#ramblings — Public Fediverse posts

So on the recent XLBS the question was

What Is A Narrative Wargame?

and the discussion always seems to revolve around tournament players vs campaign players and I feel there is more to this. I’ll try to do a list.

• tournament players – always ears on the ground, chasing the meta and the latest way to cheese the game in order to win.
• campaign/narrative players – setting up a scenario or campaign with (relative) strict rules and setup in order to enjoy a long play
• historical players – recreate a battle from history with all limitations, events etc in order to re-enact the battle/war and maybe even change the course of history
• casual players – just some gamers who like the setting, the models, the fluff and like to battle it out. No big digging in old tomes and chasing meta and any advantage they can get but more „rule of cool“ and a nice day with friends at the table

I think those are the main groups of people gaming companies try to address. Historical players are, well, the easiest. History is written only the rule system matters. And as long as everything stays within what history has said all is fine and good.

Campaign/narrative players, as long as the rules are mostly balanced and every faction has their ups and downs all is good and gaming is easy.

For tournament players rules should be (IMHO) play-tested to hell and back again. Every Army should have the same chances to win so that really only the brain behind creating the army list and implementing the tactics is the deciding factor on who wins. Like in racing games when everybody uses the same car and engine and only the driver makes a difference.

Now casual players. Rules shouldn’t be to much out of balance but a great backstory, fluff and flair makes all the difference. Fun first, rules second but everybody should be on the same side on how to resolve the outcome on the table.

Where do I see myself? Personally I think I’m mostly a casual player. Winning is nice but having fun is much more important. If a game (like Frostgrave) has an RPG element I also like campaigns but that is the exception to the rule. Tournaments tend to be too much stress and history… well, that just doesn’t tickle my fancy.

What about you?

So on the recent XLBS the question was

What Is A Narrative Wargame?

and the discussion always seems to revolve around tournament players vs campaign players and I feel there is more to this. I’ll try to do a list.

• tournament players – always ears on the ground, chasing the meta and the latest way to cheese the game in order to win.
• campaign/narrative players – setting up a scenario or campaign with (relative) strict rules and setup in order to enjoy a long play
• historical players – recreate a battle from history with all limitations, events etc in order to re-enact the battle/war and maybe even change the course of history
• casual players – just some gamers who like the setting, the models, the fluff and like to battle it out. No big digging in old tomes and chasing meta and any advantage they can get but more „rule of cool“ and a nice day with friends at the table

I think those are the main groups of people gaming companies try to address. Historical players are, well, the easiest. History is written only the rule system matters. And as long as everything stays within what history has said all is fine and good.

Campaign/narrative players, as long as the rules are mostly balanced and every faction has their ups and downs all is good and gaming is easy.

For tournament players rules should be (IMHO) play-tested to hell and back again. Every Army should have the same chances to win so that really only the brain behind creating the army list and implementing the tactics is the deciding factor on who wins. Like in racing games when everybody uses the same car and engine and only the driver makes a difference.

Now casual players. Rules shouldn’t be to much out of balance but a great backstory, fluff and flair makes all the difference. Fun first, rules second but everybody should be on the same side on how to resolve the outcome on the table.

Where do I see myself? Personally I think I’m mostly a casual player. Winning is nice but having fun is much more important. If a game (like Frostgrave) has an RPG element I also like campaigns but that is the exception to the rule. Tournaments tend to be too much stress and history… well, that just doesn’t tickle my fancy.

What about you?

So on the recent XLBS the question was

What Is A Narrative Wargame?

and the discussion always seems to revolve around tournament players vs campaign players and I feel there is more to this. I’ll try to do a list.

• tournament players – always ears on the ground, chasing the meta and the latest way to cheese the game in order to win.
• campaign/narrative players – setting up a scenario or campaign with (relative) strict rules and setup in order to enjoy a long play
• historical players – recreate a battle from history with all limitations, events etc in order to re-enact the battle/war and maybe even change the course of history
• casual players – just some gamers who like the setting, the models, the fluff and like to battle it out. No big digging in old tomes and chasing meta and any advantage they can get but more „rule of cool“ and a nice day with friends at the table

I think those are the main groups of people gaming companies try to address. Historical players are, well, the easiest. History is written only the rule system matters. And as long as everything stays within what history has said all is fine and good.

Campaign/narrative players, as long as the rules are mostly balanced and every faction has their ups and downs all is good and gaming is easy.

For tournament players rules should be (IMHO) play-tested to hell and back again. Every Army should have the same chances to win so that really only the brain behind creating the army list and implementing the tactics is the deciding factor on who wins. Like in racing games when everybody uses the same car and engine and only the driver makes a difference.

Now casual players. Rules shouldn’t be to much out of balance but a great backstory, fluff and flair makes all the difference. Fun first, rules second but everybody should be on the same side on how to resolve the outcome on the table.

Where do I see myself? Personally I think I’m mostly a casual player. Winning is nice but having fun is much more important. If a game (like Frostgrave) has an RPG element I also like campaigns but that is the exception to the rule. Tournaments tend to be too much stress and history… well, that just doesn’t tickle my fancy.

What about you?

