Author: Richard

The secret about what “modern art” is actually all about

Ever wonder how “modern art” ever became a thing? I did, so I thought about it and the answer came up fairly quickly in my analysis: It’s a medium invented for elitists.

While “art” as traditionally known is something that takes skill, “modern art” is just the application of the artistic label to literally anything. Whether its a mish-mash of colors or a collection of shapes presented in a minimalist layout or a dog pooping – its “art” that isn’t actually art. Obviously anything can be looked at and studied with an artistic eye and symbolism, parallels, allegories, metaphors, and deep meanings can be applied to them. But humans already knew that. That act is a gift of our human brains, capable of critical thinking, imagination, and self aware application of knowledge for logical and creative ends. Thinking about things isn’t “art”. Yet Modern Art tells us that anything that we think about after looking at is itself art worthy of pedestalisation (a verb I made up to denote “putting on a pedestal”). But why the need to make a movement out of elevating non-art?

The truth is not that modern art is actually art – which it obviously isn’t – the truth is about inventing art.

If you define art in the classical sense of skill, technique, and quality – then you’re limited to those parameters and anyone with those things can make, identify and appreciate art. That’s no fun for an elitist. Elitists, by definition, want something more Emperors-new-clothes about the things they like, or they are no longer in the elite. So the way to tear down the establishment in the realm of art is to call anything art. Suddenly when John Q Public says “huh?” you are elevated above him because he doesn’t get it and you do. Elitists love that stuff. Nothing makes an elitist happier than to be able to correct or explain something they think they’re well versed in that average unwashed masses aren’t privy to. And that’s why Modern Art exists…

For more, see this Prager U video answering “Why is Modern Art so bad?”…

For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.

The newest thing I have to have …

NEED… From the makers of the vacuum that never loses suction and the coolest most efficient way to dry your hands in public bathrooms comes the automated cleaner I’ve been waiting for for years.

Cleaning made easy. With the Dyson 360 Eye robot, vacuuming can be done at the press of a button. The robot has its own app to allow users to control, schedule and analyse data from their smartphone.The machine gets to work autonomously using a unique 360 vision system to build detailed maps of its environment. A Dyson digital motor, Radial Root Cyclone technology and a full width brush bar combine to give the Dyson 360 Eye vacuum excellent pick-up performance. It has the most powerful suction of any robot*.

Cleaning will never be the same again. Using 360° panoramic technology the Dyson 360 Eye robot vacuum cleaner can navigate the room, tracking where it has been and where it needs to go. Tank tracks and a wide brush bar enable the machine to maintain speed and direction across all floor types and over small obstacles picking up dust and dirt as it goes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OadhuICDAjk

This dude explains everything I’ve been saying is wrong with the Roomba and he does with an English accent… SOLD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo-ZXw2k-4#t=11

Why such emphasis on the camera? BEHOLD WHY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ypt4BdQ3Co

Via Wired.com: The Dyson 360 Eye goes on sale next spring, first in Japan and then worldwide. The price is not yet set. 

New Multi-Person Torture Device Baring Batman Logo to Debut in Texas …

Six Flags Fiesta Texas is opening their first 4D roller coaster (a term i’m still not understanding) in 2015 and calling it BATMAN because, as all of its DC themed rides, it has absolutely nothing to do with Batman (but why pass up the opportunity to use the name recognition for easy-promotional purposes?).

The ride will offer park-goers the experience of “flying like Batman“, a super hero who cannot fly. Well. He’s a skilled pilot. But This isn’t a plane ride. It’s a zipping-around-and-sudden-freefalling ride.

