i think the idea here is that a staff engineer should be identifying what needs to be done, figures out how to do it, works to push the team and project in that direction, and provides insight to the org as to how it is going

honestly there's too many quarter baked ideas. catalina can control time, but it's not used for any reason. megalon can build a building, or make a medical device for dogs or be used as a biofoam-esque bone restoration thing for catalina post gunshot.

where is the clock catalina and juila spend time on? what was the house with catalina's wife supposed to represent? why is clodio even in the film? can we explore the tiny bow and arrow that is used to kill wow but only hit clodio's butt? why is clodio killed for that?

i understand that it is a competently developed film, but it is full of unexplored concepts and poorly formed sequences. i'd argue it is much more like a well produced album that is devoid of any meaningful songs.

I think the subtitle "A Fable" does a lot to provide cover for some of the things you bring up. My 2¢ on a few of your questions:

* I saw the ability to start and stop time to represent creative vision. At the beginning of the movie, Catalina is in his office, then nervously goes out to the edge of the building and steps off then commands time to stop. I think this was him testing if he still had the ability to be creative because he didn't know if he could or not. Julia "sees" his creative ability during the building demolition, and demponstrates her understanding to Catalina, which is why he reveals his model to her, and with her eyes closed she can "see" how he actually envisions it. He tries to stop time in jail and finds he no longer can, after encouragement from Julia together they can start and stop time. I see this as either Julia becoming his muse, or that they are now creating collaboratively.

* I think this also explains the scenes of them on the clock, which is supposed to be a figurative ___location. I'm pretty sure we only ever see Julia and Catalina there. It's because only they can enter this metaphorical creative space together.

A few questions I have are: why do they need a lock of Catalinas wifes hair to heal his eye? Why as prosecuting Catalina did Mayer Ciscero hide Catalinas wifes corpse. Would be curious to hear others thoughts.

He hid the corpse so that he could charge Catalina with making her disappear I think.

I thought the film was highly enjoyable. It was in a grandiose and operatic style, but I just kind of accepted that, plus there was a lot of hilarity.

Those questions all have clear answers

imho it comes from western states not simply rounding them up. in atlanta, before the peach bowl the cops would descend on downtown, arrest all the homeless, bus them up to cherokee, and then the time it took them to return was greater than the length of the event.

now that's a little less common and the yearly doctor conference has noticed the homeless and is complaining about it. i think homelessness is a consequence not of any one area but of the american way of doing things. we treat it as an incurable disease, like addiction, but that we don't care enough about to fix.

> imho it comes from western states not simply rounding them up.

And the supreme court says they should go ahead and do so. After all, there's no discrimination: the police can round up anyone sleeping under a bridge, whether poor or rich.

Thats why I said "optically", I actually agree with the sentiment that homelessness is often much worse and unseen in other parts of the United States- but! CA could do a-lot more given its wealth and desire to be seen as "thoughtful".

> CA could do a-lot more given its ... desire to be seen as "thoughtful".

Uhh, what? The state that produced Nixon, Reagan, Prop 13; the capital of NIMBYism and the state that had more Trump voters than any other?

Sure, California is wealthy and spends a lot on its citizens, especially the needy, but it also has strong countervailing pressure, more influential than you might think given the makeup of its legislature.

A state is a big amorphous group and can't hardly have a "desire".

Sure. We are saying the same thing. But from my experience actually talking to people, they fancy themselves a thoughtful lot.

i suppose the point being made here is that we are currently in a place of racism, and anyone advocating that moving waway from that place is bad, happens to be advocating for racsim indirectly. i get that that is not the intent of the person, but it is the end they found.

>i suppose the point being made here is that we are currently in a place of racism, and anyone advocating that moving waway from that place is bad, happens to be advocating for racsim indirectly.

It's trivial to reword this for "the state of moral values", eg. "we are currently in a place of degrading moral values, and anyone advocating that moving away from that place is bad, happens to be advocating for degrading moral values indirectly". In other words, both "racism" and "the state of moral values" are culture war topics, and I don't how you can justify privileging one without having to invoke your own political beliefs.

to make it really clear:

a leader wrote a book esposing ideals that were dated and frankly ‘designed to upset’

to quote:

“” soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. “”

if you had a boss that calimed all people that looked like you were shit, how would you feel reporting to them?

as an answer for you:

Political scientist Angelo Falcón argues that the use of broad terms like "person of color" is offensive because it aggregates diverse communities and projects "a false unity" that "obscure[s] the needs of Latinos and Asians"

more or less creating a group that simply ‘is not white’ is disparinging for all of the folks in that group that feel more unique than simply ‘not white’

That doesn't answer the question. The question is: what sets it apart from Dr. King's use of a functionally identical term? Dalewyn specifically named Dr. King as the "good" point in a timeline that ends on the bad "calling people people of color."

