The Hyperion Cantos is a masterpiece which every scifi fan ought to have read, but I would like to recommend a lesser known title of Simmons for readers who have read at least some works of Charles Dickens (self-explanatory) and Wilkie Collins (such as The Woman in White or The Moonstone).
Simmons wrote Drood (2009), which takes these two classical authors and places them in a mystery novel. What struck me as particularly masterful is that Simmons managed to write his prose in such a way that as a reader you soon forget that this book was not written in the 1800s — his tone and style match that of Dickens and Collins so convincingly.
Great writer. For people who want to get a taste of Simmons without committing to an entire book, I would recommend this (very) short story: The River Styx Runs Upstream[1].
Despite being a huge fan of Simmons I had originally passed on this one because I didn't care for the Dickens novels I had read in school. At a family gathering I was surprised to learn that my Grandma was a big Simmons fan. She convinced me to give Drood a shot and sure enough I really enjoyed it! So I'd say it's worth checking out even if you're not a big Dickens reader.
I read Hyperion and I found it... alright, just not my thing. Maybe it is indeed a masterpiece but "that every fan of sci-fi ought to have read" oversells it. I honestly can't conscion the time to read the rest of the Cantos versus other things on my reading list. Quality does not alone compel consumption! :)
You have to read it all the way through. It’s a pretty hefty investment, but the series is truly a masterpiece. I had to read the whole series twice to feel like I was actually starting to understand some of the symbolism. I don’t blame people for not being able to get into it; it’s dense. But it’s so epic and there is so much symbolism and philosophy packed in.
I tried reading it but I couldn't get into it. Maybe it the heavy religious themes or just the science fiction being so far into the future? I really should give it a shot again
It starts very slowly and the worldbuilding is exquisite and you will likely uncover many facets only upon rereading it. However, it is well worth persisting.
Works with considerably more action are Olympus and Ilium.
I’m not saying that you have to be religious. But if you find those topics and related symbolisms rather uninteresting in your sci-fi, then the books may not be for you.
People are interesting, and religion is a thing people do.
In this case there is quasi-religious imagery but you as the reader aren't actually supposed to be mystical about the god/devil in the story the way the characters themselves are. It's not C. S. Lewis
I mean, it's not my fandom, but Catholics do have a wicked sense of symbolism and decoration. Hyperion wouldn't be as colourful if Simmons used a bunch of Evangelicals instead.
To be fair, the first novel Hyperion is quite literally a survey of major world religions, not just Christianity. It does settle onto Christian symbolism in the second book onward, but the first two novels alone are still worth reading for their ideas. No affinity required, it's just the default Western canon at work.
It’s particular topics of that canon, and you have to fancy their treatment in a science-fiction setting. Some people like science-fiction because/when it proposes fresh perspectives that aren’t rooted in, by lack of a better description, non-enlightenment parts of that canon.
The clean slate of banks - where we discarded culture to embrace the "culture" and look where this "winging" it got us. Turns out the operating system of a society is important- and the atheist distilled synthetic one is not really working - same goes for alot of others.
The utopist urge for cultural tabula rasa is a retardation, a attempt of the brain to shirk embracing and discovering complexity. One has to look at the "backwards" parts to start to understand what works in a society and with the actual human beeings lifing in a actual society, not the wingless Star Trek Angels in PJs.
Embrace complexity, embrace analysis, build something without defining the endstate first. Make small things that work, combine them into bigger things that work. Way less calling for cullings of the "sabotaging traitors" as they are usual with utopists on the march.
I don't want to dogpile on the other comments (atheist, loved the book) but I think there's something interesting here.
Most science fiction tends to assume that religiosity will fade as humanity matures, and in a few thousand years we'll all have a good laugh at those silly ancient humans. This feels generally right to me. But it's not the only possible future, and Hyperion explores a far future in which religiosity becomes more ingrained.
I thought it was one of the more interesting aspects of the book, and contributed to the feeling of "not just another space opera". You don't have to appreciate religion to like the story.
It's interesting how different stories have different underlying religious underpinnings in different parts of the world. It's important to consider that these themes are precisely because the stories are born from the surrounding culture.
Christian references in the Cantos were probably incidental, given the expected familiarity of the intended audience (american white male young men). eg The Matrix trilogy started with the obvious messianic hero's journey, then attempted to expand it in the following films (karma, cycles of death and rebirth, etc).
For some, these religious messages can be a turn off, I agree. I happened to be raised in a culture that allowed me to ignore it more or less and I can recognize that.
Not sure if I agree with the christian references being incidental ... the first book is literally a retelling of the The Canterbury Tales, all the characters are on a pilgrimage. there are a bunch of religious groups with at least one being central to the story, there are cross shaped parasites that grant eternal life.
I still think you can enjoy it without caring much about religion.