The world’s first, one-of-a-kind onboard magnetic technology featuring six smooth head-over-heels free-fly flips providing guests the feeling of weightlessness as they soar outside the confines of a traditional track

A 4D wing coaster that seats up to eight and has riders “face their fears” by allowing them to physically face each other as they tumble head-over-heels

A 120-foot tall hill that is ascended by an elevator-style lift straight up; Two beyond 90-degree raven drops giving the sensation of free-falling

Five vehicles with eight passengers each

A Bruce Wayne/Batman theme throughout the queue line featuring the Batmobile and Bat-Signal.

ug…

HappySadz – It shouldn’t be news that Comedians are often Depression Sufferers

“Tears of a clown”. Get ready to hear that quote a thousand times in reference to Robin Williams if you haven’t already. Something to consider:

I heard a joke once:
Man goes to doctor. Says he’s depressed. Says life is harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world.
Doctor says, “Treatment is simple. The great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go see him. That should pick you up.”
Man bursts into tears. Says, “But doctor… I am Pagliacci.”

In the comic and movie adaptation of the Watchmen, the aptly named Rorschach delivers some psychological insight through that short story with the above quote.

Robin Williams is Not “Free”. He is Dead.. (and other things wrong with this image)

Some dope at “The Academy [of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]” (better known as “the place that gives people Oscars) reacted in a terribly irresponsible way to Robin Williams’ suicide and well meaning people on social media are spreading it. You shouldn’t.

In a tweet by the official @TheAcademy Twitter account a screenshot from Disney’s Aladdin of the Genie and title character hugging is followed by  the text “Genie, you’re free”…. WTF.

There aren’t many things more irresponsible than a leading figure in the creative community, glorifying killing yourself as being freedom.

Death is not “freedom”. It is death. It’s the end. And killing yourself because you are sad is not setting yourself “free” of anything – you are merely multiplying and transferring your sadness onto others so you don’t have to deal with it anymore. It’s taking a giant water balloon of sadness and saying “here. You deal with this instead” and popping it over all who knew you – with those closest to you getting the most drenched but its splash reaching far and wide, wetting many beyond that circle and at least spritzing those who just knew of you.

Aside from the whole “do not murder” thing that the 3 major world religions find being a pretty big deal, they probably are against suicide because of this pain-spread transference inherent in the act.

This image posted by Disney on their official Facebook page shows the correct way of making this sentiment (or just an appropriate sentiment in general):

Subtle, non-offensive, morally sound, minimalist imagery presenting an ambiguous but respectful sentiment. Was that so hard?

Death isn’t freedom. Not even freedom from pain. It is an end to pain of the deceased but not a “freeing” of them as the word has an inherent implication of choice and opportunity which by definition requires life. The difference is significant.

Equating suicide with freedom is unAmerican. The famous Patrick Henry quote is “Give me Liberty OR give me Death”. Not “Give me Liberty *by* giving me Death”. Because death is not a liberation.

If you busted a laboratory doing cruel experiments on chimps and you put an end to it and sign up for the years of rehabilitation of those animals, you are “freeing” them. If you just go in and kill all the chimps, all you’ve done is kill a bunch of chimps. You haven’t freed anything. You ended pain by ending life.

But with this tweet, the Academy committed a crime far worse than merely glorifying suicide or perpetuating bad moral philosophy: it didn’t even get the picture right…

The screenshot posted in the tweet is not from the Genie being freed. A good hint of this fact to this possibility to someone less familiar with the film would be those big gold wrist bands, cuffing him to the servitude and rules of the lamp and its master. Those aint bracelets, dawg (even though I originally thought they were when I saw the movie). They’re slave clasps. It’s kindov a major point int he movie when they come off (and go on another character, shortly before coming off Genie). You’d think some kind of Academy of Motion Pictures (and Sciences!) would maybe know that…

The scene isn’t even close to the Genies (spoiler alert) eventual freeing. It is from when Genie saves Aladdins life at the end of the 2nd act and they embrace as friends (even though Genie cheated the wish rules in his – not Aladdins favor – in effect billing him for the rescue as it was counted as a used wish when no wish was made).

But like I said: the choice of that quote, correct scene or not, is what is inappropriate. The proper sentiment to deliver would have been the line Aladdin delivers at the end, “Genie…I’m…gonna.. miss. you.” in which Genie replies “me too, Al…” and the two hug – Aladdin bittersweetly and Genie, teary eyed and frowning at this necessary departure. This is the first time in the movie both are truly “free” (the Genie from the servitude of the lamp and Aladdin from the bondage of his lies stemming from the issues of inadequacy that were holding him back all this time), so that message could have been positively delivered in an “up for interpretation” kind of way.

