I don't think I've seen any James Bond films, nor have I read any of the books. For 'modern action-type novels', I read The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising; Nimitz Class and its first sequel, Kilo Class (don't remember the plot of either, other than a US aircraft carrier battle group being sunk by a nuclear torpedo); and Interface (1994).
So I'd say I think the Mission: Impossible film series is better. For example, in MI: Rogue Nation , when the character Benji is playing a computer game at work at the CIA and conceals this from a superior. This was an example of government dysfunction: he was employed, but did not have anything useful to do. Do the James Bond films ever criticize government institutions in this way?
The end of MI: Fallout, not adequately described on English Wikipedia, which limits film summaries to 700 words (except for Indian films). The character Ethan, aka Tom Cruise's character, is lying in a hospital bed after having been rescued by the Indian Army before he succumbed to exposure. There is a moment where Ethan struggles to sit up so he can observe the encounter between Julia, the person he was previously in a relationship with, and Ilsa, the person who appears to be his new romantic interest. Even though Julia is now married to someone else, it's still important to Ethan whether Julia views Ilsa as a rival.
I haven't seen MI: III, where Julia first appeared, or the MI films that came out in 2023 and 2025. I did see MI: 2 (2000), for the first time maybe 8 years ago, and I viewed it negatively that Ethan was romantically involved with the character Nyah (pronounced like Naya, I don't know what they were thinking with that spelling) but she did not appear in later films. Compare the Jason Bourne films (I have not seen the start of the first one), where romantic relationships do last until the next film but a character is killed off so exciting things can happen as part of the plot.
My reply when Hanna asked me if I was sad when I learned that Elyse had married someone: "I cried but I think I almost immediately forgot that I was sad." The words, "I was sad" are not the same as the feeling, "I am sad". I'm happy that she married someone. I hope that the baby that was implied by the items on her wedding wish list thing on a website was delivered safely and is doing well now.
I would say this even if Elyse getting married means that I will always be alone, even if I live for another 50 years.
So I think what someone has to ask themselves if they want to be in a relationship with me is, would Elyse consider that person to have harmed her?
Some things that might not be obvious about the game for dating sites. Logic behind measuring things: suppose that dating sites do not currently provide good signals of someone's attractiveness. Viva La Dirt League has a skit about this. The absolute worst dating experience: everyone is blindfolded in a big room. The first person of the opposite gender that you bump into, you spend two hours together with in a room. If you decide you're not interested in them after 10 seconds, you still have to stay there, and you can't use any portable electronic devices (or books!) while you wait.
If someone is willing to reject others who are not good enough, then they will reject people who fail the game. The game does not magically make unattractive people attractive. If the method for selecting people to start a conversation with is not good, then the rate of failures will not improve. It will just take less time: no need to go on multiple dates to find out someone is not compatible. (People often say the reason for a relationship failing was that their partner was a narcissist, and you could say this game helps identify someone with that personality characteristic.)
Second: the lack of a middle option, "I have the same attractiveness as the person in the photo", is important. If answer X is the truth, and the only other possible response is Y, then it's easy to criticize the response of Y. If there is a middle option, then someone can avoid criticism even if they don't select X (the truth).
There's actually a Discworld novel named The Truth. It's probably relevant here.
Also, the dialogue near the end of Carpe Jugulum, about grays. This is actually the bit that I screenshotted, on 04 Jan 2022 at 21:11:30. I'm sure I was sending it to someone, but don't remember who (—it was that I was sending it to, not 'whom'). Unreadable tiny text in image preview:
 |
| Carpe Jugulum.png |
If you think of the correct thing to do as being either 'correct' or 'not correct', you don't excuse people who choose something other than 'correct'. If you create new categories, 'almost correct', 'somewhat correct', etc., you find it harder to punish people who don't choose 'correct'. Of course, when 'correct' is defined by rules in a book, you get the religion shown in Small Gods.
But this is about dating sites. This is sort of giving away the game, not supposed to talk about this, but: suppose someone (P2) has the intention of always telling the truth. To use the 'rating system', they think they are a 5.71 out of 10.
They are presented with a photo that they evaluate as 5.74 out of 10. They say they are less attractive than the person in the photo, and that their answer is honest.
The questioner (P1) doubts the first response, saying it's a lie. Based on P2's true answer, P1 is wrong, and P2 gets the point.
Did P2 lie? They could start to doubt themselves: "am I ruining my self-esteem by looking at Instagram too much?". And P1 has to consider the possibility that P2 is doubting themselves, as well as the possibility that P1 was lying and their true self-evaluation is that they are a 5.85 out of 10. If P2 is acting guilty, which could manifest as various emotions and actions, is it because they intended to lie, or because they intended to tell the truth?
I will unpublish this post if I log into this website again before people use this idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment