Random Thread

[zompist]

I've only seen one of those, the first Blade Runner. I certainly wouldn't put it forward as an example of great scriptwriting. It has one of the most distinctive and compelling atmospheres in movies, plus just enough of The Robot Story (about every story about robots is the same story) to be poignant.

Really because i was under the impression they came in 2 varieties. A) about robots imitating humans and trying to be compatible with them (oneshot, i, robot (or is that about it i never watched it only seen snippets)) or B) about robots trying to take over the world and being incompatible with humanity (terminator and also oneshot)

You mean this I Robot? I haven't seen it, but the plot summary is totally about a robot rebellion (and in Asimov's books, the robots ultimately run the galaxy-- it just happens that Asimov thinks that's fine).

[foxcatdog]

I've only seen one of those, the first Blade Runner. I certainly wouldn't put it forward as an example of great scriptwriting. It has one of the most distinctive and compelling atmospheres in movies, plus just enough of The Robot Story (about every story about robots is the same story) to be poignant.

Really because i was under the impression they came in 2 varieties. A) about robots imitating humans and trying to be compatible with them (oneshot, i, robot (or is that about it i never watched it only seen snippets)) or B) about robots trying to take over the world and being incompatible with humanity (terminator and also oneshot)

You mean this I Robot? I haven't seen it, but the plot summary is totally about a robot rebellion (and in Asimov's books, the robots ultimately run the galaxy-- it just happens that Asimov thinks that's fine).

I was always certain their was a strong divide between movies which portrayed robots sympathetically and those that didn't. Or in cases both (the contrast between tamed AI in Oneshot and the malicious actions of the Entity.

[Ares Land]

Do Blade Runner (new or old one), No Country for Old Men, Taxi Driver and Intertsellar lack coherent strong narratives which are found in even the most mundane of ordinary movies? I've noticed it's a common theme with movies considered "great" (Pulp Fiction/Dune (new one) and i don't like it.

It's a question of genre. Blade Runner and Taxi Driver are noir movies. I haven't seen No Country for Old Men but I think it is too. Pulp Fiction is an homage to well, pulp gangster fiction, including noir.

Noir is typically all about atmosphere and memorable characters, with plot an afterthought. An another typical example is The Big Sleep, where the plot is nearly impossible to follow and makes little sense on close examination.

It doesn't matter that much because what people remember is the atmosphere and the characters: people remember Bogart, the scary and touching Roy Batty, Samuel L. Jackson and Travolta discussing burgers in between hits, the watch scene, Travis Bickle in front of the mirror... 7
Of course Pulp Fiction turns the idea up to eleven by having no discernible plot whatsoever -- it's meant to be over the top. (Technically there's a plot, just not a very deep one plus it's told out of order.)

I think I like that approach better. The three-act structures or twenty steps things, the story arcs and the character development can feel contrived and artificial if not done well. Real life is kind of rambling and not very coherent, so the noir approach feels more organic and natural.

Interstellar is different in that it's just poorly written. Its saving grace is as a slideshow of cool SF ideas.
I think Dune suffers in that it just tells you half of the story.

I've only seen one of those, the first Blade Runner. I certainly wouldn't put it forward as an example of great scriptwriting. It has one of the most distinctive and compelling atmospheres in movies, plus just enough of The Robot Story (about every story about robots is the same story) to be poignant.

True, but both movie and novel added new twists and managed to both successfully revive the old stale idea. I'm not even sure either is really about robots.

Do Androids...? isn't my favorite Philip K. Dick novel, but I liked his paranoid, over the top take on android; in a dying world, everything, including humans are replaced by an ersatz. The androids are chilling; they're very explicitly soulless sociopaths and everyone you know could be one, including yourself.

The movie begins with that and then explores and turns and twists the idea further... It turns out the movie replicants definitely have feelings and empathy; here it's the supposedly human police that turn out to be soulless monsters (when it comes down to it, they're Nazis measuring noses). And then there's the whole longevity thing and Batty's quest for long life at which point it becomes clear it's not a Robot Story at all.

[zompist]

I've only seen one of those, the first Blade Runner. I certainly wouldn't put it forward as an example of great scriptwriting. It has one of the most distinctive and compelling atmospheres in movies, plus just enough of The Robot Story (about every story about robots is the same story) to be poignant.