When a person dies, yes, it means they aren’t suffering anymore but it also means they aren’t happy anymore. It means they will never hurt again but it also means they will never smile, laugh, love or feel anything positive ever again. They are gone, not liberated. They aren’t anything anymore. Not in this world. They exist only in the memories of the living and that’s about it. I know it is comforting to think someone who killed themselves is somehow better off but they aren’t. There’s no religious, secular, or scientific basis to think otherwise. Which i’m not pointing out to make you sad – I’m pointing out to not romanticize killing yourself to be “free” of sadness.

Don’t do it. It ain’t freedom. Hollywood doesn’t know WTF it’s talking about.

After Robin Williams’ suicide, this Zelda commercial becomes super dark and sad…

First thing I thought of when I heard the news that Robin Williams was dead at 63, and seemingly at his own hands succumbing to his depression was the Zelda, Ocarina of Time video game commercials him and his daughter were in. Williams named his daughter Zelda, after the princess in the video game and I found the short spot touching while he was alive and crushing now that he’s dead. Williams, looking like how I imagined The Giver (from the book we had to read in 6th grade that is soon to be a lame-looking movie) calls his daughter “magical” in that Williams-y love and pain mix smile that I thought took on a new form in this commercial when I first watched it and is why I immediately recalled it when I heard he had killed himself.

Watch the extended version and maybe cry a little tonight…

Condolences to his family.

His wife, Susan Schneider, said: “This morning, I lost my husband and my best friend, while the world lost one of its most beloved artists and beautiful human beings. I am utterly heartbroken. On behalf of Robin’s family, we are asking for privacy during our time of profound grief. As he is remembered, it is our hope the focus will not be on Robin’s death, but on the countless moments of joy and laughter he gave to millions.”

UPDATE: Robins last tweet was wishing Zelda a happy birthday. ug… 🙁

https://twitter.com/robinwilliams/status/494989879340584960

Hippie court basically say it’s illegal to not offer jobs to certain people

Years ago, by way of some emails bein all “hey, wtf man?” and “okay dawg. i’ll back off cuz I agree thats not cool” style emails between CEO’s – Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe agreed to not poach each others employees. The employees didn’t like that because they of course want to be pursued for better deals for themselves plus leverage to demand more pay from their existing employer if a competitor is offering them a more attractive deal. The companies on the other hand could do more harm than good for themselves if they poach competitors employees either successfully or un, causing unnecessary friction. The companies decided that it was in their best interest to leave each others existing employees alone.

In 2011 the tech employees brought forward a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy that closed their options and capped their potential salaries. That totally happened, but that’s not illegal. It’s not even improper. No one was denied a job because of some evil corporate conspiracy – people were simply not sought out for positions within a corporation because they were already working for another corporation.

Bloomberg classifies this as “screwing over employees” as their report includes the image below. Actually, it is merely an effort by the companies to stop screwing themselves.

In pure anti-progressive traditionalism-as-law, the court actually used the allegation of this not being a standard practice as part of its slam against the corporations, creating a regressive and illogical precedent in a search for an excuse to restrict their freedom to make its own employee-poaching policies. Even though this is not true, as a memo released with the emails of the “do not entice away” agreement note, the argument would be just as terrible without that little/crucial inaccuracy.

The companies had conceded that the pacts “contained nearly identical terms, precluding each pair from affirmatively soliciting any of each other’s employees,” Koh noted. The judge stressed how unusual this kind of systematic plotting is—in the Valley or anywhere else. CEOs of rival companies may nod and wink to each other over drinks at the club. Competitors may refrain from going after a select number of one another’s most highly valued employees. In the antitrust case, Koh said, the defendants’ own experts admitted “they are unaware of these types of long-term, all-employee agreements ever occurring between other firms.”

In other words: This would have been 100% fine by the American judicial system if it was shadier and more conspiratorial. But since it was a legit agreement actually stated on the record and because companies usually don’t go on the record in legit ways, these companies must be penalized…for not being sketchier about their perfectly reasonable and legal agreements they make with each other.

