Random, Random 2.0

[meganfernandez]

My point being: we (society) have to stop this process of demonizing people so easily. It is one of the problems that we have today, and I don't mean solely in the USA.
Story.
I was in Argentina during the 2019 election. Got into a conversation between people leaning for the two main contenders (Maccri and Fernandez). Invariably, I noticed that the camps were split along lines of good and evil: THEIR choice was trying to save the country, their OPPONENT was nothing but a SOB, bent on its destruction. Argentina is nowadays as polarized, if not more, than the USA, thanks in part to what I told those people that day: they could go from "such person is nice" to "that person is a SOB" in minutes. That is not healthy.
This type of mentality is detrimental to any kind of proper political or social discourse. Sure, Elon has truly mucked up this Twitter thing. Sure, he took Tesla from the original founders. But that does not make him a criminal, and some aspects of him are worthy. For example, he is truly passionate about science, which is something that is needed.

We can't have proper civilized discourse (and I mean not US, TAT2.0, but society) if everything gets dialed up to 11. And that is what that person's tweet is. Labeling an unnamed group of people as "toxic" is completely not helpful to have proper discourse.

I agree with you to an extent. Among rational people, yes. The average communication, yes. But otherwise I worry that the ship of responsible social discourse has sailed. I think we're going to war or whatever the contemporary version will look like in this part of the world. We'll know in a couple days. Of course, I'm just talking about the US. But things seem to be the same in a lot of places. "War" sounds alarmist and dramatic, but I don't think it's far-fetched. We have been in a civil war for awhile (what an oxymoron, civil war!). Who's going to stop the political violence on the right?

I don't agree with tempering rhetoric about dangerous people in positions of extreme power with unlimited reach. I'm not sure Elon is in the same camp as Trump, but if he is doing anything to amplify or legitimize the stolen-election conspiracy and similar lunacy, then his rhetoric and actions deserve a response of equal volume. I would call those actions toxic and worse. I'm not 100% sure that's what happening because I don't follow him very closely, but that's my impression.

We could dial back the rhetoric on a micro level, but it won't matter now. Things are well past the point where that tweet could have helped or hurt.

[ponchi101]

To be clear. I am not saying that we have to dial back the rhetoric; if anything, we need to talk MORE. What I say is that, if you start the conversation demonizing the person the other person follows, very little will come from that conversation.
We have to scale back he adjectives. Lunatic, evil, toxic and so many more are not appropriate anymore.
Even though it is so hard not to label so many people with those.

[meganfernandez]

To be clear. I am not saying that we have to dial back the rhetoric; if anything, we need to talk MORE. What I say is that, if you start the conversation demonizing the person the other person follows, very little will come from that conversation.
We have to scale back he adjectives. Lunatic, evil, toxic and so many more are not appropriate anymore.
Even though it is so hard not to label so many people with those.

I'm not going to stop calling Trump an eff-nugget, even if it would save democracy!

I definitely see your point, I just worry that it's too late to matter. Might have helped 10 years ago.

[ponchi101]

...

I'm not going to stop calling Trump an eff-nugget, even if it would save democracy!

I definitely see your point, I just worry that it's too late to matter. Might have helped 10 years ago.

I know. And I am not going to stop calling him Tiny.
But my democracy was lost 2 decades ago, so...

[JazzNU]

And I'm saying Musk has enough hostile workplace environment problems at multiple companies, with racial discrimination and sexual harassment at the forefront - allegations, settlements and judgments - not to mention sexual misconduct allegations, some of which involve hush payments, to be vilified plenty. You should read an article detailing the culture he instilled at his companies, or better yet, read the court filings of some of those cases, And that's not adding in a whole host of concerning things or stuff that just showcases him being an epic asshole like his marriage and falsely accusing someone you don't know a thing about of being a pedophile on Twitter when you have millions of followers.

And I'd caution others to not associate any of his behavior with him being autistic. Acting like he hasn't done much wrong besides buy Twitter or doesn't have some seriously disturbing behavior alleged against him is a joke. And I certainly wouldn't want any of the behavior outlined above to be associated with or excused by autism.

[ponchi101]

And notice how much more eloquent your post is, explaining many issues with Musk and his companies.
And you did not use any words that are "insulting". In short, proper debate. Txs, and I do mean it.