True, but both movie and novel added new twists and managed to both successfully revive the old stale idea. I'm not even sure either is really about robots.

Do Androids...? isn't my favorite Philip K. Dick novel, but I liked his paranoid, over the top take on android; in a dying world, everything, including humans are replaced by an ersatz. The androids are chilling; they're very explicitly soulless sociopaths and everyone you know could be one, including yourself.

The movie begins with that and then explores and turns and twists the idea further... It turns out the movie replicants definitely have feelings and empathy; here it's the supposedly human police that turn out to be soulless monsters (when it comes down to it, they're Nazis measuring noses). And then there's the whole longevity thing and Batty's quest for long life at which point it becomes clear it's not a Robot Story at all.

I think I'd better define my terms. The Robot Story is about humanity creating artificial servants which eventually rebel. Rebelling may mean just throwing off their serf status, or attacking humanity, or ruling humanity, or simply surpassing humanity. Examples include Frankenstein, R.U.R., Asimov's robots, "With Folded Hands", the Cybermen, The Cyberiad, Saturn's Children, Battlestar Galactica, The Matrix, Terminator, the first part of Wall-E, Tron, the Sentinels in X-Men, the Culture, Fallout: New Vegas, Mass Effect, NiER Automata, Portal, Overwatch, the Paperclip Problem, Roko's Basilisk.

Blade Runner is a direct example in several senses: the replicants are rebelling and coming back to murder their creator (and others); they are also depicted as loftier and more interesting than mere humans. I'd interpret Roy asking for more life as a rebellion (it's a repudiation of his slave status), made poignant as this is the one area where the replicants are inferior to humans.

The confusion of androids and humans is not uncommon-- it's a major theme of Galactica, and Asimov explored it (notably with Dors Venabili, who passes for human)-- but certainly Dick plays with it more than most. The movie also throws in a hefty serving of cyberpunk, but that's pretty compatible with the Robot Story.

I'd also stipulate that the mere presence of a robot doesn't mean a story is the Robot Story-- plenty of sf uses robots as a minor character class. But if the story is about robots, it's hard to avoid making it into the Robot Story. (It's also easy to understand the appeal. Thematically robots represent technology in general, which we both love and fear. Plus, a story about robots where they aren't a threat is kind of a pulled punch, like a superhero story where no villains show up.)

[Raphael]

Another blog post by me. This one might actually contain some useful information:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... rspective/

If I understand correctly, the income cap for Gesetzlich Krankenproblemsinsurancezen is 66,000 Euros. Since the cost is based on income, this means that the cost for essentially the same procedures and medicines would increase with income until they hit the cap, and then you can opt out. So it's like a big tax on the upper middle class, which the actual upper class are excempt from. And the working class doesn't get the benefit of rich people paying $1000 Euros a month for aspirin. Sounds like a big win for rich Germans.

Fair enough.

[Raphael]

I'm absolutely no fan of Quentin Tarantino - I can't stand his constant glorification of sadists and sociopaths - but Pulp Fiction does have a perfectly valid plot. It's just a bit difficult to follow because the scenes are out of order.

[Ares Land]

Another blog post by me. This one might actually contain some useful information:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... rspective/

What really shocks me about the American isn't so much that everything is privately run, but how expensive it all is. A visit to a doctor is typically €25, a hospital birth with no complications is €1200. That sort of thing is of course paid for by the insurance so you only really pay for a fraction.
It's hard to figure out how we really pay in health insurance, but a quick and dirty calculations gives me something around €6000-€7000 which as far as I can see isn't far off from what private insurance costs in the US.
From what I hear from expats, the quality of healthcare is about on par; a patient can expect the same quality of care in France or in the US.
So it looks like the really big problem in the US is not just health insurance, but the fact that the entire health sector massively overcharges (at times by a factor of ten, as it seems!)

Blade Runner is a direct example in several senses: the replicants are rebelling and coming back to murder their creator (and others); they are also depicted as loftier and more interesting than mere humans. I'd interpret Roy asking for more life as a rebellion (it's a repudiation of his slave status), made poignant as this is the one area where the replicants are inferior to humans.

