PYF Longform Article

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Longform Article

Deep Glove Bruno: Sep 4, 2015; yung swamp thang

Yeah, Bob Ross and happy accidents. And it's like, if you always got what you wanted and everything you envisioned became reality, would you as a creator even be happier about it? Does Dongals Tormp seem happy or does he seem like the most miserable fucker to ever live? Not getting exactly what you want is important even outside creativity.

# ? Feb 2, 2021 14:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 01:29

C.M. Kruger: Oct 28, 2013

Couple articles about companies going boom and then bust:

A bespoke ice cream company rises in prominence and then goes bankrupt, one of the founders describes himself as being the Steve Jobs of Ice Cream.
https://marker.medium.com/the-shocking-meltdown-of-ample-hills-brooklyns-hottest-ice-cream-company-66b27dc1791d

A jewelry company deftly maneuvers to being valued at over $1 billion through aggressive marketing and early adoption of stuff like data tracking of users on it's website, boosting their sales by 11,000% in 4 years, and then explodes.
https://marker.medium.com/unlucky-charms-the-rise-and-fall-of-billion-dollar-jewelry-empire-alex-and-ani-6acd9a716fd2?gi=sd

# ? Feb 10, 2021 10:35

8 Ball: Nov 27, 2010; My hands are all messed up so you better post, brother.

https://www.afar.com/magazine/at-give-kids-the-world-village-happiness-inspires-hope

Not ashamed to say that this made me cry like a baby, it's been a tough week/month/year so it's good to know there's still...good out there

# ? Feb 11, 2021 15:36

coronatae: Oct 14, 2012

I was just coming here to post that :unsmith:

made me so teary but so happy too

# ? Feb 11, 2021 17:32

Lord Zedd-Repulsa: Jul 21, 2007; Devour a good book.

Thank you very much for posting that.

# ? Feb 12, 2021 01:13

letthereberock: Sep 4, 2004

Oral history of the MTV game show Remote Control

https://tv.avclub.com/kenny-wasn-t-like-the-other-kids-an-oral-history-of-mt-1846083224

I�ve never wanted to work in the entertainment industry in any capacity, but damned if it doesn�t seem like working on this show would have been a blast.

# ? Feb 23, 2021 17:08

Gann Jerrod: Sep 9, 2005; A gun isn't a gun unless it shoots Magic.

This is a great article about a design company behind some of the most creative PC game boxes ever made.
https://obscuritory.com/essay/incredible-boxes-of-hock-wah-yeo/

# ? Mar 2, 2021 18:40

Snowy: Oct 6, 2010; A man whose blood
Is very snow-broth;
One who never feels
The wanton stings and
Motions of the sense

letthereberock posted:

I�ve never wanted to work in the entertainment industry in any capacity

I�m hiding behind some scenery right now, it�s ok

# ? Mar 3, 2021 14:38

ultrafilter: Aug 23, 2007; It's okay if you have any questions.

Everyone is Beautiful and No One is Horny

# ? Mar 10, 2021 04:57

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

ultrafilter posted:

Everyone is Beautiful and No One is Horny

Interesting read but I disagree strongly with it.

The article, to me, makes several points.
- Society is moving towards a more intense standard of physical sexual appearance
- that move is recent
- that move is not for physical enjoyment or fulfilment but a kind of paranoid and selfish demonstrative act of its own ends
- that standard is being met in a widespread way across socirty for those reasons
- cinema exemplifies this well and is a fair example to choose
- these aspirations are also reflected in other aspects of life, such as home d�cor

I have tried to keep my post below in roughly the same order as the article. The summary above is not in the same order.

I don't believe cinema is a good example. As a visual, non-interactive medium, it will necessarily focus on visual aspects of sexuality.
Combined with the fact that film producers and promoters have realised children and young teens have far more disposable income and pester power that the youth that came before, films deliberately are targeted at younger demographics. Standards of what is acceptable have also changed. This limits how explicit films can be.

The films they reference are poorly chosen. Superhero flicks are not a particlarly fair punching bag to pick. They're aimed at kids moreso than they used to be. I haven't seen the 1982 Wonder Woman, but Superman of the same era had egregious Marlboro advertising, as an example off the top of my head.

