skepticaldrunk

Doesn't that make it a uniquely Hawaiian thing? The sequence of events spurring the shirt's evolution couldn't have happened anywhere else. The article also makes a point that the cultural melting pot that is 20th century Hawaii is what enabled the creation of such a distinct garment.

I think it's very Hawaiian, and should be interpreted as a celebration. Then again, I'm just a Haole with a penchant for comfy fun shirts.

"Too many secrets". Setec Astronomy.

I'm not shorting this. Just trying to figure out a universe in which it makes sense, that's all. Have no dog in the fight, but I have to say that you're representing an idea that no longer exists.

How are either of these numbers okay against the 20k estimate due to land 2 months prior? I'm confused. They missed the target by slightly less than an order of magnitude. That doesn't sound great to me.

I'm just wondering how that's a good thing, it sure doesn't feel like it to me. It honestly sounds like me explaining to my family how I'm pulling my shit together. Sure, I haven't quit drinking or found a real career yet, but I went to the grocery store last week, and that's pretty good, right?

I'm exaggerating, but citing numbers that are perhaps factual but not much better than the hyperbole doesn't a convincing argument make.

They usually have a kid on them.

I hate to be that guy, but you know that the internet as we know and love it today started out as ARPAnet, right? The internet was domesticated, not weaponized.

That's fair, but being able to understand and direct the popular zeitgeist, be it by instinct or intellect, is a very formidable gift indeed. It's something almost none of us can do (certainly myself included), and those who can will always have detractors. I don't see success as a zero sum game, so I'm happy for people who are successful, even if I wish I had their insight.

Total aside, you should check this out when you have time, pretty interesting analysis: https://youtu.be/2THVvshvq0Q

His lifetime estimated global box office gross in a writing capacity is $4.8B[0]. I think "hack" may be how you see him, but the world sees otherwise. Also, he didn't credit himself as TDK's writer (screen for Begins, story for the others), the studio did. And if you think that's an easy feat, you're sorely mistaken. It's a hell of a lot easier to write an entire screenplay and not get credited than it is to not write on a project and get credited. That's why arbitration is such a big deal for professional screenwriters.

Further, Josh Friedman is a dyed in the wool sci-fi geek, hilarious guy, and great writer. I have a lot more faith than you that this might work.

Also, Goyer wrote Dark City, a sci-fi classic that tragically slipped under the radar.

Full disclosure: I work in the industry and know Josh and know a ton of people that have worked with David, but I've only met him in passing.

[0] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=da...

Your parent comment points out that for a right-handed person, their right hand would be south. The same is true for either handedness, thus does little to differentiate the two.

It's an interesting question though, as I would think that the use of Vantablack in the gallery itself would be a structural use, which limits Kapoor's rights. It's not being used in an artistic work directly, it's being used to highlight other artistic works. In fact, it would be about the only place Kapoor couldn't show any of his theoretical Vantablack work (to my knowledge, he has yet to exercise his Vantablack exclusivity rights). It wouldn't register as existing.

I would like to see an art gallery where the surfaces were treated with Vantablack. I think it would further enhance the experience by effectively disallowing the eye to focus on anything but the work in question.

It might be a tiny bit expensive though.

The problem with the thrust of your argument, I think, is that you're proposing that self-driving cars are something a driver actually needs to pay more attention to than a standard automobile.

I'm praying you're a troll. But if you're not, your flippant dismissal of thousands of man hours of experience in an industry in which you have no experience lead me to believe that I really hope I don't depend on any systems you've ever touched.

This is the first thread I've ever commented on for HN, mostly because I'm usually out of my depth. This one, I'm actually an expert on. This will also be my last comment here, mostly because I expected more than your bristling, reactionary, unobservant level of discourse.

All the best. I hope you find the peace you're looking for, and that it's not through arguments on the internet.

No. But you did miss the part where paper doesn't have batteries.

But people who go out of their way to defend the pointless use of bad typography on printed documents that are meant to be read are in no position to be making credible arguments in defense of the less obvious flaws in their standard practices.

Screenplays are not meant to be read, they're meant to be understood and produced. Your argument is akin to saying that blueprints are too complicated for the average person, therefore they should be changed. They're not meant to be understood by the average person, they're meant to be understood by industry professionals. Just because you find it less than readable doesn't make it so. Those of us who know what we're doing with it think it's just fine.

I'm sorry you don't find them easily readable, but they're really not meant for you.

This is actually a really good idea, but it will require industry to step in and provide it. The number of films and shows that get it right are almost nil, but there aren't any consequences when they screw it up. The phone companies stepped in with 555 numbers when they got complaints from customers about people dialing numbers that appeared in films. But with no consequence for showing crappy or nonsensical code, either the writers/video playback guys are going to have to get better (this will happen with increased technical literacy over time, but will be pushed by increased audience technical literacy), or (the software) industry is going to have to step in with its own solutions.

If you want to make it happen right away, make a royalty free stock footage archive in 4k of various snippets of code with metadata on what it's for. Less work=more adoption.

That's very kind of you to say, and after this project is finished, I might even get around to it. Procrastination willing, maybe even sooner.