So on the recent XLBS the question was

What Is A Narrative Wargame?

and the discussion always seems to revolve around tournament players vs campaign players and I feel there is more to this. I’ll try to do a list.

• tournament players – always ears on the ground, chasing the meta and the latest way to cheese the game in order to win.
• campaign/narrative players – setting up a scenario or campaign with (relative) strict rules and setup in order to enjoy a long play
• historical players – recreate a battle from history with all limitations, events etc in order to re-enact the battle/war and maybe even change the course of history
• casual players – just some gamers who like the setting, the models, the fluff and like to battle it out. No big digging in old tomes and chasing meta and any advantage they can get but more „rule of cool“ and a nice day with friends at the table

I think those are the main groups of people gaming companies try to address. Historical players are, well, the easiest. History is written only the rule system matters. And as long as everything stays within what history has said all is fine and good.

Campaign/narrative players, as long as the rules are mostly balanced and every faction has their ups and downs all is good and gaming is easy.

For tournament players rules should be (IMHO) play-tested to hell and back again. Every Army should have the same chances to win so that really only the brain behind creating the army list and implementing the tactics is the deciding factor on who wins. Like in racing games when everybody uses the same car and engine and only the driver makes a difference.

Now casual players. Rules shouldn’t be to much out of balance but a great backstory, fluff and flair makes all the difference. Fun first, rules second but everybody should be on the same side on how to resolve the outcome on the table.

Where do I see myself? Personally I think I’m mostly a casual player. Winning is nice but having fun is much more important. If a game (like Frostgrave) has an RPG element I also like campaigns but that is the exception to the rule. Tournaments tend to be too much stress and history… well, that just doesn’t tickle my fancy.

What about you?

So on the recent XLBS the question was

What Is A Narrative Wargame?

and the discussion always seems to revolve around tournament players vs campaign players and I feel there is more to this. I’ll try to do a list.

• tournament players – always ears on the ground, chasing the meta and the latest way to cheese the game in order to win.
• campaign/narrative players – setting up a scenario or campaign with (relative) strict rules and setup in order to enjoy a long play
• historical players – recreate a battle from history with all limitations, events etc in order to re-enact the battle/war and maybe even change the course of history
• casual players – just some gamers who like the setting, the models, the fluff and like to battle it out. No big digging in old tomes and chasing meta and any advantage they can get but more „rule of cool“ and a nice day with friends at the table

I think those are the main groups of people gaming companies try to address. Historical players are, well, the easiest. History is written only the rule system matters. And as long as everything stays within what history has said all is fine and good.

Campaign/narrative players, as long as the rules are mostly balanced and every faction has their ups and downs all is good and gaming is easy.

For tournament players rules should be (IMHO) play-tested to hell and back again. Every Army should have the same chances to win so that really only the brain behind creating the army list and implementing the tactics is the deciding factor on who wins. Like in racing games when everybody uses the same car and engine and only the driver makes a difference.

Now casual players. Rules shouldn’t be to much out of balance but a great backstory, fluff and flair makes all the difference. Fun first, rules second but everybody should be on the same side on how to resolve the outcome on the table.

Where do I see myself? Personally I think I’m mostly a casual player. Winning is nice but having fun is much more important. If a game (like Frostgrave) has an RPG element I also like campaigns but that is the exception to the rule. Tournaments tend to be too much stress and history… well, that just doesn’t tickle my fancy.

What about you?

On July 4, 1976, I was almost 7. My family lived in Janesville, Wisconsin then. I remember having a picnic on the banks of the Rock River and watching fireworks. I remember thinking that it was amazing to be alive then, and I remember wondering about the next 100 years.

I figured it wasn't super-likely that I'd be around in 2076, but I did think I'd see 2026. Given that I was starting to get an interest in space and rockets and being an astronaut, I distinctly remember thinking that by 2026, the world would be awesome - moon bases, space stations (Skylab mark 40 or something). I am sure I was barely aware of war, poverty, disease, the environment if at all, but I am sure I just thought people would figure it out and learn to get along.

I wonder if there are 7-year-olds out there today who have the kind of optimism about the world that I did then. I hope they actually get to see their dreams manifested.

And I hope they can find it in their hearts to forgive us for making it so difficult for them.

#july4th #thoughts #ramblings

On July 4, 1976, I was almost 7. My family lived in Janesville, Wisconsin then. I remember having a picnic on the banks of the Rock River and watching fireworks. I remember thinking that it was amazing to be alive then, and I remember wondering about the next 100 years.

I figured it wasn't super-likely that I'd be around in 2076, but I did think I'd see 2026. Given that I was starting to get an interest in space and rockets and being an astronaut, I distinctly remember thinking that by 2026, the world would be awesome - moon bases, space stations (Skylab mark 40 or something). I am sure I was barely aware of war, poverty, disease, the environment if at all, but I am sure I just thought people would figure it out and learn to get along.

I wonder if there are 7-year-olds out there today who have the kind of optimism about the world that I did then. I hope they actually get to see their dreams manifested.

And I hope they can find it in their hearts to forgive us for making it so difficult for them.

#july4th #thoughts #ramblings

On July 4, 1976, I was almost 7. My family lived in Janesville, Wisconsin then. I remember having a picnic on the banks of the Rock River and watching fireworks. I remember thinking that it was amazing to be alive then, and I remember wondering about the next 100 years.

