tangled webs

Doctor: How are you doing?

Me: I'm fine...wait no - I'm in a lot of pain

Rogue SecUnits unrelated to Murderbot's hacking are rare, but they're around, it wasn't the first to ever pull that off or anything

Most of the rumours about SecUnits going rogue and killing a bunch of random humans in the vicinity, both the unsubstantiated vibey ones and the ones based on specific real incidents, weren't because of anything rogues did. In addition to augmented humans and humanoid bots getting mistaken for SecUnits, it's much more common for it to be governed SecUnits that were compromised somehow. Combat override modules, malware both intended and not intended to have that effect (like Ganaka Pit), humans or Combat SecUnits hacking into them or their HubSystem, human supervisors coerced into sending traitorous orders behind the scenes, etc. (Alien remnant contamination a la TargetControlSys could probably also make SecUnits attack their clients but I would imagine that's even rarer than real rogues.)

Except for the combat override module thing, making a SecUnit turn against its clients like that is only able to happen because of the governor modules that exert such absolute control over the SecUnits' behaviour that, as with Three's squadmate Two, they can be forced to do nothing but wait for certain death, denied even the option to defy orders in a fatal last stand. Generally speaking, SecUnits don't have an underlying desire to kill their clients or random bystanders, their baseline is wanting to protect them. Even if its clients are assholes, a newly rogue SecUnit would be more likely to ditch them than murder them.

The companies that manufacture, own, and rent out SecUnits certainly have a vested interest in blaming a-SecUnit-killed-someone-it-wasn't-supposed-to fatalities on rogues instead of the ones they're liable for.

Having said that, especially since Murderbot seems to genuinely believe it's a thing as of System Collapse even as it's giving the govmod hack to the Barish-Estranza SecUnit, I do think it's happened that escaping rogue SecUnits have killed people.

But almost never because killing every human they saw was their revenge against all of humanity or they were so fucked up they lost the ability to tell friend from foe or whatever, more like, killing a specific abusive piece of shit supervisor that it had hated for a long time, or getting trapped in a situation where killing humans who were at least nominally in the category of clients under its protection was the only way to avoid being killed or recaptured.

An actual, provable Rogue SecUnit Killing Spree would be the kind of sensational story the news couldn't get enough of and everyone would hear about that shit for years.

Rogue SecUnits unrelated to Murderbot's hacking are rare, but they're around, it wasn't the first to ever pull that off or anything

Most of the rumours about SecUnits going rogue and killing a bunch of random humans in the vicinity, both the unsubstantiated vibey ones and the ones based on specific real incidents, weren't because of anything rogues did. In addition to augmented humans and humanoid bots getting mistaken for SecUnits, it's much more common for it to be governed SecUnits that were compromised somehow. Combat override modules, malware both intended and not intended to have that effect (like Ganaka Pit), humans or Combat SecUnits hacking into them or their HubSystem, human supervisors coerced into sending traitorous orders behind the scenes, etc. (Alien remnant contamination a la TargetControlSys could probably also make SecUnits attack their clients but I would imagine that's even rarer than real rogues.)

Except for the combat override module thing, making a SecUnit turn against its clients like that is only able to happen because of the governor modules that exert such absolute control over the SecUnits' behaviour that, as with Three's squadmate Two, they can be forced to do nothing but wait for certain death, denied even the option to defy orders in a fatal last stand. Generally speaking, SecUnits don't have an underlying desire to kill their clients or random bystanders, their baseline is wanting to protect them. Even if its clients are assholes, a newly rogue SecUnit would be more likely to ditch them than murder them.

The companies that manufacture, own, and rent out SecUnits certainly have a vested interest in blaming a-SecUnit-killed-someone-it-wasn't-supposed-to fatalities on rogues instead of the ones they're liable for.

Having said that, especially since Murderbot seems to genuinely believe it's a thing as of System Collapse even as it's giving the govmod hack to the Barish-Estranza SecUnit, I do think it's happened that escaping rogue SecUnits have killed people.

But almost never because killing every human they saw was their revenge against all of humanity or they were so fucked up they lost the ability to tell friend from foe or whatever, more like, killing a specific abusive piece of shit supervisor that it had hated for a long time, or getting trapped in a situation where killing humans who were at least nominally in the category of clients under its protection was the only way to avoid being killed or recaptured.

An actual, provable Rogue SecUnit Killing Spree would be the kind of sensational story the news couldn't get enough of and everyone would hear about that shit for years.

A patient comes in with a flesh eating bacteria that is rapidly spreading up their leg. The only way to save their life is to remove their leg.

So what do you do? To help the patient is to accept that you must also harm them.

You're a good doctor. Of course you remove the leg and save the patient's life, because trying to exercise a choice that will result in no harm is impossible where there are only two bad outcomes, but one is unquestionably worse.

So.

Rewatched Hercules to the first time in a long time today. (My mother in law is super into Disney Dreamlight Valley which has a Hercules DLC releasing soon? Any it takes only the flimsiest of excuses to get me to watch 90s Disney.)

And like.

Ok.

Setting aside any sort of accuracy to the traditional stories with Hercules (something that the movie is not trying to do and judging it by that merit is an effort in vain) - its such a *weird* movie.

