Posts by Matthew Young35

I have a deep appreciation for sci-fi and fantasy.
What really grinds my gears is when studios try to act all high-brow and dump a massive budget into some mediocre romance, yet they fail to deliver a coherent plot. Honestly, if you’re going to insist on including a love interest, why not just buy the rights to something actually worthwhile and adapt that instead?
It seems like almost every great sci-fi or fantasy film is based on an excellent source material, while those attempting original stories are usually forgettable. Think about *The Odyssey*, *Dune*, *Blade Runner*, *The Lord of the Rings*, *Solaris*, or *Excalibur*.
I genuinely struggle to recall a single piece of original sci-fi that actually holds up. I’m sure they exist, but they aren't coming to mind right now.
Why not just acquire the rights to something like a Jack Vance novel, or perhaps works by Gene Wolfe? At least then we would be left with a damn decent story.

Speaking of which, I heard rumors there might be a chance at adapting Arthur C. Clarke’s series, Asimov’s *Foundation*, and a few other interesting titles that I can't quite name at the moment.

In my opinion, 2001: A Space Odyssey stands far above Interstellar.

Ashley Bailey6 said:The Joker concept works too—that chaotic genius archetype is pretty common in the world.
It was definitely Heath Ledger’s career-defining role, maybe even the best Joker we've ever seen.

Obviously, it can't be 100% realistic, but it doesn't have to be. As long as the movie stays engaging for everyone, not just kids or people chasing nostalgia, I'm fine with it.
We needed to see this version.

It's a legitimate sequel to the franchise, yet it manages to feel totally original.

The "deranged genius" is nothing more than an urban legend.
In reality, geniuses are typically just geniuses, perfectly sane.

There are plenty of "geniuses" who were once brilliant, only to lose their grip later and cease being brilliant altogether.
Frankly, using the term "genius" is a bit foolish when viewed from a mainstream perspective. For instance, I am fairly certain that someone who proved Fermat's Last Theorem possessed far deeper knowledge, methodology, and imagination than someone like Tesla. The tragedy of that mathematician is simply that his field of expertise—at least for now, and likely forever—hasn't impacted human life as profoundly as Tesla's work did.
It's a simple question: how many people label Steve Jobs or Bill Gates as geniuses? In truth, they were exceptional businessmen who pushed the right products at exactly the right moment.

There is something vaguely unsettling about this habit of crowning geniuses.

I have no intention of diminishing the legacy of Tesla, Da Vinci, Einstein, or even Newton.
It is merely that I am convinced there were, and still are, individuals far more intelligent and specialized in their respective fields than they were. They simply weren't lucky enough to work on something that fundamentally altered the course of human history.

The "mad scientist" is a convenient cliché. What would Einstein be without that iconic photo of him staring into the camera with that wild hair? Unthinkable.
I highly doubt he was writing his papers or presenting his findings looking like that.
Tesla serves as perhaps the best example. There is no dispute that he arrived at revolutionary ideas, or at least proved them to be viable. But it is equally true that he didn't produce those breakthroughs during his later years when his mental health declined.
In his final chapter, Tesla wasn't a "deranged genius." He was simply deranged. There wasn't a trace of brilliance left.

No matter how you spin it, these "deranged geniuses" simply do not exist in the real world.

People are drawn to these films because of their metaphysical weight. There’s something transcendental and timeless about them. Let’s be honest: the Avengers are timeless. They represent a pursuit of sublime perfection that resonates with all of us, regardless of whether we’re living in the present, tomorrow, or some post-apocalyptic wasteland envisioned by a visionary director.
They serve as a timeless equivalent—or perhaps a substitute, if you prefer—for that asymptotic approach toward the inevitable triumph of justice.

Morgan Foster said:My last post was aimed precisely at your example—Matthew Young35 immediately pivoted toward (nepotism-)tourism when discussing lower wages.

The goal should be creating conditions for companies that generate continuous value year-round—not helping some relative get a seasonal job as a cook or a waiter by the coast for $667.

Anyway, our tourism industry is as stubborn as Pep ☕
...

I’m just addressing the reality of life here in the States. Since you brought me up.

restlesssurfer97 said:If you ask me, these guys are actually bigger enemies than the government that even created them, at least that part is pretty obvious.
What’s with the vague talk, though? It's not like you don't understand the massive difference between crony capitalism and actual, classic Western capitalism.

As for this whole thing about the labor shortage, let's not kid ourselves—it’s only been an issue for maybe two years, it’s not some ancient problem from forever ago. And frankly, I’ve been waiting for this, just waiting for the moment when the labor market finally opens up. The whole point is to get all these markets opening up.
But look, if the government doesn't step up with real reforms, we aren't going to see high-quality jobs, we won't have solid employers, we won't have workers, and we certainly won't have tax revenue.
Even though the labor market just started opening up, you can already see things shifting. I don't even need to guess what would happen if most economic activities were fully liberalized; we can just look at the states where our people are fleeing to in droves to see the proof.