I figured it wasn't super-likely that I'd be around in 2076, but I did think I'd see 2026. Given that I was starting to get an interest in space and rockets and being an astronaut, I distinctly remember thinking that by 2026, the world would be awesome - moon bases, space stations (Skylab mark 40 or something). I am sure I was barely aware of war, poverty, disease, the environment if at all, but I am sure I just thought people would figure it out and learn to get along.

I wonder if there are 7-year-olds out there today who have the kind of optimism about the world that I did then. I hope they actually get to see their dreams manifested.

And I hope they can find it in their hearts to forgive us for making it so difficult for them.

#july4th #thoughts #ramblings

On July 4, 1976, I was almost 7. My family lived in Janesville, Wisconsin then. I remember having a picnic on the banks of the Rock River and watching fireworks. I remember thinking that it was amazing to be alive then, and I remember wondering about the next 100 years.

I figured it wasn't super-likely that I'd be around in 2076, but I did think I'd see 2026. Given that I was starting to get an interest in space and rockets and being an astronaut, I distinctly remember thinking that by 2026, the world would be awesome - moon bases, space stations (Skylab mark 40 or something). I am sure I was barely aware of war, poverty, disease, the environment if at all, but I am sure I just thought people would figure it out and learn to get along.

I wonder if there are 7-year-olds out there today who have the kind of optimism about the world that I did then. I hope they actually get to see their dreams manifested.

And I hope they can find it in their hearts to forgive us for making it so difficult for them.

#july4th #thoughts #ramblings

On July 4, 1976, I was almost 7. My family lived in Janesville, Wisconsin then. I remember having a picnic on the banks of the Rock River and watching fireworks. I remember thinking that it was amazing to be alive then, and I remember wondering about the next 100 years.

I figured it wasn't super-likely that I'd be around in 2076, but I did think I'd see 2026. Given that I was starting to get an interest in space and rockets and being an astronaut, I distinctly remember thinking that by 2026, the world would be awesome - moon bases, space stations (Skylab mark 40 or something). I am sure I was barely aware of war, poverty, disease, the environment if at all, but I am sure I just thought people would figure it out and learn to get along.

I wonder if there are 7-year-olds out there today who have the kind of optimism about the world that I did then. I hope they actually get to see their dreams manifested.

And I hope they can find it in their hearts to forgive us for making it so difficult for them.

#july4th #thoughts #ramblings

I was talking to a friend last week about a personal/work project I had about 10 years ago where every month or so, I had to change my mind (properly!) about something I believed in – Which in this case, meant I had to go and seek things out because it’s really hard to do every month unless it’s active.

It’s half of the reason I spent so long embedded in Flat-Earth and Scientology; the other half was that I was researching pathways to radicalisation and trying to trace a lot of them to the source and exit.

I was listening to a Sherlock Holmes podcast yesterday and realised that being able to change your mind completely about something is a core investigative skill (and this is how I increased my B2B sales… No! No… Away with you LinkedIn!).

Good investigative technique means having a theory of the case from the start, but then, importantly, it means deliberately challenging it and then changing it, when new evidence emerges. It can be a lot of paperwork and mental gymnastics. Sticking to the original theory of a case and looking for evidence to support it is what created the Birmingham Six and the Central Park Five. Completely irresponsible and incompetent police work and static minds are a liability to any good casework (see also: Donald Trump who is still trying to execute the CP5).

This isn’t really going anywhere except to note that although Sherlock was excellent at changing case-theories (and does so a lot in the books), his creator, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, of Cottingley Fairies and Harry Houdini feud fame, was so bad at it that he’d certainly have had a leadership role waiting in the West Midlands Police any time.

Ironically, the person in his most famous stories that he can be most said to resemble, is Lestrade of the Yard.

#Books #SherlockHomes #Detective #Investigation #TrustAndSafety #Fairies #Police #Crime #Houdini #Ramblings #ASIS #FlatEarth #Scientology #Radicalization #LinkedIn #B2B

I was talking to a friend last week about a personal/work project I had about 10 years ago where every month or so, I had to change my mind (properly!) about something I believed in – Which in this case, meant I had to go and seek things out because it’s really hard to do every month unless it’s active.

It’s half of the reason I spent so long embedded in Flat-Earth and Scientology; the other half was that I was researching pathways to radicalisation and trying to trace a lot of them to the source and exit.

I was listening to a Sherlock Holmes podcast yesterday and realised that being able to change your mind completely about something is a core investigative skill (and this is how I increased my B2B sales… No! No… Away with you LinkedIn!).

Good investigative technique means having a theory of the case from the start, but then, importantly, it means deliberately challenging it and then changing it, when new evidence emerges. It can be a lot of paperwork and mental gymnastics. Sticking to the original theory of a case and looking for evidence to support it is what created the Birmingham Six and the Central Park Five. Completely irresponsible and incompetent police work and static minds are a liability to any good casework (see also: Donald Trump who is still trying to execute the CP5).

This isn’t really going anywhere except to note that although Sherlock was excellent at changing case-theories (and does so a lot in the books), his creator, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, of Cottingley Fairies and Harry Houdini feud fame, was so bad at it that he’d certainly have had a leadership role waiting in the West Midlands Police any time.

