Peter Jackson had a percentage of the gross for LotR. And guess what? All the gross numbers from abroad were completely phony.
The game was: Peter and I both have a claim on the gross, while the film is owned by a company where I have controlling interest. Then I sell the full foreign rights to a company that I have 100% ownership of for, say, $10 million. Peter gets a piece of the $10 million in gross, I get to keep the $200 million in foreign sales.
This is how most of the Russian oil tycoons made their money, too, by selling low to a shell company that they completely owned. The Russian gov't gets a percentage of the low price sale for the oil lease. The tycoon gets 100% of the profit thereafter.
I have been told by a classics scholar of reading a letter by a Roman complaining that his son dresses like a German.
Romanticizing Celts was also thing that happened. Apparently sometimes young married Celtic couples would feel forced to go out and win their fortunes by arms, and the young wife might fight directly alongside her husband.
I might have doubted the veracity of the first item above, but I have seen translated quotes demonstrating the second, by an author whose name I recognized.
When you decide your culture is decadent in a particular way(s), it is quite easy to find another culture that seems to be intriguingly different on that score, and then spin it into a big positive Lesson About Life. That is not necessarily a bad thing. While I do find cultural comparisons as valuable for understanding ones own culture, because it can be easy to forget that so many everyday habits have practical alternatives, it is very easy to go overboard. Hollywood likes to go overboard.
I agree that it definitely tries to hit a similar feel to Dances with Wolves. But maybe DwW is just a remake of Lawrence of Arabia with Indians and a post-Vietnam Hollywood ending? Both are very much bittersweet.
In the great literary tradition of romanticizing the Noble Savage, either the Savage comes to us or we go to the Savage. Variants of this story go back millennia.
That is pretty insightful and succinct, AC.
I think there is a fourth point worth mentioning: testers are a practical means of making your developers more efficient and more effective. They allow the developers to go fast, while giving them feedback about when they were going too fast. When this feedback is kept low key, good developers can more easily learn better habits.
Somehow heated meetings called by an angry VP about something a developer did seven months ago that blew up in at a customer site just do not hone good habits the way twenty instances of "Psst. That stuff you did yesterday looks like it might have a problem. Let me show you what I am confused about."
That sounds nice, in the abstract. But those ideas do not prove useful for even deciding whether the city should re-pave a crumbling road, or ever build a new road at all.
The problem is it is misleading to assume that every gov't mistake is costly in a manner that is important. Like any large organization, the real question is whether the number of successes is sufficient to make supporting that organization a good deal when the mistakes are weighed in the full context.
For example: It the city builds 100 miles of road, it is probably still a good deal if 2 miles of that road were put in a foolish place, assuming that the other 98 miles were placed wisely.
You are abusing the notion of "fake news".
The NYT made abundant true information about Iraq available. I never thought for tiniest moment Iraq would ever try to attack the US based on news sources such as the NYT.
The question is whether the paper of record should bury or ignore public statements from the sitting president or the secretary of state about a topic that people seem to care about, just because the editors believe that those public statements are deliberately misleading. That is a tough one. Pretending it is easy is not a solution.
I do wonder how effective shaming everyone would really be. Unless the broadcasted information proves reliable, won't it just demolish twitter (for example) as a public forum for discussion?
Attempting to shame is one thing, and doxxing is another. I think what makes this shame campaigns intimidating is when they are followed up with death threats, swatting, etc. That actually takes a group of dedicated individuals to make it effective.
That makes sense for us secular humanists. But if your primary concern is baked in religion and you know it, then why accept as legitimate data that will very very likely hand your opponents 99% of what they want on a silver platter?
Furthermore, a human 2 year old has a vast amount of brain activity compared to most mammals, but a healthy newborn I would guess is not so impressive. Once the human level activity lines are drawn, someone will test the brainwaves of your hamburger before it is chopped up. That will make some animal rights weirdos esctatic, and the religious groups will declare the whole process as ridiculous.
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.