is obviously its own titan and almost inherently harmful, but the music department does less active evil than the others. Qobuz seems fine in general so it’s the one I’d rec
Or Whitmer but I’m concerned about nominating a woman at this point. Country sure seems to want a white man. Kelly is the one I’d pick to win, though Whitmer would be my second choice.
I can’t discount Lichtman’s keys to victory because of that absurd rate of being correct. Right now, if the dems lose the incumbency key, the system predicts a loss. They’d need to pick up a widely charismatic candidate instead, and I think Kelly is about the only guy who could manage broad appeal. Demographically he’s near perfect
I’m not sure you read the comment fully, they suggested headphones, not speakers. Just a quiet room is enough for that. Speakers are more expensive because they have to move a lot of air in a room. I’m no expert, but I think it’s the mere physics of doing so accurately that keeps it above 200. A technology can be more or less solved without becoming sub 200.
Anyway, what’s the price range you’re looking for? I’m sure someone can recommend headphones for any range if you’re interested in those.
And that’s already a whole lot of money for next to no value for 99% of the people.
I strongly believe those people should not be thinking about audiophile gear. Thankfully, audiophile companies don’t really advertise. The claims most of those companies make are targeted towards people who are into audio, and often feature lots of solid snake oil that 99% of people would not understand. Companies that do advertise heavily tend to emphasize vague things like “deep, rich bass to accurate mids and crisp, clean highs” instead.
And I’m also very very certain that most of the higher end stuff (and I’m counting everything over 200€) is esoteric. You can’t hear a difference in quality. Maybe a difference, but not objectively better or worse.
What makes you “very very certain”? There are some quantifiable quality differences, like accurate positioning of sounds or perceived distance from the listener. It may not be necessarily worth the price, but I’m not seeing how you’re “very very certain” everything above 200 is esoteric and that it’s impossible to discern quality.
Problem is, where exactly is the line? It’s almost impossible to tell whether this one speaker is garbage with a markup or actually high quality.
Audiophile communities never suggest blind buying because even a high quality product may not have the sound signature you like. It’s similar to how a Rolls Royce, a high quality vehicle, may be too slow and comfortable for someone who would prefer a cheaper Corvette. Those in cities likely have multiple dealers who would be happy to have you come in and sample the stuff, or Best Buy. Pick something you like, regardless of price tag or recommendation. Those not in cities can get on lists of free samples that are then sent to the next listener, or buy and return from stores. Headphones.com has a 365 day return policy intended for this, though there is a restocking fee. Amazon is an unethical company and you can return large dollar quantities without fees before being blacklisted.
Speakers are harder to test if you do not have audio stores or Best Buy. I would still suggest listening when next in a city if possible. I can’t think of anything for those in areas without Best Buy and never enter one, but there might still be something.