Ironically, the person in his most famous stories that he can be most said to resemble, is Lestrade of the Yard.

#Books #SherlockHomes #Detective #Investigation #TrustAndSafety #Fairies #Police #Crime #Houdini #Ramblings #ASIS #FlatEarth #Scientology #Radicalization #LinkedIn #B2B

I was talking to a friend last week about a personal/work project I had about 10 years ago where every month or so, I had to change my mind (properly!) about something I believed in – Which in this case, meant I had to go and seek things out because it’s really hard to do every month unless it’s active.

It’s half of the reason I spent so long embedded in Flat-Earth and Scientology; the other half was that I was researching pathways to radicalisation and trying to trace a lot of them to the source and exit.

I was listening to a Sherlock Holmes podcast yesterday and realised that being able to change your mind completely about something is a core investigative skill (and this is how I increased my B2B sales… No! No… Away with you LinkedIn!).

Good investigative technique means having a theory of the case from the start, but then, importantly, it means deliberately challenging it and then changing it, when new evidence emerges. It can be a lot of paperwork and mental gymnastics. Sticking to the original theory of a case and looking for evidence to support it is what created the Birmingham Six and the Central Park Five. Completely irresponsible and incompetent police work and static minds are a liability to any good casework (see also: Donald Trump who is still trying to execute the CP5).

This isn’t really going anywhere except to note that although Sherlock was excellent at changing case-theories (and does so a lot in the books), his creator, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, of Cottingley Fairies and Harry Houdini feud fame, was so bad at it that he’d certainly have had a leadership role waiting in the West Midlands Police any time.

Ironically, the person in his most famous stories that he can be most said to resemble, is Lestrade of the Yard.

#Books #SherlockHomes #Detective #Investigation #TrustAndSafety #Fairies #Police #Crime #Houdini #Ramblings #ASIS #FlatEarth #Scientology #Radicalization #LinkedIn #B2B

I was talking to a friend last week about a personal/work project I had about 10 years ago where every month or so, I had to change my mind (properly!) about something I believed in – Which in this case, meant I had to go and seek things out because it’s really hard to do every month unless it’s active.

It’s half of the reason I spent so long embedded in Flat-Earth and Scientology; the other half was that I was researching pathways to radicalisation and trying to trace a lot of them to the source and exit.

I was listening to a Sherlock Holmes podcast yesterday and realised that being able to change your mind completely about something is a core investigative skill (and this is how I increased my B2B sales… No! No… Away with you LinkedIn!).

Good investigative technique means having a theory of the case from the start, but then, importantly, it means deliberately challenging it and then changing it, when new evidence emerges. It can be a lot of paperwork and mental gymnastics. Sticking to the original theory of a case and looking for evidence to support it is what created the Birmingham Six and the Central Park Five. Completely irresponsible and incompetent police work and static minds are a liability to any good casework (see also: Donald Trump who is still trying to execute the CP5).

This isn’t really going anywhere except to note that although Sherlock was excellent at changing case-theories (and does so a lot in the books), his creator, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, of Cottingley Fairies and Harry Houdini feud fame, was so bad at it that he’d certainly have had a leadership role waiting in the West Midlands Police any time.

Ironically, the person in his most famous stories that he can be most said to resemble, is Lestrade of the Yard.

#Books #SherlockHomes #Detective #Investigation #TrustAndSafety #Fairies #Police #Crime #Houdini #Ramblings #ASIS #FlatEarth #Scientology #Radicalization #LinkedIn #B2B

I was talking to a friend last week about a personal/work project I had about 10 years ago where every month or so, I had to change my mind (properly!) about something I believed in – Which in this case, meant I had to go and seek things out because it’s really hard to do every month unless it’s active.

It’s half of the reason I spent so long embedded in Flat-Earth and Scientology; the other half was that I was researching pathways to radicalisation and trying to trace a lot of them to the source and exit.

I was listening to a Sherlock Holmes podcast yesterday and realised that being able to change your mind completely about something is a core investigative skill (and this is how I increased my B2B sales… No! No… Away with you LinkedIn!).

Good investigative technique means having a theory of the case from the start, but then, importantly, it means deliberately challenging it and then changing it, when new evidence emerges. It can be a lot of paperwork and mental gymnastics. Sticking to the original theory of a case and looking for evidence to support it is what created the Birmingham Six and the Central Park Five. Completely irresponsible and incompetent police work and static minds are a liability to any good casework (see also: Donald Trump who is still trying to execute the CP5).

This isn’t really going anywhere except to note that although Sherlock was excellent at changing case-theories (and does so a lot in the books), his creator, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, of Cottingley Fairies and Harry Houdini feud fame, was so bad at it that he’d certainly have had a leadership role waiting in the West Midlands Police any time.

Ironically, the person in his most famous stories that he can be most said to resemble, is Lestrade of the Yard.