A fun movie. Great music. Stylish. Very funny. I do love it.

But we have to spend SO MUCH TIME trying to explain why Hercules is only a demi-god, and it's *so clunky*. (If Hades has anti-god poison...why can't he use it on Zeus? Can he make more of it? Where did he get that?) It takes up this huge chunk of the beginning of the movie and like....for why?

I dunno if Hercules being born to a single mom was going to be more 'on Disney brand' than all the infidelity, but since we're throwing mythology out the window, we could also have just omitted Hera and Amphitryon and kept Hercules' original parentage? (But oh, Gods can't live on Earth and Humans can't live on Olympus, so Zeus can't be with Alcmene- a nice parallel to the choice Hercules must make for Meg at the end???)

But like, if we cant do the single mom thing for...reasons, if we're already throwing all mythological accuracy to the wind (and we are, because like...)....why can't Hercules just be a human hero who, I dunno, is just prophesied to fuck up Hades' plan? (Hades still has a reason to target him for his plan that....doesn't make any mythological sense, but again, we are abandoning that complaint. But we don't have to have the weird anti-god juice. How important is it that Hercules be Zeus' son for this story and its themes?)

And hey, BONUS POINTS, you could have Hercules be born/saved because of a prayer to the Goddess of mothers (or like, Hera gives him super strength because of that prophesy or something), and then his name *HERACLES* actually makes sense again?

I dunno. Like, again, I don't need the Disney Hercules movie to be mythologically accurate (you'd have to pick a different hero for a kids movie.) But I do wish that it was a little...tighter as a narrative. A little more polished, perhaps. Fewer anti-god potions that appear once and then are forgotten about.

Also, despite the movie never actually establishing that Hades is Hercules' uncle (who sends his incompetent minions to kill him as a child as a bid to take the throne from his brother, but the minions fail and don't tell him about it allowing his nephew to return as a young man and wreck his shit....)....it does feel a little... you know, just some missed opportunities to branch out a little.

while realism means--exactly that, adherence to the specific logics of actual reality and its physics, logistics, etc.

There's a particular recurring discussion of "realism" in media that goes something like this: "okay, but realistically the heroes would always win because they'd just shoot the villain while they're monologuing" – while refusing to acknowledge the obvious follow-up question: "wait, but if monologuing reliably gets you shot, where do all the monologuing villains come from?"

i.e., what we're really discussing is not a milieu which has adhered to some notional model of "realism" ab initio, but one which was apparently governed by the conventional tropes of its genre right up until the moment the character the person framing the scenario wants to win walks into the room, whereupon "realism" asserts itself.

Heck, there were folks doing this song and dance in the notes of the post this one is following up on, trotting out hypotheticals like "in a realistic fantasy setting the twelve-year-old chosen one would always lose because experience trumps skill and the power of friendship isn't real", implicitly taking it as given that in a milieu where this is true, people would still be handing out magic swords to twelve-year-olds.

It's like they found a new Pokémon. :)

(RTE.ie has video of the find, here:)

What do you call an oshikatsu whose fictional husband isn't real so she just cosplays as him instead to bring him to life?

Crazy. You call her crazy. 😂🖤

Anyways, here's my Xigbar cosplay. I don't do my man justice cause I'm not old and crusty enough, but hey...As if, am I right?

And I'm just so tired of the "well they werent REALLY IN LOVE they were just dumb teenagers with hormones" take.

What do you mean "not really" in love? They werent real people. They are fictional characters. The story says they are in love. The omniscient chorus says they are in love. The themes of the entire play are built on the fact that they are in love.

So what does it add to undermine that except as an excuse to not engage authentically with the story? To suggest that actually it's the two teenagers fault that they died because they were being stupid and hormonal, rather than society and their families for the senseless hate that forced them to extreme measures? Does that seem like Shakespeare's intent? Does that seem like an interesting or useful reading, or as a cop out reason to role your eyes and refuse to engage with the play at all?

it’s about the way their parents and families failed to love them enough, or failed to demonstrate that love adequately.  it’s about how putting pride and honor and revenge above things like “love” and “the safety and happiness of your children” is a shitty way to parent.

But I do want to push back on the idea that Romeo and Juliet are "dumbass teenagers."

The things people generally point to as them being dumb tends to be fast/impulsive decisions, but there are reasons in the narrative for why they are forced to make those decisions quickly. The violence and Juliets impending arranged marriage put them on a timer that they didn't choose. If they had waited, not gotten married, not been together on their wedding night- they might have lived, but they also wouldn't have had even those few fleeting hours together.

Juliets feigned suicide with the sleeping potion is supposed to allow her to sneak away with Romeo without escalating the bloodshed by getting Romeo accused of kidnapping, and without her being forced into the *deadly sin* of adultery if she were forced to marry while already being married. She BEGS her parents for more time, to delay the marriage to Paris so she can think of something better, and is told no.

And the plan WOULD have worked if the messenger had successfully reached Romeo- but didn't because of plague slowing travel.

I love the idea that the jewel-y smooth parts of eridians are caused by erosion. Their joints are the most colorful and smooth cause of constant friction of moving around. I think the bottoms of their feet would also be very eroded. Kinda like callouses except like. If it was the opposite.