Unfortunately you can sue for anything in America and there is no loser-pays rule in place (not that I think this case would even be a likely loss for the plaintiffs) so it was in the best interest of the tech corps to settle this rather than have to open up their records defending this frivolous allegation of something that isn’t illegal but that some people don’t like because they could have benefited if only other parties didn’t act in their own best interest. The problem is that even though “lets agree to not poach each others employees” is not against any rules, it is enough in the direction of something that sounds like a budding conspiratorial monopoly and there *are* laws against that. As far as I know, however, there is nothing actually wrong in any way to agree to not actively pursue currently employed people in efforts to convince them to be employed by you instead. As far as criminal collusion regulations go, it sounds more than a little bananas to be forcing companies to try and poach each others employees at a higher priority than any other employee pool.

But it sounds not nice and it involved billion dollar corporations (and often times millionaire employees, lets not forget), sooooooo… the 4 companies settled, agreeing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to these employees. for the non-crime of not offering them new jobs…

How much do you think a reasonable amount to get paid for not being offered a job? A few hundred million divided up, enough, you think? A judge has to approve the settlement, so there is literally a person in charge of deciding if the person suing is getting enough money to be “settled” or not.

CNBC reports that San Jose, California U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said the proposed settlement amount “falls below the range of reasonableness.”

The four companies agreed to settle with the plaintiffs in April for a total of $324.5 million. The plaintiffs had planned to ask for about $3 billion in damages at trial, which could have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law.

The case was based largely on emails in which Apple’s late co-founder, Steve Jobs, former Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt and some of their Silicon Valley rivals hatched plans to avoid poaching each other’s prized engineers.

In one email exchange after a Google recruiter solicited an Apple employee, Schmidt told Jobs that the recruiter would be fired, court documents show. Jobs then forwarded Schmidt’s note to a top Apple human resources executive with a smiley face.

Plaintiff attorneys argued Koh should approve the deal because the workers faced serious risks on appeal had the case gone forward.

I get the emotional appeal of wanting businesses to do things that benefit you and getting mad when they only benefit you a lot instead of more than a lot, but I don’t see the anti-trust criminality in emailing someone in your field of businesses and deciding to not fkk with each others employees.

Colluding to keep safety hazards in your products a secret from the public, blacklisting certain people from being hired when they apply to work for you, or conspiring to artificially jack up prices across an industry – these are criminal and immoral practices of antitrust corporate scummery. These 4 companies did nothing near any of that. This is stupid and unreasonable.

6 Conspiracy Theories Potentially Behind the Ballot Initiative to Make California 6 Separate States

Learn the REAL Secret Behind the initiative to Make California 6 Separate States…

Here they are, in order of my levels of suspicion.

 

1- IT’S ACTUALLY VIRAL MARKETING FOR MAGIC MOUNTAIN

This is my top theory because it’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the color choices and size and placement emphasize of the bold “Six” typeface.
Here is the official logo of 6 California’s…

And now the Six Flags official logo…

Even the colors of the States and Flags are the same except for the red state corresponding to a pink flag because the symbolic exclamation mark background is red so it was only a choice of necessity. Dude…

I can’t be the only one who see’s the resemblance… This has to be a subliminal-message marketing campaign. Case closed. But if you want to entertain 5 lesser theories, then go ahead.

 

2- ATTEMPT TO CREATE MORE LIBERAL-DEMOCRAT or CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN STATES

The tiny little entity known as Washington DC (the nations capital on the east coast – totally different from the state named Washington on the upper West Coast, in case you’re a version of me until solidly-through-high-school who constantly had trouble remembering or understanding the distinction between the two)  has gone through several attempts to become it’s own state for some reason. Except many point out the “some reason” is not likely to be anything related to governance or representation but rather as a ploy by Liberal Democrats to give statehood to a Liberal Democrat controlled city and thus add 2 new Liberal Democrat senators to congress, making 2 new Liberal Democrat votes that could very well be tie breakers.