#Books #SherlockHomes #Detective #Investigation #TrustAndSafety #Fairies #Police #Crime #Houdini #Ramblings #ASIS #FlatEarth #Scientology #Radicalization #LinkedIn #B2B

The gap of what’s not said

I first heard of Pizzicato Five about twenty-some years ago during my Science Fiction and Fantasy class (I know, it was weird and awesome); but I didn’t know they were part of a movement known as Shibuya Kei until very recently when I’ve started to explore more about Japanese 90’s pop because it’s one of those things you just do, that’s one of the reasons why the internet was invented.

Shibuya Kei is an hyper-stylized, hyper-glamorous, hyper-aesthetic and ultra-chic movement inspired in 60’s and 70’s French Pop and bossa nova. Downtown Tokyo kids seeking refuge in the happy and cheerful tones of Rio and Paris. From what? The thing about cultural expressions is that sometimes it’s not about what’s being yelled at you, but about the massive, echoing gap left by what isn’t being said.

Like every cultural movement Shibuya Kei is a product of its place and time. That whole scene peaked exactly when the Japanese economic bubble burst. The “Lost Decade” was starting, lifetime employment was dying, and instead of screaming about it, young people chose this radical superficiality. They built a beautiful, sun-drenched, cinematic fantasy world inside Shibuya record shops. It was a total refusal to participate in a broken corporate monoculture.

Unfortunately you can only do that for so long. In the late 90s, when it was obvious things weren’t going to get better any time soon, you get the raw, anxious guitars of Number Girl, and then later, an act like Midori. Midori is just wild, a frantic avant-garde jazz piano mixed with blistering hardcore punk, fronted by a woman screaming in a torn school uniform. They’re like that annoying piece of food stuck in your teeth. It’s just there, and even after you remove it, the sensation remains for far longer.

You rebel against the machine, and then you either implode or become part of it.

We romanticize the rebels and that’s a feeling that’s often weaponized against us. Look at the Sex Pistols. They weren’t walking some noble tightrope between teenage rebellion and corporate interests; they were essentially a manufactured boy band engineered by Malcolm McLaren to sell clothes to kids ever more willing to pay to express their frustrations. Or look at Frankie Goes to Hollywood and the massive BBC ban over “Relax” because of its explicit queer themes. The establishment had a moral meltdown, banned it, and immediately triggered the Streisand effect. It shot to Number 1, and the label turned the censorship into a massive t-shirt marketing campaign.

Which of course made me thing about how the Catholic Church tried to silence Galileo and his heliocentric view of the universe.

When the Roman Inquisition forced Galileo to kneel in 1633 and sign a humiliating recantation of heliocentrism, they thought they won. They silenced the messenger. We have this romantic myth that he whispered “And yet it moves” as he walked away, but he didn’t. He was a sick old man who didn’t want to get burned at the stake like Giordano Bruno. He signed the lie and went on to live his last days in peace. Frankly, I would’ve done the same: “sure, whatever makes you happy. The moon is made of cheese, you say? Yeah, whatever. Can I go home now?”

But by then the spark his ideas had started had already caught. And that’s the catastrophic flaw of the censor. You can ban a song, you can burn a record, and you can kill a heretic. But you cannot hide elemental truths.

The universe is a permanent backup copy. The stars kept moving in their precise, mathematical orbits every single night regardless of what the Pope forced Galileo to sign. The fire was already growing in the Protestant North where the Vatican couldn’t reach, passing from Kepler to Newton. By trying to freeze the truth, the southern establishment didn’t stop the science. You can’t negotiate with the laws of physics.

It’s exactly what makes the anime Orb: On the Movements of the Earth (and its manga) such a spectacular piece of work. The show relentlessly kills off its main characters because it understands the ultimate optimistic truth of reality: the individual links in the chain are fragile and anonymous, but the message is completely decentralized. If you haven’t watched it go right now.

In the end, whether it’s a filthy synth bassline dominating the charts despite a BBC ban, a punk singer calling out a protected institutional predator into a live microphone, or a broken astronomer staring at the sky under house arrest, it’s all the same friction. The establishment will always try to organize reality into neat, profitable, compliant little boxes. And they will always fail, because the sky isn’t going anywhere.

#music #ramblings #shibuyaKei

The gap of what’s not said

I first heard of Pizzicato Five about twenty-some years ago during my Science Fiction and Fantasy class (I know, it was weird and awesome); but I didn’t know they were part of a movement known as Shibuya Kei until very recently when I’ve started to explore more about Japanese 90’s pop because it’s one of those things you just do, that’s one of the reasons why the internet was invented.

Shibuya Kei is an hyper-stylized, hyper-glamorous, hyper-aesthetic and ultra-chic movement inspired in 60’s and 70’s French Pop and bossa nova. Downtown Tokyo kids seeking refuge in the happy and cheerful tones of Rio and Paris. From what? The thing about cultural expressions is that sometimes it’s not about what’s being yelled at you, but about the massive, echoing gap left by what isn’t being said.

Like every cultural movement Shibuya Kei is a product of its place and time. That whole scene peaked exactly when the Japanese economic bubble burst. The “Lost Decade” was starting, lifetime employment was dying, and instead of screaming about it, young people chose this radical superficiality. They built a beautiful, sun-drenched, cinematic fantasy world inside Shibuya record shops. It was a total refusal to participate in a broken corporate monoculture.