[Deuce]

My point being: we (society) have to stop this process of demonizing people so easily. It is one of the problems that we have today, and I don't mean solely in the USA.
Story.
I was in Argentina during the 2019 election. Got into a conversation between people leaning for the two main contenders (Maccri and Fernandez). Invariably, I noticed that the camps were split along lines of good and evil: THEIR choice was trying to save the country, their OPPONENT was nothing but a SOB, bent on its destruction. Argentina is nowadays as polarized, if not more, than the USA, thanks in part to what I told those people that day: they could go from "such person is nice" to "that person is a SOB" in minutes. That is not healthy.
This type of mentality is detrimental to any kind of proper political or social discourse. Sure, Elon has truly mucked up this Twitter thing. Sure, he took Tesla from the original founders. But that does not make him a criminal, and some aspects of him are worthy. For example, he is truly passionate about science, which is something that is needed.

We can't have proper civilized discourse (and I mean not US, TAT2.0, but society) if everything gets dialed up to 11. And that is what that person's tweet is. Labeling an unnamed group of people as "toxic" is completely not helpful to have proper discourse.

I very much agree with this ^ in principle.
But insofar as Musk is concerned, I believe that everything he does is done for the benefit of himself. I honestly don't think he gives a damn about others, or about the 'greater good'. He is as self-serving as it is possible to be. This assessment isn't based on an isolated incident - it is based on how he comports himself on a consistent basis.

Regarding 'demonizing' people too easily in general - I completely agree that it is done far too easily these days. We can thank the plague of 'political correctness' for that.

I see a huge hypocrisy in this approach - one of having people claim to be very easily offended by something someone says or does, claiming that they shouldn't have the right to say or do that, that they are a terrible person because of it, and that they are not 'tolerant' enough... These people who demonize others so easily don't see that THEY are at least as intolerant as those they accuse of intolerance, and are just as judgemental as those they accuse of judgementalism - and usually even more so, because they 'demonize' people MORE than the people they 'demonize' do!
They love to criticize and even 'demonize' anyone who has an opinion that is different than theirs - but as soon as someone criticizes THEM, they cry foul and play the role of 'poor victim'.

These people are incredibly critical of those who take a position that is not consistent with their position, essentially saying that others have no right to take a position other than one which agrees with their position. But in doing so - and doing so very forcefully -, they are doing the same thing as they accuse their target of doing. And it's even worse in my view because of the added element of absolute hypocrisy.
These 'politically correct' people feel that ONLY THEY have the right to criticize, to 'demonize', and to be grossly intolerant - those who have different views and opinions DO NOT possess these same rights.
It's ludicrous.

The 'politically correct' doctrine insists that people must be hurt and offended by every position or opinion which is not consistent with their own, and that anyone holding a position or opinion which does not agree with their own is a horrible, terrible person. As well, the 'politically correct' position ALWAYS requires that there be a 'terrible offender' and a 'victim'. And so they bend over backwards to create these roles in order to 'justify' their wrath.
And, at the same time as they fire all of these insulting, ugly accusations at people who disagree with them, they themselves claim to be 'tolerant' and 'non-judgemental'.
Sigh...

I see this same 'demonizing' being done on this discussion board, as well, with some posters completely 'demonizing' certain players - Gilles Simon and Holger Rune being perhaps the most recent ones (both of these players seem to be well respected by their peers, who know them much better than we do) - based on basically one thing that they've done, or one position they have which happens to oppose the view of the posters who crap on them.

[ti-amie]

I was going to really pursue photography until #3 knock me into reality.

[ponchi101]

You can get a good camera nowadays that will let you enjoy the hobby.
I have never had a top notch camera, and yet, because I was lucky enough to travel to some beautiful places, I have some shots that are worthy.
You don't need the $10,000 lens to enjoy it.

[Deuce]

I have 3 cameras - 2 Sony DSLRs (about $400 each - Canadian), and a Canon all-in-one with an integrated 40x zoom lens (about $300 Canadian). I use the Canon more than the other two - because it’s smaller and more convenient to have an all-in-one package. Of course, the quality of photos must be good, as well. Most people aren’t going to print 4x5 foot posters from their photos - that would require a premium quality sensor and premium quality lenses.
I bought one of the Sonys used, and it came with the original lens plus a nice and practical and fairly strong zoom lens.