>there are cross shaped parasites that grant eternal life
Without giving away any spoilers to the books, the parasites are only that on the surface. If anything, the books present a wary picture of religion, especially the last two Endymion books, but also a wary picture of technology.
>Christian references in the Cantos were probably incidental,
They're not at all incidental. The themes and the literal Catholic Church don't just make it into the books by osmosis, they're central to it and deliberate.
Like Gene Wolfe he's part of a pretty small group of US authors who wrote Catholic speculative fiction. Like Wolfe his writing is also fairly un-American. If Heinlein or Asimov are examples of archetypal US science fiction, Simmons is about as far as the other end as you can be, with the post-modern structure, the Canterbury Tales as a template for the story and so on.
Small but significant. A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller comes immediately to mind. (And readers of this thread who did appreciate the religious themes of Hyperion may be interested.)
I had recommended Hyperion to a friend, and they loved it. I recommended Canticle as a follow-up and they hated it. I never figured out how that can be.
It's up to anybody to not have a particular taste for religious topics, however, spirituality (or the lack thereof) is an important part of human culture and psychology. Therefore a science fiction novel in a sufficiently different setting from Earth's early 21st century really ought to cover these topics as well, lest the worldbuilding would be very shallow and the resulting work would likely lack depth.
Hyperion is the better novel but Carrion Comfort is just really exciting and creepy. And the way the mind controllers treated regular humans like toys hits far too close to home now.
Oh absolutely, I don't want to spoil anything but (to sound like a nutcase for a second) if there is an Illuminati then I think they were avid readers of Carrion.
> This is what AI skills unlocked for me, and I want to walk through how.
That one sticks out.
I hate having to recalibrate how I read comments on websites. We are basically in the spam days of e-mail without any filter in sight — gasp! an em-dash! totally sus… — the cost of writing an extensive comment in faultless prose has fallen to nearly nothing, so it gets posted. Just like spam the reason for doing so seems to be for minimal effect, to move a discussion in some direction by minute degrees, or simply for the attention — perhaps to build up a credible-ish account?
Faultless in terms of grammar and orthography, but very verbose, horribly hard to focus on, full of emptiness and terribly boring, each being way more faulty than a few typos and language mistakes. Maybe I'll just start flagging these comments and HN posts more systematically.
(He later doubled down on the decision to erase any mention of the racial segregation black US soldiers were submitted to while serving in the army during WWII.)
I have no doubt that there are honest academics who publish research which actually contributes to humanity's corpus of knowledge. Whether that is some new insight into the past, observations on nature and man's interaction with it, clever chemical advances, or medical innovations which benefit mankind. People who publish works which will be looked upon as seminal and foundational in a decade or two, but also works which just focus on some particular detail and which will be of use to many researchers in the future.
But I can't shake the impression that a lot, perhaps the vast majority, of science consists of academics (postdocs and untenured researchers in particular I suppose) stuck in the publish-or-perish cycle. Pushing pointless papers where some trivial hypothesis is tested and which no one will ever use or read — except perhaps to cite for one reason or another, but rarely because it makes academic sense. Now with added slop, because why wouldn't you if the work itself is already as good as pointless?
Most scientists want to do good science. They get intrinsic meaning and satisfaction in doing so. But with any large group of people there will be a few bad faith actors that will manipulate any exploit in the system for their own personal benefit. The problem here is that 'the system' of academic appointments, and even more importantly, funding sources, are built around this publishing metric. This forces even the good faith scientists to behave poorly because it was a requisite to even being able to exist as a working researcher.
0. I think your perspective is really detached from the actual scientific enterprise. I think this kind of take exists when there are cultural clashes combined with a strong focus in the media and online with the mistakes and issues in science, not its successes.
Science is actually progressing at an amazing rate in recent years. We are curing diseases and understanding more about life and the universe faster than ever.
Like all of these are just from the past month or two and are pretty astounding advances. And they are just a subset of all of the scientific advances recently. All of them have contributors in academia (and science performed outside of academia would not exist without academia, as it depends upon it for most of the conceptual advances as well of course as for scientist training).
1. Stuff like paper mills and complete fraudsters exist, but for the most part, these things are the exception, not the rule. Your average scientist doesn't even hear or think about these things and the weirdos who cause them, to be honest. Nobody has ever heard of "International Review of Financial Analysis" outside of an extremely niche economics subfield.
2. "Public or perish" is not a cycle, really. While I believe it's not good for people to be constantly working under pressure, the fact that academia is so competitive currently is a healthy sign. It's because we have so many people with extremely impressive resumes and backgrounds, doing extremely impressive work, that makes funding so competitive. And when funding is competitive, it's no wonder that funders prefer to fund people who have produced something and told the world about it ("publish").