Unfortunately you can only do that for so long. In the late 90s, when it was obvious things weren’t going to get better any time soon, you get the raw, anxious guitars of Number Girl, and then later, an act like Midori. Midori is just wild, a frantic avant-garde jazz piano mixed with blistering hardcore punk, fronted by a woman screaming in a torn school uniform. They’re like that annoying piece of food stuck in your teeth. It’s just there, and even after you remove it, the sensation remains for far longer.

You rebel against the machine, and then you either implode or become part of it.

We romanticize the rebels and that’s a feeling that’s often weaponized against us. Look at the Sex Pistols. They weren’t walking some noble tightrope between teenage rebellion and corporate interests; they were essentially a manufactured boy band engineered by Malcolm McLaren to sell clothes to kids ever more willing to pay to express their frustrations. Or look at Frankie Goes to Hollywood and the massive BBC ban over “Relax” because of its explicit queer themes. The establishment had a moral meltdown, banned it, and immediately triggered the Streisand effect. It shot to Number 1, and the label turned the censorship into a massive t-shirt marketing campaign.

Which of course made me thing about how the Catholic Church tried to silence Galileo and his heliocentric view of the universe.

When the Roman Inquisition forced Galileo to kneel in 1633 and sign a humiliating recantation of heliocentrism, they thought they won. They silenced the messenger. We have this romantic myth that he whispered “And yet it moves” as he walked away, but he didn’t. He was a sick old man who didn’t want to get burned at the stake like Giordano Bruno. He signed the lie and went on to live his last days in peace. Frankly, I would’ve done the same: “sure, whatever makes you happy. The moon is made of cheese, you say? Yeah, whatever. Can I go home now?”

But by then the spark his ideas had started had already caught. And that’s the catastrophic flaw of the censor. You can ban a song, you can burn a record, and you can kill a heretic. But you cannot hide elemental truths.

The universe is a permanent backup copy. The stars kept moving in their precise, mathematical orbits every single night regardless of what the Pope forced Galileo to sign. The fire was already growing in the Protestant North where the Vatican couldn’t reach, passing from Kepler to Newton. By trying to freeze the truth, the southern establishment didn’t stop the science. You can’t negotiate with the laws of physics.

It’s exactly what makes the anime Orb: On the Movements of the Earth (and its manga) such a spectacular piece of work. The show relentlessly kills off its main characters because it understands the ultimate optimistic truth of reality: the individual links in the chain are fragile and anonymous, but the message is completely decentralized. If you haven’t watched it go right now.

In the end, whether it’s a filthy synth bassline dominating the charts despite a BBC ban, a punk singer calling out a protected institutional predator into a live microphone, or a broken astronomer staring at the sky under house arrest, it’s all the same friction. The establishment will always try to organize reality into neat, profitable, compliant little boxes. And they will always fail, because the sky isn’t going anywhere.

#music #ramblings #shibuyaKei

I’m always learning about special days way too late. Like today was Autistic Pride Day. :drgn_flag_autism::BhjFlag_Autism::neorat_autism:

I’m always learning about special days way too late. Like today was Autistic Pride Day. :drgn_flag_autism::BhjFlag_Autism::neorat_autism:

I’m always learning about special days way too late. Like today was Autistic Pride Day. :drgn_flag_autism::BhjFlag_Autism::neorat_autism:

I’m always learning about special days way too late. Like today was Autistic Pride Day. :drgn_flag_autism::BhjFlag_Autism::neorat_autism:

Been awhile but I did a blog again.

https://see-the-sky.pika.page/posts/rambling-photography-life-and-light

#photography #ramblings

Been awhile but I did a blog again.

https://see-the-sky.pika.page/posts/rambling-photography-life-and-light

#photography #ramblings

Okay, so, with my decade+ of experience of being on social media, I've noticed a trend within recent years about pretty much all social platforms. I think there's a critical mass of users on a platform where it becomes impossible to properly enforce. Inevitably, there will be a sheer volume of bad actors that no matter what the platform does, cannot stop completely and it becomes public knowledge/source of scrutiny.

There isn't a single large platform I can name that doesn't have the problem of toxic behavior, child abuse/exploitation, NSFW rings, (the kind that aren't tagged/gated properly) etc. Doesn't matter what their moderation policies/enforcement is. It doesn't matter if a platform like #Discord files millions of NCMEC reports or bans millions of accounts a year. There's simply too many malicious users to handle and it's impossible to prevent them from coming back in some form or another or new ones joining the platform.

Sure, if you have say, 10,000 users, that's way easier for a small team of mods to handle, but what about 1 million? 10 million? 100+ million? There's no way a company/organization can afford a team to handle that sheer volume of communication and interaction, and we all know automated systems are deeply flawed and clearly do not stop the problem. Inevitably, a larger and larger number of bad actors slip through the cracks. Those cracks widen as more users join and moderation systems become increasingly strained. Regarding the NCMEC bit, Discord alone files over 500,000 reports, do you seriously think the NCMEC has the resources to look into every report and do something about it? Obviously not. And that's just Discord.