So, it turns out we actually agree on this.
Long live the free market. Long live the labor market. If an employer can't offer a decent wage, they won't find staff, and they should just close their doors.
Fair enough.
The labor market is a two-way street, and it seems some employers are only just now learning that lesson the hard way.

restlesssurfer97 said:Look, I'm not saying this is about being weighed down by the government or the American state, because I've noticed things getting a little messy and mixed up in these debates lately, but if they can't offer a higher salary—or if they do offer one, they'd basically be operating at a loss—then what's the deal?

So you're telling me they're consciously choosing to walk away from profit just because... well, honestly, the reason doesn't even matter that much, the point is they are making a conscious choice to lose money. Whatever, everyone's entitled to their own take on things, you and me included, all five of us.

I really just want to hammer this home one more time, when we're talking about entrepreneurs, we have to make a super clear distinction between those small-time operations run by networks of cousins and buddies, and actual entrepreneurs who play by the rules of the market and the laws of the land here in the States. It's a massive point for this whole conversation.

The first group is far more prevalent, which explains why there is such widespread antipathy toward business owners.

You can throw around all the clichés and platitudes you want, but you know exactly what’s happening here. Everyone in America knows.

This nonsense about a labor shortage is frankly irritating.
How can there be a worker shortage in a country where hundreds of thousands of people leave for better opportunities every single year?
Let's call it what it is: there aren't enough workers because the pay sucks.

restlesssurfer97 said:So that's the gist of it, right? That's the logic you're running with?

Perhaps not quite like that, but you aren't far off.

restlesssurfer97 said:So basically, you read this article and immediately decided the guy went to jail just because of that one employee leaving for a rival firm, which honestly means you're just supercharged on biases since you can't even look at a basic news story without letting assumptions cloud your judgment.

And I mean, you immediately jumped down this entrepreneur's throat, whereas I’m just speaking in generalities and not even commenting on how this specific dude runs his business, but you're already out here trashing him over a single sentence in the whole piece, and yeah, we all know he's the type to exploit workers.

Nice job.

I've lived enough years to have seen plenty of shady characters across the United States.
I understand how things work here in America.

The reason I took a stance is that I already know exactly what kind of employers we're dealing with.

Sure, there are decent bosses out there; they aren't non-existent. But those people don't go crying to the press about "labor shortages" when all they really want is to pay someone $500 a month.

restlesssurfer97 said:The sheer amount of bias here is just unreal. Seriously.

And honestly, blaming entrepreneurs for a failing economy or the state of this backwater town we live in is a massive level of stupidity. Forgive me if that sounds harsh, but I don't really know how else to put it.

Whatever, I guess now American workers and their Irish bosses will just ride bicycles to work together.😂

I couldn't care less, actually; if anything, I’d love to see more of this happening until every single business and corporation shuts down for good. And frankly, everything seems to be heading that way. I realized a long time ago that sometimes you need a kick in the ass to actually move forward.
The only ones who are going to end up starving are the philosophers, those types like some guy from a local college campus$0.00 clutching my money while waving a communist flag out the window, a Cuban cigar in his mouth, and an iPhone sitting on the table that was cobbled together by tiny hands in a factory overseas. And his followers? There's no shortage of them.
As for the rest of us, we'll figure it out—we're used to working for a living.

And what exactly defines "bias" in this context?
Is it complaining because a kid you hired for $30 an hour decided to jump ship to a competitor?$1167 Or is it pointing out that we have some of the lowest hourly wages in the entire country?

restlesssurfer97 said:I bet this bit of news is going to make Charles Chase4 absolutely lose his mind with joy

Yes, I must admit, it was quite a pleasant surprise.
I suppose I would have been even more pleased if he had suggested some actually decent spots instead of just shutting things down entirely, but what can you do? Even this version was somewhat enjoyable.

There's more to come. This isn't over yet.

According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average weekly work hours here in the States are among the lowest in the developed world. If that’s the case, shouldn't we be looking deeper? If people aren't even working full tilt, then the issue clearly isn't just the cost of labor. It has to be something else entirely.

And then there’s this guy. He had some kid working for him for a mere $3,000?$1167It’s honestly a bit pathetic when you look at the competition. You have this miserable employer losing talent to companies that actually understand the value of paying people what they're worth. Is it really that hard to offer a fair wage? Apparently, for some, yes.

Morgan Foster said:I’ll play the part of the ruthless turbo-capitalist—and here is my first proposal for the betterment of our great nation...