3. Fraudsters and hucksters have been in science forever. Go read an account of science in the early 19th century. There are tons and tons of stories of crazy scientists who believed ridiculous things, scientists who kept pushing wrong dogma, and so on. And yet nobody knows about them today, because the evolutionary process of science works: the truths that are empirically verifiable win out, and, given enough time, the failures are selected against.
Fantastic effort post and the necessary dose of fresh air to balance out hedonic skepticism.
The collapse in faith of institutions in various ways, for different reasons has created a vibe that gives any criticism of any institution has a whiff of plausibility, and these days that's all you need for some people to treat it as settled fact. That is basically what I think the poisoned and anti intellectual attitude of hedonic skepticism is all about.
The pace of technological advance over the past 5-10 years is staggering in so many ways. If our era weren't known for collapse of democracies and conflict, it could have been heralded as a major historical moment of technological advance on a number of levels.
Lululemon famously had that 'incident' where they flat out stated their brand just wasn't suitable for fat people. Given their brand identity this makes complete sense, whilst also excluding a large group of people. Expect more of this type of edgy marketing — it is in line with the zeitgeist (consider that eugenic jeans ad).
That commercial could have been any attractive woman without changing the tone or meaning. it just drives some people crazy that a subset of humans "controls" like half the land on earth but comprises only 7% of the population, therefore everything about or having to do with that subset or the individuals therein is automatically considered "bad."
There were commercials that had jingles "bust a nut, bust a nut, just open up a can and bust a nut. you can do it in the bathroom, you can do it in the kitchen, you can do it with your best friend [...]" nearly 30 years ago. Commercials are generally in poor taste, but some people read way too much into it.
It's the political zeitgeist. If it were the Biden years, I think it would have been interpreted differently.
One of the reasons why it blew up is the relative silence from American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney, both of whom took their sweet time to respond to the negative press. They were likely pressed to figure out how not to piss off either side of the electorate. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Their silence felt like affirmation of the accusation.
The follow up with other models from other races was good, but it came really slow. The damage was done by the time they figured it out.
> Minecraft: Java Edition runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux; Minecraft: Bedrock Edition runs on Windows.
(From their own website. Bedrock might work with wine etc.)
For a game as popular as Minecraft, where every year a fresh cohort of young players reaches an age suitable for playing it, it would be madness to discard Linux and Mac users and possibly push the modding community to some other game.
There is an open-source launcher to run Bedrock on Mac and Linux, and it runs well. Bedrock, however, still isn't as popular because servers and mods are more of an afterthought, so not a lot of effort has been put into making it developer-friendly.
Just that tiny image on his blog was enough for me to go "oh yeah, I used his diagram to explain this type of git workflow to colleagues a decade ago". Someone should have spotted that right away.
You're in the Netherlands, and you are going to buy something in an on-line store. Steam perhaps, or any Dutch retailer.
You put the game in your Steam cart, and go to pay. You select Ideal (which Steam provides as an option), you pick your bank, and you follow the on-screen instructions (but you probably do that pretty much automatically). Usually that means scanning a QR code with your bank app on your smartphone where you confirm the amount and recipient, but you can use a physical card reader with your debit card for an OTP to use as well and do it in your bank's online environment in the browser.
That process is what the whole of Europe wants (Wero builds on the Dutch Ideal). It is stupid simple, and once you've used it you don't want to deal with credit cards and bank transfers for buying a thing on-line any more.
That's all there is to it. There is a whole country which already does this, and it works so well everyone wants it. No major US companies needed (big plus these days), and no parasites like Klarna either. Just an easy way to pay a shop using your bank account, just like you use a debit card in physical stores do the same.
That process is what the whole of Europe wants (Wero builds on the Dutch Ideal). It is stupid simple, and once you've used it you don't want to deal with credit cards and bank transfers for buying a thing on-line any more.
Can confirm. I almost never pay by card because iDEAL is simply much smoother and even many Shopify/Stripe shops offer it as a payment option nowadays. Getting this on all European webshops, for P2P payments (like Tikkie in The Netherlands), and in-store payments is just fantastic.
> Usually that means scanning a QR code with your bank app on your smartphone where you confirm the amount and recipient, but you can use a physical card reader with your debit card for an OTP
This seems to be mobile-centric system that essentially requires a cell phone, and probably one blessed by Google or Apple. The app will probably leak a huge amount of meta data, far more than a credit card (especially a privacy-oriented prepaid one). This kind of "solution" is dead on arrival as far as I am concerned.
My bank is. It is part of their service. Obviously I pay a service charge, but the card reader is not charged separately. The card reader serves a purpose for the bank as well, because it acts as a back-up for when people lose their smartphone (by stupidity or theft), or when their app is having issues.
> but you can use a physical card reader with your debit card for an OTP to use as well and do it in your bank's online environment in the browser.