Superheroes are by definition superhuman - and this is without mentioning that they spring from a mid-C20th purely-visual medium. Their abilities could not be shown through CGI so were inked in bulging muscles. The boys all biceps and the girls all chest.

And as more extreme physiques have become possible (and become more acceptable to actors requested to obtain them) it is not surprising that they are seen more on screen. That they have become possible is not limited to cinema - simply look at bodybuilding champions. It was not for lack of desire or dedication that Arnie from his heyday would stand little chance of being crowned Mr Universe now.

And the point of Batman is being lone and reclusive. Even in the 90s. Go back to Batman and Robin and see how awkwardly he has to confront Poison Ivy's advances. Batman is a paragon of unhealthy childhood leading to social underdevelopment with the opposite sex.

Music - perhaps a better barometer of cultural standards, due to the human inability to shut our ears in the same way we might close our eyes - has become more explicit. What before had to be couched in innuendo is now sung openly. Even raido edits leave far less to the imagination than they once did. Sexuality has not been replaced by vanity if you just listen to the Top 10.

Even sticking with purely visual media, television has becomr fsr more graphically and descriptively sexual. Skinemax is tame by today's standards. With smaller budgets, stable subscription rather than box-officr income, lower lead times and a shift of the adukt appetite to consume its visual stimulation through Netflix, television dors not need to pander to the children being bundled into its audience share the way cinema has. TV is now choice, concentrated. Cinema has only seen its viewer demographics dilute and blur.

Most TV dramas have what I refer to as "mandatory lesbians". That lesbian sex is seemingly salacious in a way straight sex cannot be - and the relative exclusion of male gay sex - is a different conversation entirely. Yet by consistently writing in Mandatory Lesbians, TV shows that sex still sells, and the saucier thr better. Characters will have protracted sex scenes when little plot progression is found through thrir inclusion. Even when not shown in detail, it is heavily referred to both in "night before" and "morning after" scenes and their scripts. Characters whose roles do not rely on making a sexual story contribution will nevertheless find the scriptwriter has hooked them up and bundled them into bed simply to plesse the audience. Is "fanservice" or "shipping" in a msjor dictionary yet?

As for McMansions, I also disagree. Minimalistic houses don't show a lack of aspiration in today's world, they are the aspiration. Whereas the blog author identifies houses filled with cheap features, as someone looking to buy a home it's more often that I'm told, for example, that a kitchen tap is imported from Italy and cost obscene money - and while it looks nice, it isn't showy in the same way as the 90s was. Perhaps in HGTV's "reality" that argument holds water - features on a churn-out TV budget - but then it also rather undermines the article. People want substance not shout, understatement with maximum functionality instead of elaborate extravagance being wantonky displayed.

The paragraph on sports reflects the author's social circle but bears no resenblance to the town I live in. Here sports are all about leisure and hanging out with friends. It's rare to find someone taking it seriously, let alone as part of some body image quest.

And in the paragraph about how people chisel their bodies painstakingly into temples, the author declares that this is not for self-fulfilment of desire, nor for sexual attractiveness in an increasingly-beautiful dating scene. I must disagree on two counts. Firstly is that earlier in the article they reference a lack of "really fat" people from films that is present in society. Certainly, where I live there are plenty of people whose bodies are temples - but those Cambodian ones that the moneys poo poo all over. It seems people are out there enjoying comfortable, homely sex in comfortable, homely bodies that would not make the pages of a glamour magazine.
Secondly, in our social-media culture where life is experienced constantly through a lens, beautification is not an empty act, but the fulfilment of a desire to be noticed, to be "liked" in every sense that word now holds. To be held up as a sexual object by strangers, too, in varying degrees. Not everyone, sure, but others will have their own reasons. And are you going to tell me people beautifying for attention, trying to leverage club entry to the hottest nightspots with their follower count and "insta-fame" aren't out there getting laid, in tge same way we used to after a night clubbing?

In short, not everyone is aiming to be beautiful (as the author would argue), and even for those who are, it's not an empty pursuit in the way the author suggests either.