The takeaway at the end of the day for me is that my idea of efficiency is built around conditional repeatability. However, the fundamental drive of art is to create a unique experience. For obvious reasons, these two goals run a bit counter to each other. There are absolutely repeatable elements, otherwise we wouldn't be able to relate to media (or each other, for that matter). But by the very nature of the requirement of uniqueness, there is no one size fits all. When the syntax is the program, it tends to exclude all but the most basic and robust standardization.

At least that's my drunk peanut gallery theory.

I don't have time to check it out right now, as the current project is income-generating, but I'm curious to check it out. On the face of it, it looks like a decent (albeit very simple) screenwriting tool that would be perfect for the amateur or writer/director/producer. One of the things I like about FD is that, as a contract writer, I can define elements (some shows or producers like to format sounds or chyrons or character introductions or whatever) a certain way, so I can write in a manner expedient to me and change the formatting to fit the requirements. This doesn't seem to have that capability, but I could be wrong. It certainly seems like it will get you 90% of the way there, though. I'm guessing they developed this in-house to coincide with their submission system for original content so they can standardize submissions and generate heuristics like wtallis is talking about above.

I would say "appalling" is a bit of a strong term for an industry that you're not involved in that doesn't perform a particularly critical function in society. To relay a saying often expressed on set, "We're not curing cancer."

I'll relay another joke from set:

A new Assistant Director comes on to help the second unit on Gone with the Wind. He finds the script supervisor.

AD: How much are we shooting today?

SS: One eighth of a page.

AD: You're kidding! We'll be home in an hour.

SS: I don't think so.

AD: What do you mean? What are we shooting?

SS: Atlanta burns.

The point is that it's an inherently fuzzy process, and heuristics work a lot of the time, but nobody cares about a system that works a lot of the time.

If you design something better, I'll be glad to use it (hell, I'll help you design it), but please don't be so quick to judge. It's a business of edge cases, and it's been built as such.

If it makes you feel any better, a lot of multicam shows and studio shows have switched over to all digital script distribution that's automatically distributed. But there is absolutely no replacement for a paper script for a lot of really compelling reasons.

Yeah, tell me about it. I can recall one shoot where we started using our medic's ice packs to cool down the REDs (shooting in death valley) and another movie we shot in 3d with two REDs timecode synced with a prism system. I'll let you guess how much fun it was to keep 4 REDs working at one time and properly synced.

I hate to say it, but it's not surprising given someone like Jim Jannard came along and said "This business is backwards! I can fix this!" without completely understanding the requirements. Move fast and break shit doesn't work for every industry.

True, but if we're getting really technical, the script supervisor gets to decide what an eighth is, so a decent scripty will keep it shockingly consistent. Another quirk, for sure, but when you see the breakdown and it lists 120 pages worth of scenes on a 114 page script, it actually makes sense.

Take into consideration that it's easy to criticise a system as an outsider. You would have to witness first-hand an organised chaos that film and/or TV production is in order to appreciate every single idiosyncrasy (at a first glance) that makes it all work.

I think this can't be overemphasized. I got into the movie business from software and was astounded by all of the quirks in the process that seemed to me to be fundamental inefficiencies. I was fairly certain that I could quite easily reinvent the process to make it smooth, efficient, and pleasurable.

Now, having been in the business for 14 years or so, almost all of it makes sense, and my arrogance in regard to their process is embarrassing at best. There are still a handful of quirks that don't make a ton of sense (even the property department will acknowledge that the only reason they handle cast chairs is because it's tradition), but generally speaking there is a good reason for everything being done the way it's done and it was a tough lesson that made it that way.

I also think it's important to remember that this is a 100 year old industry, and it's not an engineered process, it's an emergent process.

Just as an aside, the first time you have a week worth of wet work scheduled on a movie that's shooting so far out in the sticks that you have to have a satphone for set to communicate with basecamp, a lot of the reticence to adopt technologies that aren't completely bulletproof makes a lot more sense.

Yes. Initially, it was a relic from the typewriter days, and the tabbing and indentation was developed to allow each of the affiliated tradespeople involved in the project to do their jobs effectively. But now, it has its own reasons.

One page in a standard format screenplay translates into roughly one minute of screentime. There are exceptions to this rule, but the first thing someone in the business does when they get a new script is check the last page number.

Further, when a screenplay goes into production, the work for the day is organized into eighths of a page, which is used as a shorthand for how long each piece of work is going to take.

So while changing the tabulation and type spacing might make a screenplay more readable, it would make it much much less produceable. At the end of the day, a screenplay isn't meant to be read, and the formatting reflects that.

From a spec writer perspective, the short answer is that it has hotkeys, formatting based on element type, and autocomplete.

Beyond that, there are versioning tools (screenplay versioning can get a bit esoteric), alternate dialogue capabilities, scene numbering and reporting tools, and a lot more. It also has a lot of capabilities related to production, such as omit functionality, watermarking, script locking, etc.

Final Draft gets bagged on a lot for being expensive and ugly, but it really does have a ton of specialized tools that are incredibly powerful if used correctly.