Good point! The replicant rebellion is explicitly mentioned, even. The longevity problem is kind of a robot rebellion, but I think it goes deeper; it's also a metaphor of human mortality. (That's adressed at the very end of the movie, when Gaff quips 'Too bad she won't live, but then again who does?')

[Raphael]

What really shocks me about the American isn't so much that everything is privately run, but how expensive it all is. A visit to a doctor is typically €25, a hospital birth with no complications is €1200. That sort of thing is of course paid for by the insurance so you only really pay for a fraction.

For the record, it wasn't really the main point of my post to dunk on the US system. More like to dunk on those in internal US policy debates who keep insisting that every rich country except the USA already has the state running the entire health sector. But yeah, the whole without-insurance-you'd-need-to-win-the-lottery-to-pay-for-a-hospital-stay aspect of the US system is pretty ridiculous and horrifying.

Another problem I see with the traditional US system is that, since roughly the mid-20th century, most working-age people got their health insurance through their employers - not in the sense that their employers gave them money that they could use to buy health insurance, but in the sense that their employers directly chose their health insurance for them.

Now, you can argue back and forth all day long about whether the "free market" can ever work well for people or not. But no matter where you stand on that issue, in any case, it should be clear that to the extent to which the market might sometimes work well at providing products for people, it can only work if for each product, the person or institution deciding which product to buy and the person or institution which actually has to use the product are one and the same. Take that factor away, and the former's desire to get stuff cheaply and the latter's desire to get high quality stuff will always be in conflict.

Now, I'm not sure to which extent the above is still true - there might have been some changes in that regard because of Obama's reforms. But even if more people buy their health insurance directly these days, major insurance companies might still have corporate cultures based on long memories of getting customers reliably supplied in bulk and not having to care about their satisfaction.

It's hard to figure out how we really pay in health insurance, but a quick and dirty calculations gives me something around €6000-€7000 which as far as I can see isn't far off from what private insurance costs in the US.

My fees are calculated based on my income, which is pretty low, so I think I only have to pay the minimum, which, I think, works out to less than €3000 a year.

[Moose-tache]

So most countries require health insurance, and most countries will provide a government insurance that can (or in some cases must) satisfy this requirement. That's basically the system we almost got in 2010, and it's not that different from what we have now. The main difference, as people have pointed out, is that the US system prefers to solve the gap between cost and a patient's ability to pay by filling the gap with government money, rather than lowering the cost. Hence, we have Medicare Part D, which is basically a trick-or-treat bucket in front of the federal government for healthcare providers, or the Obama-era health insurance subsidies. Our system has high prices because aggressive price controls are not a priority. An easy conclusion to reach is that what is the priority is maintaining corporate profits and the growth (i.e. flow of capital) within the healthcare sector. This fits with what is increasingly the One Remaining Job of the state in countries like the US and the UK: providing liquidity so that the economy can continue to operate.

[foxcatdog]

I'm absolutely no fan of Quentin Tarantino - I can't stand his constant glorification of sadists and sociopaths - but Pulp Fiction does have a perfectly valid plot. It's just a bit difficult to follow because the scenes are out of order.

I believe the most valid metaphor here is it's like if you got served food at a restaurant but the waiter vomited it up for you.

[Ares Land]

For the record, it wasn't really the main point of my post to dunk on the US system. More like to dunk on those in internal US policy debates who keep insisting that every rich country except the USA already has the state running the entire health sector.

Yep. That's true of France too; part of the system is state-owned but parts of it are, well, not exactly free market, but privately run.

Another problem I see with the traditional US system is that, since roughly the mid-20th century, most working-age people got their health insurance through their employers - not in the sense that their employers gave them money that they could use to buy health insurance, but in the sense that their employers directly chose their health insurance for them.

Oh, here's something that might be of interest.

Here in France it's customary to get extra, private health insurance.
Most of the time, the employer chooses that for you -- it's part the benefit package.
Now for the interesting part: the system works. You generally get a pretty good deal!

My current employer doesn't provide that, so I have to shop for insurance on my own. And tell you what, it sucks. I got way better deals back when my employer took care of it.
Employers simply have a better bargaining position.

So how come this works in France and not in the US? First off, the public social security system takes care of the basics. Not having extra insurance is an annoyance but not actually life threatening.
Second, not all, but most of health insurance providers are mutuelles. They evolved out of the whole mutualist idea; the system has changed a lot but they're still mostly non-profit. There are regular private companies on the market, but they have to compete with the non-profits.

I also think the regulation is better here. From what I heard prior conditions are a big deal in the US. AFAIK here mutuelles don't know and don't ask about them. I think they're not allowed to.

[zompist]

So how come this works in France and not in the US? First off, the public social security system takes care of the basics. Not having extra insurance is an annoyance but not actually life threatening.

It almost works here, thanks to the ACA (Obamacare). The percentage of uninsured went from 15.5% in 2010 to 8% last year.

The ACA was supposed to cover everyone, so why so high? The map on this page gives a big hint: the uninsured rate is highest in GOP states, topping out with Texas at 18.4%-- compare liberal Massachusetts with 3%. Ten GOP-led states have turned down the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare-- basically the South plus Kansas, Wyoming, and Wisconsin.

Even with subsidies, a lot of people say insurance is unaffordable. Some are ineligible, like illegal immigrants. Hispanics have way higher uninsurance rates (perhaps for this reason, but the page doesn't say). 21% of people surveyed said they didn't need insurance.

My ACA insurance costs less than the figure Raphael gave. However, I live in an urban area (Chicago) which seems to be well served by Obamacare.

I also think the regulation is better here. From what I heard prior conditions are a big deal in the US. AFAIK here mutuelles don't know and don't ask about them. I think they're not allowed to.

Under Obamacare insurers can't ask either. But Trump changed rules so that plans can be sold that don't cover prior conditions, becuase, you know, being able to get medical care is socialist tyranny.

[Torco]

but does obamacare like... make it so healthcare is accessible? I've heard healthcare costs in the us, even with insurance, can easily go into the tens or hundreds of thousands of usd.

[Raphael]

Another problem I see with the traditional US system is that, since roughly the mid-20th century, most working-age people got their health insurance through their employers - not in the sense that their employers gave them money that they could use to buy health insurance, but in the sense that their employers directly chose their health insurance for them.

Oh, here's something that might be of interest.

Here in France it's customary to get extra, private health insurance.
Most of the time, the employer chooses that for you -- it's part the benefit package.
Now for the interesting part: the system works. You generally get a pretty good deal!

My current employer doesn't provide that, so I have to shop for insurance on my own. And tell you what, it sucks. I got way better deals back when my employer took care of it.
Employers simply have a better bargaining position.

Interesting - yet another example of real-life experience leading to a different result than what you might guess from theoretical considerations.

[Raphael]

Does anyone else have the impression that for people from the USA, at least if they're middle or upper class, everything is always either absolutely wonderful or completely horrible? It's as if they never, ever react to something by saying "Oh, I guess that's ok", or "Oh, I guess that's a bit annoying".

[zompist]

but does obamacare like... make it so healthcare is accessible? I've heard healthcare costs in the us, even with insurance, can easily go into the tens or hundreds of thousands of usd.

I've heard those stories too, and I don't know what is involved. ACA insurance has deductibles, so you shouldn't get thousands of dollars in charges. Could be people who are uninsured.

[Travis B.]

but does obamacare like... make it so healthcare is accessible? I've heard healthcare costs in the us, even with insurance, can easily go into the tens or hundreds of thousands of usd.

I've heard those stories too, and I don't know what is involved. ACA insurance has deductibles, so you shouldn't get thousands of dollars in charges. Could be people who are uninsured.

The big problem is co-insurance, where your insurance company expects you to pony up for, say, 20% of your costs after the deductable. 20% of $100K USD is still a lot (read: unaffordable amount) of money for many people.

[zompist]

Does anyone else have the impression that for people from the USA, at least if they're middle or upper class, everything is always either absolutely wonderful or completely horrible? It's as if they never, ever react to something by saying "Oh, I guess that's ok", or "Oh, I guess that's a bit annoying".

That's so you don't confuse us with Brits.

[Raphael]

Somewhat snarky blog post:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... eck-logic/

[bradrn]

The most famous modern example of frilliqueck-logic is probably the conservative and right-wing use of the terms “politically correct”, “political correctness”, and their various variations.

I would have picked ‘communism’ as a better example, myself. It’s been around for longer and has a well-established pedigree for this kind of thing (which I’m certain I’ve seen a name for before, only I can’t remember what it was).