Healthy living can result in looking good, but correlation is not causation. I would say that healthy living is what's taken over from the 90s empty beauty and heroin chic. Curves are in. Food traceability and grocery ethics are in. Gyms are popular, but is it hunting beauty or wanting to be able to run a 10k?
And if that was not rewarding, if "counting steps" is an extrinsic not intrinsic motivation - then why are so many people hooked and kept reeled in by the gameification? Exercise is not a slog to check some mental box. For many, many people it is a personal goal being met.

Compare that to the Hollywood starlets from the article's opening, who openly expressed their distate of physical exertion.

To say that people no longer want to be touched - that it is felt primarily as co-dependance or weakness - is a misconception. People want to be touched more than ever, as they live their lives through their eyes on screens. It's just that, on the whole, we have become more mindful of other people's boundaries. No means no. Yes should be explicit. And this is a good thing.

I'm not sure how old the author is, but I certainly remember the popularity of army-style fitness clubs - they took place weekly in the local park: outdoors, with others. Councils funded fitness equipment in those parks. Fat camp is not a new invention, and sending a child there is no more vain an act than it used to be for parents. Sports brands remain aspirstional rooted in the same desirability that they used to: footwear advertised by basketball stars was wanted for its association to greatness, not because anyone was under the delusion that it'd help you "train" better. And that remains true today, otherwise why are sports celebrities' marketing deals so lucrative?

To suggest that calorie-restriction diets are so prevalant as to cause a general generational lack of libido is laughable. The real public health concern is obesity. I understand that the author references this later on, but I remain unconvinced that it is a BMI shift that has seen an increase in obesity-related causes of death and diabetes.

I disagree that nations experience some sort of zumba zeitgeist as threat response. Rather than view a fitness fad as a sign of declining Empire (to borrow one of their examples), rather understand that if something is starting to wane then it must be just past its peak. The British Empire became steeped in military culture; sons of the Empire sent to defend its colonies and promised continued ownership of the world in return. A growth in the culture of fitness iis about keeping what is held, not about a futile fight for relevance in the face of fear. Studies have shown that as people become richer, the contents of their refrigerators become healthier. Better nutrition is a fight to stave off death, to enjoy the life currently led for as long as possible. It comes from a position of prosperity and power and remains a luxury those genuinely threatened by modern life struggle to afford.

And while I accept that the Nazis were big on fitness, it is somewhat ironic that the author opines that these nationalistic movements were not about the "joy of strength". After all, "Kraft durch Freude" encouraged dances (among other activities) as a suitable pathway to achieve that goal. In the author's eyes, dancing may be purely performative, soulless, and selfish, but it is at its heart I maintain it was, is, and will always be primarily done for fun.
I would return again to the army-style bootcamps mentioned earlier. Fitness was a group activity on a personal level - and yes, on an Olympic level about defeating an enemy. But isn't it always in Olympic competition? Did the USSR, for all its international athletic success and no shortage of "enemies" to defeat, see a trend of fitness in its populace? Or did daily life for an average citizen involve more vodka and cigarettes than it did push-ups and posturing?

Geopolitical jingoism and everyday exercise are not, in my view, remotrly comprable.

The author then states a belief that the Berlin Wall falling had more to do with children retreating to recreation indoors than, say, the 90s media frenzy over Stranger Danger, public spending cuts that slashed youth clubs from budgets, or the advent of Nintendo and Playstation. I don't buy it.

As the article reaches its conclusion and lists the factors it has touted as causes for our societ's supposed increasing asexuality, it misses the biggest point of all. It is not that sexualisation has disappeared from our day-to-day, but that it has become so ingrained as to be indistinguishable. For all that its lack is lamented, except as something to show off and never use, the author is silent on the growing prevalance and use - and extremity - of porn. A cursory comparison beteeen today and back through family photos of our prepubescence shows how even clothing has become more body-focused. One can argue that these clothes are chosen as sexual signalling, but I pesonally perceive it as the adult world's obsession with sex -seeking and getting - permeating down in our choices for our children.

The author lauds Pattinson's rebellious masturbation. Yet while that lonley self-love is a solitary silver screen sight, our Starship Troopers were shagging in a tent just shortly after that unecessary "unsexual" shower scene.

simplefish has a new favorite as of 08:00 on Mar 10, 2021

# ? Mar 10, 2021 06:58

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

I'm not sure advertising marlboros back then was meant exclusively for adults

# ? Mar 10, 2021 07:08

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

I don't disagree, but there were legal age restrictions nonetheless. My point is that there was more adult content back then regarless of its categorisation.