Let’s be realistic about the scale here. Our labor costs are currently sitting right in line with places like Mexico or Vietnam—low-cost markets where margins are thin. It’s pretty straightforward: if you can't find a way to boost productivity, you aren't going to make any money under these conditions. Daily wages are bound to drop...

If it’s actually true that Americans work longer hours on average than people in Western Europe—then we really need to ask ourselves what has actually been built with all that extra time... and why it turned out this way.

P.S.: You're better off not even trying. Otherwise, you might just wake up one day living in a Western country... 😁

I have an even better suggestion.
Abolish wages entirely. It would trigger hyper-efficient, low-cost production, making our top American entrepreneurs incredibly wealthy and driving up our GDP within the global market.

It’s the universal fix for everything: slash wages, gut Social Security, and scrap "free" healthcare.

The only catch is... how do I put this... who on earth is going to work for those slashed wages?
Americans won't do it; in twenty years, there won't be anyone left in this country.
Immigrants won't either; they're fleeing the States like it's a plague zone.
People from Mexico or Canada won't bother; why would they move here if they're already leaving their own homes just to head to somewhere like London or Tokyo instead of the US?

How does one propose cutting wages when people are already struggling just to cover their basic utility bills?
I'd love to see that play out.

Justin James10 said:They’re pushing for total government control over everything, especially when it comes to the economy. Their main goal seems to be protecting the web of political cronyism they've built, which is why they fight against any kind of meaningful reform at all costs.

If we follow that logic, then every nation on Earth is "leftist" because every government exerts control over its economy. Through taxes, tariffs, monetary policy, legislation... you name it.

As for these much-vaunted reforms... God forbid we face "reform" here in the States. In America, reform is usually just a polite euphemism for making life more expensive. A tax reform? That means higher taxes. Judicial reform? Expect rising court costs. Pension reform? Contributions go up while the actual checks go down. It’s a predictable cycle.

Regarding the systemic corruption and political patronage—that part is arguably irreversible. We’ve passed a critical mass of entrenched interests where there is simply no turning back.

Ultimately, this isn't about being left-wing or right-wing. It’s nothing of the sort. It is pure, unadulterated opportunism.

Justin James10 said:ruggedjackal46, when it comes to our economy, you’re basically looking at a bunch of leftists. You’ve got one group claiming to be nationalistic socialists, while the rest are just plain old socialists.

All this talk about patriotism? Honestly, it’s just stuff kids believe. It’s all the same crowd of vultures.

And what exactly makes them leftists?

shadowmarlin22 said:It’s funny how we're still obsessing over who robbed the country back in the early '90s—basically just debating whether the old administration or the current one is worse, or pointing fingers at who's responsible for which mess. The thing is, nobody is actually offering any real solutions.

The solution is quite simple.
We should take a page out of Ronald Reagan's book.

I’m thinking specifically of Reagan National Airport.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow when you realize we live in a society where a piece of paper from some university carries more weight than the word of a priest.
If that’s really the direction we want to take, then maybe we don't even need a government at all.

Why the crisis?
Why wasn't he just hauling, I don't know, a water heater or an old CRT monitor?

Sandra Johnson58 said:Look, I guess Obama was doing data mining back then too, it's just that Facebook actually let them do it back then. They had this app where voters would basically give permission for their info to be used—and it included their friends' info too, since they were consenting on their behalf. I think Obama's campaign manager even bragged about how they totally leveraged that stuff during the 2012 election at a TED talk. It wasn't exactly the same situation, but yeah, it was all about harvesting data.
But honestly? There's no theft involved because Facebook is a private company. They have these Terms of Service that everyone just clicks "accept" on without ever actually reading. And in those terms, people basically agree to let them use their personal info to provide a "better" service. Check out this quote from the New York Times—pay attention to the bold part.

the data was collected through an app called thisisyourdigitallife, built by academic Aleksandr Kogan, separately from his work at Cambridge University. Through his company Global Science Research (GSR), in collaboration with Cambridge Analytica, hundreds of thousands of users were paid to take a personality test and agreed to have their data collected for academic use.

However, the app also collected the information of the test-takers’ Facebook friends, leading to the accumulation of a data pool tens of millions-strong. Facebook’s “platform policy” allowed only collection of friends’ data to improve user experience in the app and barred it being sold on or used for advertising.

Like I said, Facebook allows data collection, they just don't allow people to sell it. Maybe the only ones who could actually sue are Facebook themselves, though I don't know if they'd even want to, since it wasn't really a theft—just a violation of some informal agreements.

It isn't just a mess; it's a complete disaster.

And while we're on the subject, what exactly are we going to do about the spread of fake news?

