Oh God. Did you eat all this acid?
That’s right! Music!
(Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)
I saw Equilibrium on DVD. I liked it, though it did have its rough edges. It’s Fahrenheit meets The Matrix meets 1984. As a blend of these ideas, it works very well. It’s the production of the movie that could have used a little more polishing. And, well, the hero is a little too gullible, which takes an edge out. I am not sure how to feel about the roles of men and women in the movie … this might be realism, or it might be chauvinism. Wait, there’s no difference beween the two. Goodie then.
The movie makes no attempt to explain why the “clerics” are called “clerics”. I thought it was obvious, but it might not be obvious to everyone … and playing that temptation / resisting / giving in angle a little stronger would have, I feel, given the movie something it lacked.
Final verdict: Gets an 8 of 10 because it does what was overdue, but does not follow through on the promise.
The Matrix Reloaded does not need a link or an introduction. I was presently surprised. It’s got the hodgepodge of religion and philosophy from the first movie, and I find that I actually enjoy that a lot. It is a rare movie that has that many obvious references, and even _more_ not-so-obvious ones.
The Matrix takes a smaller role this time … still strong, but a reality is not just a substrate. Which is good, as otherwise one does begin to wonder what the point of rebellion is.
Neo’s powers are downplayed a little too this time around, the agents get downsized in ph33r ph4ct0r, and Morpheus miraculously gains the ability to whup ass where before he would have run. That feels a little inconsistent.
As for some of the other characters, and The Matrix itself, and Neo … there are some very, very nice twists here, which I did not anticipate at all, simple wuff that I am. More complex than your average action flick by far, and more complex than many non-action flicks, too. W00t. All your delicious mind-fucks are belong to us.
CGI was a little sloppy; in many scenes, you can _tell_ that’s a CGI-Neo … he doesn’t move quite right, and, worse, he doesn’t _look_ quite right.
I’ll give Matrix a two-pronged rating: 10 out of 10 for story and sheer niftyness (if you are willing to overlook the underlying mongo-flaw that you can never get out more than you put in, and thus human batteries are a laugh); and downgraded to a 9 for some inconsistencies and sloppy CGI.
For books, I read Shatter’s recommendation Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. It is full of clever ideas about society … the origin of society, the prerequisites for society, and what would be necessary to have a better society. I enjoyed reading Pastwatch a lot.
Despite the clever ideas, do not look for ultimate, gritty realism when reading this book. It is a “realistic fairy tale”, an utopian tale, in that events are plausible, and history seems well-researched, but everything goes a little too smoothly, a little too wonderfully well (particularly in the second half of the book). That is fine, I like utopian tales. Been reading too many dystopies as of late. The dialogue is captivating, and Orson Card spins a tale that kept me engrossed.This book comes recommended. I give it an easy 9.5 out of 10.
Right. Cards. No, I have not gone back to the Mohegan Sun. I have, however, started playing poker for play money, just to learn the odds. And realized just how much folly it was to go gambling without having a clue. I truly was lucky to come out on top.
So, now I wish to go and calculate card odds, and I find that I have two ways of doing that: Running a ton of computer simulations (as this guy has done), or do some calculations. I mourn, not for the first time, my stupidity in throwing all my school books away. I remember exactly nothing from math classes.
So, now it’s back to stochastics, to get an idea of odds. Well, truth be told, if I wish to go beyond simple odds (“What are the chances of someone getting a straight? What are the chances of someone completing a set? When x players are at the table?”), I will either have to run computer sims (too lazy
or observe people and get a feel for the game. Odds first.
Oh, and yeah, it’s true: Games for play money can teach you the basic odds, and teach you to recognize the winning cards, quickly assess a hand, that sort of thing … and that’s all they teach you. I have been playing 3 hours yesterday, and 2 today, and am at $3500 from a starting point of $1000. If this was real money, people would not be playing that loose.
I am also beginning to see in action the truisms of “play tight in loose games, and only play loose games” and “when your games is starting to become loose, do not attempt to tighten up: Leave the table”.
It’s still fun. I do not know whether I will go back to playing poker for money, but I’m keeping it an option.
Adam, my coworker, got accepted at Trinity College, where he will major in philosophy and law (I think it was law). It is one of the top 25 law colleges in the country, apparently, or something like that. It is pretty prestigious. He got interviewed, and told it would take two weeks to get an answer. The next day, he had a call telling him he got accepted.
Which means he aced the interview, and all the requirements. Very smart cookie, that Adam.
So, anyway, he played poker for 4 hours online on Sunday, and won $300. Now he figures he might finance his studies with gambling. That seems a risky proposition … but on the other hand, the amount of fools playing poker online is unbelievable, and a smart player with a grasp for probabilities and money management has an edge.
I just don’t want to be one of those fools
)