~~I'm just tidying up my post above, will remove this when done~~
Okay I've had my fun.

Thank you if you took the time to read it!
Please excuse any typos or hurried and incomplete arguments.

I wrote it on my phone for pleasure, not to be unassailably, smugly correct.

The fun was in the doing, not impressing you goons by being right.

Hm. What does that say about trends of acting in a purely vapid, visible way?

simplefish has a new favorite as of 07:59 on Mar 10, 2021

# ? Mar 10, 2021 07:19

Douche Wolf 89: Dec 9, 2010; 🍉🐺8️⃣9️⃣

simplefish posted:

Interesting read but I disagree strongly with it.

The article, to me, makes several points.
- Society is moving towards a more intense standard of physical sexual appearance
- that move is recent
- that move is not for physical enjoyment or fulfilment but a kind of paranoid and selfish demonstrative act of its own ends
- that standard is being met in a widespread way across socirty for those reasons
- cinema exemplifies this well and is a fair example to choose
- these aspirations are also reflected in other aspects of life, such as home d�cor

I have tried to keep my post below in roughly the same order as the article. The summary above is not in the same order.

I don't believe cinema is a good example. As a visual, non-interactive medium, it will necessarily focus on visual aspects of sexuality.
Combined with the fact that film producers and promoters have realised children and young teens have far more disposable income and pester power that the youth that came before, films deliberately are targeted at younger demographics. Standards of what is acceptable have also changed. This limits how explicit films can be.

The films they reference are poorly chosen. Superhero flicks are not a particlarly fair punching bag to pick. They're aimed at kids moreso than they used to be. I haven't seen the 1982 Wonder Woman, but Superman of the same era had egregious Marlboro advertising, as an example off the top of my head.

Superheroes are by definition superhuman - and this is without mentioning that they spring from a mid-C20th purely-visual medium. Their abilities could not be shown through CGI so were inked in bulging muscles. The boys all biceps and the girls all chest.

And as more extreme physiques have become possible (and become more acceptable to actors requested to obtain them) it is not surprising that they are seen more on screen. That they have become possible is not limited to cinema - simply look at bodybuilding champions. It was not for lack of desire or dedication that Arnie from his heyday would stand little chance of being crowned Mr Universe now.

And the point of Batman is being lone and reclusive. Even in the 90s. Go back to Batman and Robin and see how awkwardly he has to confront Poison Ivy's advances. Batman is a paragon of unhealthy childhood leading to social underdevelopment with the opposite sex.

Music - perhaps a better barometer of cultural standards, due to the human inability to shut our ears in the same way we might close our eyes - has become more explicit. What before had to be couched in innuendo is now sung openly. Even raido edits leave far less to the imagination than they once did. Sexuality has not been replaced by vanity if you just listen to the Top 10.

Even sticking with purely visual media, television has becomr fsr more graphically and descriptively sexual. Skinemax is tame by today's standards. With smaller budgets, stable subscription rather than box-officr income, lower lead times and a shift of the adukt appetite to consume its visual stimulation through Netflix, television dors not need to pander to the children being bundled into its audience share the way cinema has. TV is now choice, concentrated. Cinema has only seen its viewer demographics dilute and blur.

Most TV dramas have what I refer to as "mandatory lesbians". That lesbian sex is seemingly salacious in a way straight sex cannot be - and the relative exclusion of male gay sex - is a different conversation entirely. Yet by consistently writing in Mandatory Lesbians, TV shows that sex still sells, and the saucier thr better. Characters will have protracted sex scenes when little plot progression is found through thrir inclusion. Even when not shown in detail, it is heavily referred to both in "night before" and "morning after" scenes and their scripts. Characters whose roles do not rely on making a sexual story contribution will nevertheless find the scriptwriter has hooked them up and bundled them into bed simply to plesse the audience. Is "fanservice" or "shipping" in a msjor dictionary yet?

As for McMansions, I also disagree. Minimalistic houses don't show a lack of aspiration in today's world, they are the aspiration. Whereas the blog author identifies houses filled with cheap features, as someone looking to buy a home it's more often that I'm told, for example, that a kitchen tap is imported from Italy and cost obscene money - and while it looks nice, it isn't showy in the same way as the 90s was. Perhaps in HGTV's "reality" that argument holds water - features on a churn-out TV budget - but then it also rather undermines the article. People want substance not shout, understatement with maximum functionality instead of elaborate extravagance being wantonky displayed.

The paragraph on sports reflects the author's social circle but bears no resenblance to the town I live in. Here sports are all about leisure and hanging out with friends. It's rare to find someone taking it seriously, let alone as part of some body image quest.

And in the paragraph about how people chisel their bodies painstakingly into temples, the author declares that this is not for self-fulfilment of desire, nor for sexual attractiveness in an increasingly-beautiful dating scene. I must disagree on two counts. Firstly is that earlier in the article they reference a lack of "really fat" people from films that is present in society. Certainly, where I live there are plenty of people whose bodies are temples - but those Cambodian ones that the moneys poo poo all over. It seems people are out there enjoying comfortable, homely sex in comfortable, homely bodies that would not make the pages of a glamour magazine.
Secondly, in our social-media culture where life is experienced constantly through a lens, beautification is not an empty act, but the fulfilment of a desire to be noticed, to be "liked" in every sense that word now holds. To be held up as a sexual object by strangers, too, in varying degrees. Not everyone, sure, but others will have their own reasons. And are you going to tell me people beautifying for attention, trying to leverage club entry to the hottest nightspots with their follower count and "insta-fame" aren't out there getting laid, in tge same way we used to after a night clubbing?

In short, not everyone is aiming to be beautiful (as the author would argue), and even for those who are, it's not an empty pursuit in the way the author suggests either.

Healthy living can result in looking good, but correlation is not causation. I would say that healthy living is what's taken over from the 90s empty beauty and heroin chic. Curves are in. Food traceability and grocery ethics are in. Gyms are popular, but is it hunting beauty or wanting to be able to run a 10k?
And if that was not rewarding, if "counting steps" is an extrinsic not intrinsic motivation - then why are so many people hooked and kept reeled in by the gameification? Exercise is not a slog to check some mental box. For many, many people it is a personal goal being met.

Compare that to the Hollywood starlets from the article's opening, who openly expressed their distate of physical exertion.

To say that people no longer want to be touched - that it is felt primarily as co-dependance or weakness - is a misconception. People want to be touched more than ever, as they live their lives through their eyes on screens. It's just that, on the whole, we have become more mindful of other people's boundaries. No means no. Yes should be explicit. And this is a good thing.

I'm not sure how old the author is, but I certainly remember the popularity of army-style fitness clubs - they took place weekly in the local park: outdoors, with others. Councils funded fitness equipment in those parks. Fat camp is not a new invention, and sending a child there is no more vain an act than it used to be for parents. Sports brands remain aspirstional rooted in the same desirability that they used to: footwear advertised by basketball stars was wanted for its association to greatness, not because anyone was under the delusion that it'd help you "train" better. And that remains true today, otherwise why are sports celebrities' marketing deals so lucrative?

To suggest that calorie-restriction diets are so prevalant as to cause a general generational lack of libido is laughable. The real public health concern is obesity. I understand that the author references this later on, but I remain unconvinced that it is a BMI shift that has seen an increase in obesity-related causes of death and diabetes.

I disagree that nations experience some sort of zumba zeitgeist as threat response. Rather than view a fitness fad as a sign of declining Empire (to borrow one of their examples), rather understand that if something is starting to wane then it must be just past its peak. The British Empire became steeped in military culture; sons of the Empire sent to defend its colonies and promised continued ownership of the world in return. A growth in the culture of fitness iis about keeping what is held, not about a futile fight for relevance in the face of fear. Studies have shown that as people become richer, the contents of their refrigerators become healthier. Better nutrition is a fight to stave off death, to enjoy the life currently led for as long as possible. It comes from a position of prosperity and power and remains a luxury those genuinely threatened by modern life struggle to afford.

And while I accept that the Nazis were big on fitness, it is somewhat ironic that the author opines that these nationalistic movements were not about the "joy of strength". After all, "Kraft durch Freude" encouraged dances (among other activities) as a suitable pathway to achieve that goal. In the author's eyes, dancing may be purely performative, soulless, and selfish, but it is at its heart I maintain it was, is, and will always be primarily done for fun.
I would return again to the army-style bootcamps mentioned earlier. Fitness was a group activity on a personal level - and yes, on an Olympic level about defeating an enemy. But isn't it always in Olympic competition? Did the USSR, for all its international athletic success and no shortage of "enemies" to defeat, see a trend of fitness in its populace? Or did daily life for an average citizen involve more vodka and cigarettes than it did push-ups and posturing?

Geopolitical jingoism and everyday exercise are not, in my view, remotrly comprable.

The author then states a belief that the Berlin Wall falling had more to do with children retreating to recreation indoors than, say, the 90s media frenzy over Stranger Danger, public spending cuts that slashed youth clubs from budgets, or the advent of Nintendo and Playstation. I don't buy it.

As the article reaches its conclusion and lists the factors it has touted as causes for our societ's supposed increasing asexuality, it misses the biggest point of all. It is not that sexualisation has disappeared from our day-to-day, but that it has become so ingrained as to be indistinguishable. For all that its lack is lamented, except as something to show off and never use, the author is silent on the growing prevalance and use - and extremity - of porn. A cursory comparison beteeen today and back through family photos of our prepubescence shows how even clothing has become more body-focused. One can argue that these clothes are chosen as sexual signalling, but I pesonally perceive it as the adult world's obsession with sex -seeking and getting - permeating down in our choices for our children.

The author lauds Pattinson's rebellious masturbation. Yet while that lonley self-love is a solitary silver screen sight, our Starship Troopers were shagging in a tent just shortly after that unecessary "unsexual" shower scene.

I disagree.

# ? Mar 10, 2021 08:04

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Here's a long strange story who found a baby to adopt using facebook ads and got trolled to hell and back by anti-adoption activists. Isn't the internet a wonderful place?

https://www.wired.com/story/adoption-moved-to-facebook-and-a-war-began/

# ? Mar 15, 2021 00:11

John Lee: Mar 2, 2013; A time traveling adventure everyone can enjoy

I really like bloodknife, and just because I disagree with like half of their articles on a fundamental level doesn't mean I don't find them interesting as hell to read and learn from.

# ? Mar 15, 2021 08:41

Remulak: Jun 8, 2001; I can't count to four.; Yams Fan

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

anti-adoption activists.

WHAT THE gently caress?

# ? Mar 31, 2021 02:40

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

Are you seriously surprised lol

# ? Mar 31, 2021 15:11

CleverHans: Apr 25, 2011; Can't post for 8 years!

Death of a (Really Good) Salesman
He was a powerful executive at some of the best-known companies in the world. Then he started robbing banks. The meteoric rise and dramatic fall of Steve Carroll, the high-flying corporate executive who wanted it all.

# ? Apr 3, 2021 22:21

rafikki: Mar 8, 2008; I see what you did there. (It's pretty easy, since ducks have a field of vision spanning 340 degrees.)

~SMcD

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/05/why-animals-dont-get-lost

# ? Apr 6, 2021 03:00

RC and Moon Pie: May 5, 2011

CleverHans posted:

Death of a (Really Good) Salesman
He was a powerful executive at some of the best-known companies in the world. Then he started robbing banks. The meteoric rise and dramatic fall of Steve Carroll, the high-flying corporate executive who wanted it all.

I read that one earlier today. I can't argue for "dramatic fall" in that he was always terrible with money and had decades of bad decisions. They didn't give me much to even prove he was a good salesman.

# ? Apr 6, 2021 03:20

CleverHans: Apr 25, 2011; Can't post for 8 years!

RC and Moon Pie posted:

I read that one earlier today. I can't argue for "dramatic fall" in that he was always terrible with money and had decades of bad decisions. They didn't give me much to even prove he was a good salesman.

Counterpoint: he sold himself into a series of C-level corporate jobs and the "dramatic fall" bit is not so much an instantaneous change as it is that switching from cashing huge bonus checks to literally knocking over banks is a pretty good source of drama. Plus all the aforementioned bad decisions adding to that.