Congressmen are apportioned to districts based on population but states only get 2 senators regardless of whether the population is 2 thousand or 20 million. That’s our system. We currently have 435 congressional districts represented by one person each but only 100 senators representing the states in Washington. So Montana only has 1 congressman representing it in Washington while Texas has 36 but both states have 2 senators. This matters. All the senate does is vote on stuff, essentially. 2 extra votes in your big-government (Leftist) or small-government (right-wing) favor is a big deal.

Remember that Obamacare was only passed by 1 vote in the face of bipartisan opposition with a cluster of Democrats joining 100% of the Republicans in Congress to try and stop that trainwreck without at least some reform of some of its most train-wreckiest aspects. 2 more solidly Lefty votes would really come in handy in a situation like that in the future. More than 2 would be even better. Cuz math.

So how would the 6 states stack up? Oddly sortov evenly, with an advantage to the Democrats but not an overwhelming one.

There would be 3 solidly Democrat states and 3 Lean-Republican states.

Jefferson – Libertarian Republican.

North California – Leans Democrat.

Silicon Valley – Liberal Democrat (solid).

Central California -Leans Republican.

West California – Solid Liberal Democrat

South California – Swing State that Leans Republican.


3- BIG BUSINESS

I don’t really have a specific theory for this one. Just a vague hippie conspiracy about “business”. I can think of a bunch of possible theories relating to economic interests in the state but none with any actual evidence except for Jefferson (current Northern-CA) who is open about disliking being forced under the regulations of the rest of the state without getting access to its recourses.

It would make sense that Silicon Valley would be tired of carrying the poorer farm areas of the state like the would-be Central California, but I’m short on actual details of why this would be a big enough benefit.

Is prospering San Diego wishing to cleave from failing Los Angeles? Central California would be one of the poorest states because its mostly mountains, desert and farm-towns so at first glance it would seem that they would love being attached to the rest of the current states wealthy area’s but in reality that kind of demographic skews much more conservative because of the adage that only rich people can afford to be socialist. It’s more valuable to the smaller business types to be free of confiscatory regulations and fees than to have any perceived benefits connection to the wealthy areas might appear to offer.

Still though, money guides most political changes and this proposal is being lead by a wealthy guy, but where exactly the biz angle is (if it is a major factor) is foggy.

 

4- IT’S OVER-ASKING IN ORDER FOR A COMPROMISE

I get the whole population divide thing (because there’s just so many dang people errywhere in this place) but 6 divisions with all new statehoodnesses is a lot of change at once. The surface area we call California today probably should have been 6 states in the first place, sure, but changing something that big is hard and changing something that iconic is extra-super-kindov-impossible-hard.

Half the proposal would be just as hard in the convincing stage but would be more feasible in the actual division stage. 3 California’s would be better and easier to manage and not make all that huge of a disruption, governmentally wise. But maybe THAT’s the real conspiracy and maybe that’s the end-game from this initiative? Maybe 6 California’s is a shell organization designed to give itself bargaining power and support only to “compromise” with it’s real goal all along which is to cut the state into three’s?… Via the official 6 California’s website:

I really like the idea, but 6 may be too big too soon. The Three Californias reaches the same goals but in a more palatable form that would get the population on board more thoroughly. North California, Central California, and South California. By doing this, and including resources that include the coasts and mountain ranges in all three states, the chances of approval are greatly increased. South and Central California would benefit from investing in Water Collection, Solar Power, and Desalinization Plants. All three states would be strong enough in ther own resources, then, that the chances of disapproval would drop. The 6 States plan divides natural resources “Too Much” to get the vote. By giving all “3 States” resources from the ocean to the mountains- your chances of approval increase exponentially.

 

5- ITS ACTUAL STATED GOALS (ABOUT GOVERNANCE AND REPRESENTATION)

Could it be that the conspiracy is really that there is no conspiracy?

Nah…

 

6- TO MAKE A POINT AND START A CONVO

Whatever his angle is, I doubt it’s the one that is stated because I doubt Tim Draper, the wealthy spearheader of the division, expects this to actually happen. I suspect more so that this is a several million dollar venture to spark a conversation on taxes, regulation, political representation and government accountability and although i’d spend the millions differently, it’s a worthy convo to instigate.