That's nice for ideal users, but Wero here in Germany is completely exclusive to mobile banking apps.
I have yet to see any actual confirmation in any way that ideal will keep the alternative web based payment once they fully merge with Wero. On the one hand, EPI never puts out any concrete info, on the other hand no Journalist ever seems to ask EPI representatives the important questions.
How is that better than a card payment? Cards are accepted by far more merchants, have dispute rights, are inexpensive (in Europe) to process, supported by Apple & Google Pay, superior checkout experience, etc.
I've never used their dispute system, and I don't think that holds much value in Europe. At least in Germany a contract is a contract, if I claw back the payment the other party will just start the collections process. A process that has teeth and generally will recover the money from me, worst case by garnishing wages.
On the other hand Visa and MasterCard are not neutral actors. They have used their market power in the past to pressure merchants to change according to American moral values. And with the current administration I have little faith that this will stay at moral values
The whole flow is so much better than card purchases, where you have to enter all the data (or see your password manager's autofill fail) and then you have to go to your credit card provider's app to acknowledge the transaction.
Cards are accepted by far more merchants,
The vast majority of Dutch online transactions are done because pretty much every Dutch online shop supports it. Also many international shops through Shopify and Stripe. Many Dutch online shops do not support credit card payments. So iDEAL is the far lower friction option here. And there is no American company in between (at least for most national payments). It's great to see this system, that served us two decades by now finally get rolled out across Europe. They tried it before in the early 2010s, but the non-Dutch banks were fighting turf wars.
1. Credit cards are not that common. People usually have debit cards. Those can sometimes be used online but they're not widely accepted. My debit card is Maestro, which is not accepted in many places.
2. Even with my Mastercard credit card, the process is still inconvenient. For small purchases, it's fine. But for larger ones, there is an annoying second factor authentication, I have to enter a special password, and the wait to receive an SMS.
3. Visa and Mastercard fees. Most of the time these are paid by the merchant. But sometimes the customer has to pay more if the payment method is credit card. Some places don't accept these at all.
In general iDEAL is simple, secure and convenient. Not only to pay online, but also for example for splitting a bill with friends. I'm very happy to see this being adopted more widely in Europe.
Cards are reliant on US companies -> Visa / Mastercard. The European Payment Initiative wants to remove reliance on the US. Perhaps there can be a ECB payment rail/network that would support cardlike payments too.
It's not really nationalism since this is a European effort across multiple countries. But for all of them, it will improve the national security posture.
The only superior aspect of Visa/Mastercard payments is that they are more widely accepted, and that's something that can be changed.
So, don't fuck around with your phone while driving. Stick to the traffic rules. Avoiding him seems really, really easy.
Anyone who chooses to grab their phone while driving a car deserves all the negativity they get. Unlearn that habit. Seek help if you're addicted to that device. Or just take the Tube.
Yeah this is the animosity I'm talking about. I'd just point out that this also translates to drivers showing that animosity to cyclists on the streets in London.
There's a huge difference between "animosity" because someone is endangering your life and "animosity" because you're stuck in traffic and don't like seeing a cyclist making progress. Most of the "animosity" from drivers is due to them not thinking clearly about the situation and also being aggressive bullies.
If you're queuing in traffic or stopped at some lights, then you're still in control of a big metal machine on the road and have a responsibility to have your attention on the road. If you're distracted then you might not notice a situation where you need to move the car aside in order to prevent an accident from escalating.
That not really how it works though. Laws and morals do not perfectly align even in mostly civilised countries like the UK.
More importantly, laws are written under the tacit assumption that they won't be perfectly enforced. Have you ever driven 31 mph in a 30 mph zone? Illegal! You're in the wrong!
I have never watched his videos so I don't know what proportion of his videos are of people stopped at lights briefly looking at their phone... but I don't think many people (even cyclists) would seriously object to that.
I both cycle and drive a lot. There are a lot of bad drivers that I wish would get snitched. But I also occasionally look at my phone while waiting at a red light.
In my mind vigilante implies actually doing something to the criminal above and beyond documenting what they’re doing.
“a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)”
That’s from Miriam Webster. I’d say he isn’t punishing crime, I could see an argument that he’s suppressing it, but it doesn’t really fit my normal view of the word.
Running into traffic to pick a fight with them? Throwing your bike in front of their car to cause a collision? Jumping onto their bonnet to try and pretend you're being run over?
The guy is quite literally taking the law into his own hands and it's very clear that running around trying to cause car accidents is making people less safe, not more. In many cases the "accident" he claims to want to prevent is caused by his actions.
Simmons wrote Drood (2009), which takes these two classical authors and places them in a mystery novel. What struck me as particularly masterful is that Simmons managed to write his prose in such a way that as a reader you soon forget that this book was not written in the 1800s — his tone and style match that of Dickens and Collins so convincingly.
reply