# ? Apr 6, 2021 08:18

ol qwerty bastard: Dec 13, 2005; If you want something done, do it yourself!

You Won't Remember the Pandemic the Way You Think You Will

All about how we tend to structure memories as narratives, and what this might mean for our collective memory of experiencing the pandemic.

# ? Apr 10, 2021 19:57

ultrafilter: Aug 23, 2007; It's okay if you have any questions.

https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1382093602403328010

# ? Apr 13, 2021 23:35

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

ultrafilter posted:

https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1382093602403328010

Brain rot in national-level decision-making olds is a real problem, but then there's the danger (like in Poland) of the change used as an excuse to clean house of opponents and stack the deck

# ? Apr 14, 2021 04:31

Gravitas Shortfall: Jul 17, 2007; Utility is seven-eighths Proximity.

There should be a maximum age limit for certain positions just as there is a minimum requirement.

# ? Apr 14, 2021 08:19

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

bUT ThAT'S aGEISm!- Proceeds to drive f350 through school zone at 80 mph

# ? Apr 14, 2021 08:25

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

Gravitas Shortfall posted:

There should be a maximum age limit for certain positions just as there is a minimum requirement.

Totally agree, but it can't be "immediately fire everyone over 65 then put in whoever you want" as in Poland

# ? Apr 14, 2021 08:56

Pastry of the Year: Apr 12, 2013

simplefish posted:

Totally agree, but it can't be "immediately fire everyone over 65 then put in whoever you want" as in Poland

I finally know what to tell my therapist when she asks why I didn't invest in eastern Poland

# ? Apr 14, 2021 12:30

tatterhood: Apr 4, 2007; If you look out the window you will see many ruined cities & enduring seas.

C.M. Kruger posted:

Couple articles about companies going boom and then bust:

A bespoke ice cream company rises in prominence and then goes bankrupt, one of the founders describes himself as being the Steve Jobs of Ice Cream.
https://marker.medium.com/the-shocking-meltdown-of-ample-hills-brooklyns-hottest-ice-cream-company-66b27dc1791d

A jewelry company deftly maneuvers to being valued at over $1 billion through aggressive marketing and early adoption of stuff like data tracking of users on it's website, boosting their sales by 11,000% in 4 years, and then explodes.
[url=https://marker.medium.com/unlucky-charms-the-rise-and-fall-of-billion-dollar-jewelry-empire-alex-and-ani-6acd9a716fd2?gi=sd[/url]

Related only in that it's an ice cream trainwreck, but just in case anyone doesn't know this one:
The Secret, Dark, and Twisted Story Behind the Gifford Family�s Ice Cream Empire: A prestigious DC ice cream chain implodes and it gets way weirder.

# ? Apr 15, 2021 13:41

Remulak: Jun 8, 2001; I can't count to four.; Yams Fan

tatterhood posted:

Related only in that it's an ice cream trainwreck, but just in case anyone doesn't know this one:
The Secret, Dark, and Twisted Story Behind the Gifford Family�s Ice Cream Empire: A prestigious DC ice cream chain implodes and it gets way weirder.

Great read, don�t miss this. Even better due to some of the crazy almost-asides Ben Carson? and that unlike fiction, sometimes you never really know.

# ? Apr 18, 2021 16:12

ultrafilter: Aug 23, 2007; It's okay if you have any questions.

Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk

quote:

There are two facts that I have sometimes found it difficult to reconcile. The first is that Tesla, Inc. makes innovative and genuinely impressive electric vehicles that can hold their own against the fastest performance cars in the world. The second is that the CEO of Tesla, Inc., celebrated entrepreneurial genius Elon Musk, is a liar, huckster, and moron, who regularly says things so ignorant that I cannot understand how they can come from a human adult, let alone one treated by his fans as a super-genius. Is one of these facts untrue? Are Tesla�s cars actually bad, their deficiencies carefully covered up and their quality over-hyped? Is Elon Musk actually not a liar, huckster, or moron? If you look more closely, are things that look like fraud and stupidity to me actually signs of brilliance? Or is there a way for both facts to be true?

It turns out it�s all true. The cars are impressive and their flaws get covered up. Musk is a lying ignorant grifter and he has inspired innovation in the electric car industry. Understanding that these seemingly contradictory things can be true simultaneously is important, because societies who cannot hold these two ideas at the same time may end up following scam artists and false prophets off the cliff and into the abyss.

# ? Apr 19, 2021 17:59

letthereberock: Sep 4, 2004

ultrafilter posted:

Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk

Great article. I think one of the big reasons it�s tough for societies to solve big problems is that many problems have solutions that are already known - we just need to do them better or on a bigger scale...and that�s boooooorrrrrring.

No, we need awesome radical DISRUPTION to fix things. Let�s listen to this super-genius about how to fix everything. Why yes, he is fabulously rich and will pay to silence anyone who disagrees with him - why do you ask?

# ? Apr 19, 2021 18:35

lord funk: Feb 16, 2004

ultrafilter posted:

Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk

Yeah this was really good, thanks.

# ? Apr 19, 2021 21:20

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

The Girl in the Kent State Photo. What it says. Very very good.

e: Typoed the title.

Arsenic Lupin has a new favorite as of 21:35 on Apr 20, 2021

# ? Apr 20, 2021 15:55

Fighting Trousers: May 17, 2011; Does this excite you, girl?

I had no idea she was only 14, holy poo poo.

# ? Apr 20, 2021 19:28

RC and Moon Pie: May 5, 2011

Arsenic Lupin posted:

The Girl in the Kent Story Photo. What it says. Very very good.

That was tremendous.

I had never considered her age and despite knowing that lots of people were anti- anti-Vietnam, I didn't realize so many blamed them for being shot, even the student who happened to be passing through. Americans have always loved their victim-blaming.

# ? Apr 20, 2021 20:38

Bobby Digital: Sep 4, 2009

https://www.wired.com/story/they-hacked-mcdonalds-ice-cream-makers-started-cold-war/

quote:

They Hacked McDonald�s Ice Cream Machines�and Started a Cold War

Secret codes. Legal threats. Betrayal. How one couple built a device to fix McDonald�s notoriously broken soft-serve machines�and how the fast-food giant froze them out.

OF ALL THE mysteries and injustices of the McDonald�s ice cream machine, the one that Jeremy O�Sullivan insists you understand first is its secret passcode.

Press the cone icon on the screen of the Taylor C602 digital ice cream machine, he explains, then tap the buttons that show a snowflake and a milkshake to set the digits on the screen to 5, then 2, then 3, then 1. After that precise series of no fewer than 16 button presses, a menu magically unlocks. Only with this cheat code can you access the machine�s vital signs: everything from the viscosity setting for its milk and sugar ingredients to the temperature of the glycol flowing through its heating element to the meanings of its many sphinxlike error messages.

�No one at McDonald�s or Taylor will explain why there�s a secret, undisclosed menu," O�Sullivan wrote in one of the first, cryptic text messages I received from him earlier this year.

# ? Apr 20, 2021 22:28

Deep Glove Bruno: Sep 4, 2015; yung swamp thang

ultrafilter posted:

Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk

A welcome offset to a weirdly ice cream-heavy page of this thread. That guy is a prodigious but very lucid writer, I've never not enjoyed something of his.

# ? Apr 20, 2021 23:36

ultrafilter: Aug 23, 2007; It's okay if you have any questions.

His most recent article is Why Cryptocurrency Is A Giant Fraud, which I have high hopes for.

# ? Apr 20, 2021 23:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 01:29

uggy: Aug 6, 2006; Posting is SERIOUS BUSINESS
and I am completely joyless

Don't make me judge you

Arsenic Lupin posted:

The Girl in the Kent State Photo. What it says. Very very good.

e: Typoed the title.

This story was fuckin great, read it the other night. Really interesting since wapo has been running articles about the girl that filmed the George Floyd murder and how important it is, but she�s only 17. Feels dangerous to really publicize that these days.

Edit for more without double quoting:

The Elon article was very good, I appreciate writers who lapse into saying poo poo straight to get a point across. I will basically read anything anti Elon tho

# ? Apr 22, 2021 03:51

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Longform Article

«‹›38 »