Why Chopping Up California into 6 Different States is a Good Idea (that will never happen)

California used to be Australia: A couple actual cities, some small towns and then vast unpopulated, seemingly uninhabitable outback wilderness. Now California has stuff in it. and it’s not being governed very well at all.

Representing such a large surface area with diverse political views is sure to under-service all of them and – surprise – it totally does, but lately there is growing push to solve that problem by letting the different regions of the state govern themselves independently of the others. Meaning: make new states out of the existing one.

I first heard about this a few months ago when ReasonTV released this segment on what would-be the Libertarian state of Jefferson (the northernest part of Current-California).

Activists in Northern California, near the border with Oregon, are pushing to secede from the Golden State. They say they’re fed up with taxes, regulation, and lack of representation. If they get their way, the country’s 51st entrant would be called the State of Jefferson.

“The three major urban areas dictate politics for the entire state,” says Mark Baird of the Jefferson Declaration Committee. “Our children are leaving, our economy is crashing, we are taxed, every breath we take is regulated, and we feel that a free state will cure that.”

To date, five county governments have signed on the plan and more may be joining up.

“We can’t afford to run a California style bureaucracy, that is true,” says Baird. “But as a small rural state, we don’t want to. ”

The idea of secession in California isn’t new. During the Great Depression, folks started pushing a similar plan in the same part of the state but threw in the towel after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Now Californians may get a chance to vote on chopping the state up into 6 smaller states.

The most accurate spoof of this I’ve seen has been this cartoon making it’s own split-up proposal:

 

This one is a little more to the point and keeps the same divisions of the official 6 California’s movement:

And finally, this is what the 6 California proposal actually suggests:

Background on the initiative from Reuters:

Timothy Draper, a founder of a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm that has invested in Twitter, Skype and Tesla, among other companies, has been agitating for months for a ballot initiative to chop the most populous U.S. state into smaller entities. “It’s important because it will help us create a more responsive, more innovative and more local government, and that ultimately will end up being better for all of Californians,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the campaign. “The idea … is to create six states with responsive local governments – states that are more representative and accountable to their constituents.” Salazar said Monday that the campaign had gathered more than the roughly 808,000 signatures needed to place the measure on the November, 2016 ballot. Draper and other supporters plan to file the signatures with California Secretary of State Debra Bowen on Tuesday.

Here’s the official pitch from the movement via one of those live-drawing videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyPNjPzUTuo

Sounds kindov impossible but isn’t totes impossible when in the hands of voters.

No U.S. state has been divided since the Civil War. But this idea sounds less antiquated after considering that just one of California’s 58 counties (San Bernardino) is larger than nine U.S. states and four of them combined. Supporters have gotten the go-ahead from the secretary of state to begin collecting signatures, so this idea could spark a thought experiment.

The whole “State of Jefferson” thing is mentioned and noted as the pipe dream it is but then asks the legitimate question of how things change if and when voters get a say on the matter:

Even small U.S. states have differences, but California’s are arguably so extreme that it’s hard to imagine any way to reconcile them. There are efforts in the rural far north to join with some Oregon counties and become the state of Jefferson. They already have a flag. Folks there say California’s land-use restrictions are leaving them in penury.

That movement lacks political clout, but what happens if state voters say yes to a divorce? It’s hard to imagine they would do so given that urban residents can easily out-vote disgruntled folks in the hinterlands. It seems likely that the legislature would fight this and unlikely that Congress would accept a break up. But campaigns – provided they are serious, and that’s far from clear in this case – can lead to reforms that address simmering frustrations.

Whatever your opinion on the matter, I will now proceed to tell you the right one: It’s a good and fair idea that will not happen for emotional reasons. Mostly because of branding.

The California brand is a thing. None gives a crap if Fresno and Sacramento don’t feel a part of the beach culture/Golden Gate western coast of America. California is California and it will stay the way it is, regardless of how massively unfair to its far stretching diverse groups of residents it is.

Because that’s how ‘Merica works, y’all.