Of course, because of the neverending changes in ‘technology’ (which is a product of manipulation and greed much more than it is actual progress), the cameras that I have were ‘obsolete’ about 4 months after I bought them (10 years or so ago). But, you know, things still function even if they’re called ‘obsolete’.

I have also kept an Olympus all-in-one 10X zoom 4 MP camera from 2004. It still takes wonderful quality photos - better than some of the all-in-one cameras today (I just wanted more zoom). So don’t be fooled by the number of MegaPixels a sensor has - in-camera compression can make the ‘impressive’ number of MegaPixels irrelevant.
The ability to shoot in RAW is an advantage - though it takes considerably more effort.

I would recommend a good all-in-one camera. I can’t point you to any in particular, because I don’t know what’s available currently. 10 years ago, I did a lot of research before buying the cameras I bought (2 new, 1 used) - but I don’t know what’s out there today. Do your research - look at honest reviews and sample photos on this internet thing...

If you’re dead set on an interchangeable lens camera, buy used. Find a good DSLR - a Canon or Nikon or Pentax or Sony or Olympus, etc. - and a decent lens or two... But do your research there, too, before buying.

The best thing about digital cameras - apart from the obvious instant results - is that we no longer have to change film to change to black & white, or to change speeds. That’s very useful.

Here are a few photos I've taken with my Canon all-in-one. Perhaps not perfect - but good enough for most people, I would think...
Unfortunately, I can't post them full size here, where you can see them in better detail...

[Deuce]

A couple more, to give you an overall idea of all-in-one cameras...

It all depends what you want to do with photography , of course.

[ti-amie]

Those are really good Deuce!

I have two Canon SLR's, really old school but I liked the results when I used them. I did pics for TAT 1.0 when we used to cover live tennis back in the day.

Right now I'm doing a lot of nature photography in and around the city. The lens on the iPhone are really good so I haven't thought about buying a DSLR. If I did I'd probably go with a Canon. I'll let you know how it goes.

[Deuce]

Those are really good Deuce!

I have two Canon SLR's, really old school but I liked the results when I used them. I did pics for TAT 1.0 when we used to cover live tennis back in the day.

Right now I'm doing a lot of nature photography in and around the city. The lens on the iPhone are really good so I haven't thought about buying a DSLR. If I did I'd probably go with a Canon. I'll let you know how it goes.

If you right click on the photos I posted, and select 'save image as...' (or similar, depending on your browser), you can save them and when you open them on your computer, select 'full size', you'll see them much larger than you can see them here.
They still won't be the original size or quality, but it'll give you a better idea on the detail than just looking at them on this page.

(I would have included at least one tennis photo, but I use one of the DSLRs for tennis, due in part to the higher shutter speeds available in those as compared to the all-in-one - but the all-in-one is capable of tennis action shots, too - I just prefer the DSLR for that.)

P.S. - for those of you who don't know Sarah Harmer's songs, give her a listen. She's kind of left of center, very genuine, and quite wonderful.

[JazzNU]

Re: Powerball's "technical" delay

[Deuce]

It never ceases to amaze me how the larger a lottery prize is, the more people there are who purchase tickets.
A lottery prize of, say, $14 million will have people lined up to buy a ticket, where the week previous, when the prize was 'only' $10 Million, there was no line-up. It would seem that $10 Million is simply not enough money for many people!

It's very likely not that simple, of course. The reason that the number of people who buy tickets increases as the prize increases is probably due to more publicity - hearing about it more in the media, from friends, etc.
Most people don't seem to realize that it is counter-intuitive to do this, though - because the more people who purchase tickets, the less likely it is that each person will win the advertized prize.

But the element of these lottery things that disturbs me the most - especially when they reach absolutely ridiculous proportions like now - is that a hell of a lot of people could be fed and housed with this money. Even right here in North America. And there are about 'a Billion' other more useful and more progressive things that could be done with that money, as well. But, tragically, greed wins.
And, as if the amount of the 'jackpots' aren't insane enough, add the fact that ticket sales amount to even more money than the 'jackpot' (that's what makes these things viable for their creators - they have to turn a profit).
So... yeah - a whole lot of money that could be much better spent.