Sandra Johnson58 said:Seriously, still nobody is actually answering my question. Like, what’s even the difference between an online smear campaign and the old-school stuff you see on TV or in tabloids? With traditional media, if they lie about you, the retraction gets buried on page 28 or aired during some random news segment after midnight. But online? It's different. There isn't really a difference in the *intent*, it's just that modern tech gives individuals this insane level of access. What Cambridge Analytica pulled was a massive breach of trust, period. And honestly, I feel like the only ones who might actually sue them are Meta, and even then, maybe only if they feel like staying in the headlines for this scandal. They basically allow all this data harvesting and targeted ad creation—they even do it themselves!—but then they act surprised when people ask to have their data deleted. There weren't even any real contracts in place; everything was just handled under the table, which is exactly how they got screwed over. I mean, sure, the guy who built that personality test found a loophole in the algorithm and exploited it, even though it broke the rules, but at the end of the day... it's still Facebook's fault.😁

Well, for heaven's sake... The difference is that the data was STOLEN.

shadowmarlin22 said:The problem right now is that the media landscape is way too skewed to the left. You want the perfect example? Just look at this whole circus surrounding Cambridge Analytica and Trump. Everyone is losing their minds over it, but if you go back ten years, everyone was practically worshiping Obama for doing the exact same thing. He leveraged big data and high-level analytics to win—back then, the conservatives just complained that the Democrats had outmaneuvered them strategically. Now, Trump pours a massive amount of money into those same tactics, and suddenly he’s the villain stealing data. It’s the same playbook; the players just changed.🙏🙏It isn't just about what the news outlets are reporting—it’s about how that media influence actually guts platforms like Facebook. They lost a massive chunk of their market cap in a single day because of it. People tend to follow the herd, and honestly, the most effective way to control a crowd these days is through the media. It’s become incredibly easy to profile users and feed them exactly what they want to hear while keeping everything else quiet. Look, Trump might be an idiot, but that’s not really the point here.

People love to trash the current system these days—and honestly, I get it—but let’s be real: the framework we have in most developed nations right now is still the best one we've ever managed to put together. That said, if anyone actually believes we have true freedom of speech today, especially in the media, they’re dead wrong. In a dictatorship, sure, the news outlets just follow whatever orders the ruling party hands down. But in a free society, the theory is that everyone should be reporting the truth. The problem is that "truth" isn't exactly served up on a silver platter. Instead, you're fed a constant stream of one-sided perspectives from a specific ideological bubble—mostly on the left—which shapes your worldview before you even realize it. And today? They have the most sophisticated technology imaginable—basically a high-tech weapon—designed specifically to feed you exactly what they want you to hear until you eventually just nod along.

The logic behind free speech is fundamentally broken if you try to balance it by giving every minority group total license to do whatever they want. It’s a contradiction. If you start placing restrictions on people just because their words might offend someone, you aren't actually protecting expression—you're effectively shielding the very people whose freedom of speech forms the foundation of this entire system.

If you’re under the impression that what we have here is actual democracy, you’re mistaken. Real democracy exists in Switzerland—not here in the States. What we’re dealing with in America is really just another incremental step toward a democratic system, nothing more. Think about the progression: you had monarchies where one person ruled indefinitely based purely on bloodlines. Then you had totalitarian regimes where a small group held absolute power for an unlimited time, all driven by ideology. Now, we’ve moved to a stage where a group leads with a single head of state, but for a limited term. Some might argue we’ve simply shortened the duration of a one-party dictatorship, but the distinction is that the people actually get a say in who they want. Of course, "the people" are essentially choosing from whatever is served to them—a menu of empty promises that politicians have zero intention of actually keeping. True direct democracy—the kind they practice in Switzerland—is the only real deal. It’s a system where citizens head to the polls for referendums on every major issue and law. If the public decides they hate a specific law, they can vote it down. That creates the only legitimate check on power: the government doesn't get to do whatever it wants because the people hold the ultimate control.

Naturally, the big question is how this would actually play out in other places—like here in America. Is the public actually self-aware enough to vote for the long-term good of the country rather than just what lines their own pockets? And can the media truly stay independent, or will they just spin the narrative to push people toward a specific vote before a referendum even happens? In my opinion, the answer is no—and we’re nowhere near being ready for that level of maturity. I'm just saying, you don't really have a true democracy, or actual power in the hands of the people, without a system like this in place. Anything else is just a facade—you're basically just picking which group gets to rule over you for a set term.

How can anyone possibly deny it when we’re staring down the barrel of stolen data and a coordinated flood of fake news?

What should we even make of this? Should we just call him incredibly gifted?

The leader steals, peddles fake news, and then acts like the victim the moment someone actually calls them out on it. Is that really how we're playing this?