It's a huge reason why punitive actions don't work well, nor things like telling parents to monitor their kids. There's simply too many to keep track of all at once, and it's why I stress the importance of educational methods when it comes to protecting people. Education is a form of preventative measure instead of all the reactive ones we see on these platforms. Teaching a kid why this kind of content is harmful, how to avoid it, what to do if they do come across it, how to not get sucked into it or become a bad actor themself, etc will do way more than just a losing arms race of updating moderation systems and filters. It better addresses the cause rather than just the symptom.

All of this is simply the consequence of mass-centralization and the network effect on steroids. It's easier than ever before to connect with so many people and the possibility for interaction-- good or bad exponentially increases. Until eventually, it becomes unsustainable and causes huge swaths of harm.

#Essay #LongPost #Ramblings #SocialMedia #Commentary #Centralization #Reddit #Tumblr #YouTube #Roblox #Twitter #Facebook #Instagram #TikTok

Okay, so, with my decade+ of experience of being on social media, I've noticed a trend within recent years about pretty much all social platforms. I think there's a critical mass of users on a platform where it becomes impossible to properly enforce. Inevitably, there will be a sheer volume of bad actors that no matter what the platform does, cannot stop completely and it becomes public knowledge/source of scrutiny.

There isn't a single large platform I can name that doesn't have the problem of toxic behavior, child abuse/exploitation, NSFW rings, (the kind that aren't tagged/gated properly) etc. Doesn't matter what their moderation policies/enforcement is. It doesn't matter if a platform like #Discord files millions of NCMEC reports or bans millions of accounts a year. There's simply too many malicious users to handle and it's impossible to prevent them from coming back in some form or another or new ones joining the platform.

Sure, if you have say, 10,000 users, that's way easier for a small team of mods to handle, but what about 1 million? 10 million? 100+ million? There's no way a company/organization can afford a team to handle that sheer volume of communication and interaction, and we all know automated systems are deeply flawed and clearly do not stop the problem. Inevitably, a larger and larger number of bad actors slip through the cracks. Those cracks widen as more users join and moderation systems become increasingly strained. Regarding the NCMEC bit, Discord alone files over 500,000 reports, do you seriously think the NCMEC has the resources to look into every report and do something about it? Obviously not. And that's just Discord.

It's a huge reason why punitive actions don't work well, nor things like telling parents to monitor their kids. There's simply too many to keep track of all at once, and it's why I stress the importance of educational methods when it comes to protecting people. Education is a form of preventative measure instead of all the reactive ones we see on these platforms. Teaching a kid why this kind of content is harmful, how to avoid it, what to do if they do come across it, how to not get sucked into it or become a bad actor themself, etc will do way more than just a losing arms race of updating moderation systems and filters. It better addresses the cause rather than just the symptom.

All of this is simply the consequence of mass-centralization and the network effect on steroids. It's easier than ever before to connect with so many people and the possibility for interaction-- good or bad exponentially increases. Until eventually, it becomes unsustainable and causes huge swaths of harm.

#Essay #LongPost #Ramblings #SocialMedia #Commentary #Centralization #Reddit #Tumblr #YouTube #Roblox #Twitter #Facebook #Instagram #TikTok

Okay, so, with my decade+ of experience of being on social media, I've noticed a trend within recent years about pretty much all social platforms. I think there's a critical mass of users on a platform where it becomes impossible to properly enforce. Inevitably, there will be a sheer volume of bad actors that no matter what the platform does, cannot stop completely and it becomes public knowledge/source of scrutiny.

There isn't a single large platform I can name that doesn't have the problem of toxic behavior, child abuse/exploitation, NSFW rings, (the kind that aren't tagged/gated properly) etc. Doesn't matter what their moderation policies/enforcement is. It doesn't matter if a platform like #Discord files millions of NCMEC reports or bans millions of accounts a year. There's simply too many malicious users to handle and it's impossible to prevent them from coming back in some form or another or new ones joining the platform.

Sure, if you have say, 10,000 users, that's way easier for a small team of mods to handle, but what about 1 million? 10 million? 100+ million? There's no way a company/organization can afford a team to handle that sheer volume of communication and interaction, and we all know automated systems are deeply flawed and clearly do not stop the problem. Inevitably, a larger and larger number of bad actors slip through the cracks. Those cracks widen as more users join and moderation systems become increasingly strained. Regarding the NCMEC bit, Discord alone files over 500,000 reports, do you seriously think the NCMEC has the resources to look into every report and do something about it? Obviously not. And that's just Discord.

It's a huge reason why punitive actions don't work well, nor things like telling parents to monitor their kids. There's simply too many to keep track of all at once, and it's why I stress the importance of educational methods when it comes to protecting people. Education is a form of preventative measure instead of all the reactive ones we see on these platforms. Teaching a kid why this kind of content is harmful, how to avoid it, what to do if they do come across it, how to not get sucked into it or become a bad actor themself, etc will do way more than just a losing arms race of updating moderation systems and filters. It better addresses the cause rather than just the symptom.

All of this is simply the consequence of mass-centralization and the network effect on steroids. It's easier than ever before to connect with so many people and the possibility for interaction-- good or bad exponentially increases. Until eventually, it becomes unsustainable and causes huge swaths of harm.