By this logic, calling people white is racist. White as an identity is completely arbitrary and seems to shift to change who it includes and excludes every few decades. It's a meaningless term that generalizes a vast and diverse array of cultures.

>> "Racism is considering someone's race for something where race is not relevant, the intent behind the act is irrelevant."

The people who popularized the term to describe themselves certainly didn't think it was irrelevant.

But the concept of race is not logical. You can ask questions about whiteness all you want, but those have the same quality of answers as questions about Asianness and Africanness.

Who says it has to be logical? It’s embedded in the social fabric of the United States. It can’t be dismissed out of hand. It must be recognized and addressed.

People should not fear talking about it. But steer away from phrases like “by that logic” —- it’s neither convincing nor rational to seek a more-logical view on race. It is only embedded in social fabric and not found elsewhere.

I feel like intent is totally relevant. Somebody can outright use a racial slur and people will argue it is not racist if it was not said with racist intent. Enough people think intent is important for intent to be important.

> To add on to this, it is racist to exclude whites.

Apparently that’s allowed now, at least by the people seem to think everybody else are the racists: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129796

Unfortunately, racism exists, and the primary victims aren’t white people.

Racism existing does not excuse further racism, nor is racism addressed by further racism.

most technically racist means systemic oppresion, but it is def discrimination

That’s not a technical definition of the word, that’s an academic/activist niche way to describe the word which is contrary to popular or historical usage.

I criticize the redefinition as seemingly wholly existing to narrow the number of cases in which racial discrimination can be considered racism and I wonder what ethical justification could possibly exist for PRESCRIBING this definition when people use the word “racist” in the common sense of the word. It seems to be a definition which exists wholly because some think it would be swell if a black woman calling an Asian man a slur wasn’t called a racist. Yet the people who argue for this I find don’t actually support this behaviour, they would discourage it, they just want marginalized groups to just never be called racist, because that’s too harsh or something.

Also what constitutes systemic oppression anyways? Take a majority subordinate under a minority boss. Can the minority say a slur without it being racist? Can the majority? What a stupid debate to have when this shouldn’t happen EITHER way, because this is RACIST. The original definition is more fair and simple and straightforwards and popular and less counterproductive than the redefinitions.

women of color was a thrid wave feminist creation. it was made by white women to describe the non-whites that were asking to be seen. anyone calling anyone a person of color is def a latent racist, as it is always talking down. we can just chat with others wothout acting like we are 5 years old and need to show them we have identified a color or shape that is different!

It’s OK to refer to persons of color (a classification), but it’s not OK to refer to a specific individual as a person of color. It can be offensive to acknowledge another person’s race, and it’s best to avoid doing this.

1977 is just a bit earlier than third wave feminism's start in the 90s.

"Common sense" means focusing on first order effects. Don't prod your coworkers about their race because that will obviously make them feel uncomfortable.

Woke, in this case, is focusing on Nth order effects.. do prod your coworker about their race because abstract reasons justified by theories about social abstractions... Thinking about group effects that might kick in at the societal level instead of the effect you're having immediately on the individual sitting right in front of you.

The former, first order common sense thinking, is what normal people intuitively do. Focusing on the individual when dealing with an individual is the common sense approach. The second, focusing about abstract secondary group effects when dealing with an individual, is something people get trained into doing by sociology class in university, or being lectured on the internet, or being indoctrinated into a racist ideology. A traditional racist or a modern woke person doesn't see individuals, they see representatives of abstract groups that must be treated in some way calculated to have Nth order group effects.

'Woke' is 'red pilled' with a different colour tie.

it's the same as my choice to only use lowercase letters, it is designed to make you upset that i am not following conventions. that's as far as i have been able to figure for hwy i started doing this, and by extension, why tech bois love to drop some vital freature to communication to signal being an 'insider'

ok ee cummings

Omitting readable styling doesn't read as "techboi rebellion", it reads as ineptitude and lack of respect for people whose attention you're seeking.

what about lowercase makes you feel a need to attack me as a person? is lowercase text an assualt on you in some way? i have not had someone insult me based on lack of key pressing, and the fact you can argue with me means you have no issues understanding or responding to me

autopilot is a level 2 system technically, so you are right, they don’t use a system incorrectly