#Essay #LongPost #Ramblings #SocialMedia #Commentary #Centralization #Reddit #Tumblr #YouTube #Roblox #Twitter #Facebook #Instagram #TikTok

Okay, so, with my decade+ of experience of being on social media, I've noticed a trend within recent years about pretty much all social platforms. I think there's a critical mass of users on a platform where it becomes impossible to properly enforce. Inevitably, there will be a sheer volume of bad actors that no matter what the platform does, cannot stop completely and it becomes public knowledge/source of scrutiny.

There isn't a single large platform I can name that doesn't have the problem of toxic behavior, child abuse/exploitation, NSFW rings, (the kind that aren't tagged/gated properly) etc. Doesn't matter what their moderation policies/enforcement is. It doesn't matter if a platform like #Discord files millions of NCMEC reports or bans millions of accounts a year. There's simply too many malicious users to handle and it's impossible to prevent them from coming back in some form or another or new ones joining the platform.

Sure, if you have say, 10,000 users, that's way easier for a small team of mods to handle, but what about 1 million? 10 million? 100+ million? There's no way a company/organization can afford a team to handle that sheer volume of communication and interaction, and we all know automated systems are deeply flawed and clearly do not stop the problem. Inevitably, a larger and larger number of bad actors slip through the cracks. Those cracks widen as more users join and moderation systems become increasingly strained. Regarding the NCMEC bit, Discord alone files over 500,000 reports, do you seriously think the NCMEC has the resources to look into every report and do something about it? Obviously not. And that's just Discord.

It's a huge reason why punitive actions don't work well, nor things like telling parents to monitor their kids. There's simply too many to keep track of all at once, and it's why I stress the importance of educational methods when it comes to protecting people. Education is a form of preventative measure instead of all the reactive ones we see on these platforms. Teaching a kid why this kind of content is harmful, how to avoid it, what to do if they do come across it, how to not get sucked into it or become a bad actor themself, etc will do way more than just a losing arms race of updating moderation systems and filters. It better addresses the cause rather than just the symptom.

All of this is simply the consequence of mass-centralization and the network effect on steroids. It's easier than ever before to connect with so many people and the possibility for interaction-- good or bad exponentially increases. Until eventually, it becomes unsustainable and causes huge swaths of harm.

#Essay #LongPost #Ramblings #SocialMedia #Commentary #Centralization #Reddit #Tumblr #YouTube #Roblox #Twitter #Facebook #Instagram #TikTok

I find it funny how there are 2D artists who try to make their 2D art look 3D and how there are 3D artists who try to make their 3D art look 2D.

#2DArtist #3DArtist #2DArt #3DArt #Ramblings

Mini data centers outside your home. Yeah… no thanks! https://youtu.be/ZoYeJwN7Rkw?si=xlBMS054F-uIQxHl

Mini data centers outside your home. Yeah… no thanks! https://youtu.be/ZoYeJwN7Rkw?si=xlBMS054F-uIQxHl

Mini data centers outside your home. Yeah… no thanks! https://youtu.be/ZoYeJwN7Rkw?si=xlBMS054F-uIQxHl

Mini data centers outside your home. Yeah… no thanks! https://youtu.be/ZoYeJwN7Rkw?si=xlBMS054F-uIQxHl

Mini data centers outside your home. Yeah… no thanks! https://youtu.be/ZoYeJwN7Rkw?si=xlBMS054F-uIQxHl

:wlfHide:
Well I’m not cured but I am feeling a lot better than I was earlier this week for sure. I’m on antibiotics now. I really wanted to attend the fossil festival. Now I gotta wait until next year. 🫩

:wlfHide:
Well I’m not cured but I am feeling a lot better than I was earlier this week for sure. I’m on antibiotics now. I really wanted to attend the fossil festival. Now I gotta wait until next year. 🫩

:wlfHide:
Well I’m not cured but I am feeling a lot better than I was earlier this week for sure. I’m on antibiotics now. I really wanted to attend the fossil festival. Now I gotta wait until next year. 🫩

:BlobCat_Masked::BlobCat_Googly_Sad: Tired of being sick already

:BlobCat_Masked::BlobCat_Googly_Sad: Tired of being sick already

:BlobCat_Masked::BlobCat_Googly_Sad: Tired of being sick already

Well. A stranger on the internet calling my situation with my dad “white people problems” brought on a new type of pain for me. Do I have to say ABUSE for you to understand? Or is it only abuse if he hits me or worse? Are you one of those who make fun of emotional abuse normally? I checked his profile, man’s in his 40’s bullying someone 12 years younger than him while also posting hypocritical things. Wow. I really hate us humans sometimes.

Well. A stranger on the internet calling my situation with my dad “white people problems” brought on a new type of pain for me. Do I have to say ABUSE for you to understand? Or is it only abuse if he hits me or worse? Are you one of those who make fun of emotional abuse normally? I checked his profile, man’s in his 40’s bullying someone 12 years younger than him while also posting hypocritical things. Wow. I really hate us humans sometimes.

Well. A stranger on the internet calling my situation with my dad “white people problems” brought on a new type of pain for me. Do I have to say ABUSE for you to understand? Or is it only abuse if he hits me or worse? Are you one of those who make fun of emotional abuse normally? I checked his profile, man’s in his 40’s bullying someone 12 years younger than him while also posting hypocritical things. Wow. I really hate us humans sometimes.