2 Likes
I canāt believe the video has three different angles of the buildings falling but ALL THREE clips begin AFTER THE EXPLOSIONS AND FALLING HAVE STARTED!!!
What the ever living fuck, Ų®ŲØŲ±ŚÆŲ²Ų§Ų±Ū Ł ŁŲ± | Ų§Ų®ŲØŲ§Ų± Ų§ŪŲ±Ų§Ł Ł Ų¬ŁŲ§Ł | Mehr News Agency?? I come for the coolest ever demolition and youāre spoiling the fun!!!
The video editor should be fired.
This other longer video also has some cool aerial shots of the aftermath:
2 Likes
China wants Taiwan for nationalistic reasons, TSMC is a very strategic bonus to all of that. If China actually launches the sea invasion of Taiwan it will be because of internal issues and because it thinks it can finally do it quick enough to hold.
Today is the 42nd anniversary of the publication The Hitchhikerās Guide to the Galaxy!
2 Likes
An impressive sight to behold. A bit depressing to think about the environmental implications though as concrete production is responsible for significant CO2 emissions (most notably in the creation of the cement) and given that China is already using crazy amounts of concrete annually (something like the equivalent of all US concrete in the 20th century is created/used every 3 years in China) the waste of these partially-constructed buildings is disappointing. I presume replacement structures are planned on this footprint, so thatās more concrete just because something delayed their being finished originally.
Not sure why I teared up at the end of that.
1 Like
The fact that such film has actually been in a vault all this time only makes the mind wonder what other very significant things are locked in all sorts of private archives. If Hollywood types are holding back this kind of shoe-in moneymaker, clearly capitalism is not a motivator enough. Why not do this 20 years ago when more boomers and Beatles fans were still alive? It would have made way more money then. What other shit are they keeping locked up? In the interest of art and history we should not only shorten the copyright term, but also raid all such archives, digitize them, and upload them to the net.
In this particular instance, I think the strategy of the Beatles specifically is that they obviously have no new material. Therefore, they have taken all thatās left over and intentionally spread it out. If they blow it all at once, then the date of their capitalist irrelevance will come quickly. By putting out something every few years, reminding everyone they exist, the day is pushed out that much further. Their eventual destiny is to just be a cultural and historical staple, like Beethoven or Mozart. But the estates of dead musicians canāt make any money off of that.
4 Likes
Beatles: Get Back is by Peter Jackson and takes unused footage shot for an already existing documentary film Let it Be. Let It Be (1970 film) - Wikipedia
Let It Be has never been re-released beyond vhs copies in the 80s and was produced by Apple films (susbidary of Apple Corps like Apple Record) so in this case it was more likely the rights holders (the Beatles members and their estates of which 2 are still living) did not see much value commercial or otherwise is the original film. It took a major Hollywood name showing extreme interest to get access and have the new film be created and Iām sure that all sorts of oversight/signoffs occured to get it to release in a state everyone was comfortable with. The success of his WW1 documentary no doubt also helped him make a case to make Get Back.
Thatās another problem entirely, akin to abandonware. Regardless of copyright terms, if rightsholder(s) refuse to keep a work publicly available, as is the case with Let It Be, then it should immediately revert to the public domain. If you want to keep making money from something, then keep it available.
If copyright werenāt fucked, Jackson shouldnāt have had to ask permission to make the documentary in the first place. The footage would have just been freely available to him, and everyone else.
Why do you assume work that is made has to be released publicly or become ownership of all? I mean, work that is actually released should in time fade into public domain, and to some extent long enough into the future unreleased work that is found should be automatically transferred to public domain:
But if I make a film and itās really bad, and kindof embarrasing and even though thereās a test screening or some preview rough cuts get sent out and everyone confirms it sucks: maybe I decide not to fully release it even though itās in a complete form. That should be my fucking decision to keep it out of public view, to lock it away and have it stay private.
I do not like the insinuation that some authoritarian police force can barge into my vaults, seize my shitty movies that are embarrasing, and release it all for the public to see while I am sitting there old and feeble.
It would be one thing if the work was evidence of a crime, to be seized as evidence and the relevant bits shown for public awareness. But if itās a crime to make bad art then we are not in anything less than a dystopic hell hole.
1 Like
The fundamental difference is simply the concept of ownership. I donāt really believe in the principle of intellectual property at all. Arts and culture belongs to everyone collectively. If some rich jerk buys the Mona Lisa and locks it away in a vault where only they can see it, theyāre a huge jerk and shouldnāt be allowed to do that. Itās in the interest of our society to have it available for free public viewing. And in my eyes, that situation doesnāt change one bit if the jerk who locked it up happens to be an immortal Leonardo DaVinci.
Thereās a difference between an individual or organization taking a work that was available for all to see and sequestering it away, and an artist or group of people saying āwe made a work for our own purposes and are not releasing itā
Your argument seems to suggest that artists bear an absolute duty to release and make available all work. Every .psd I generate MUST be shared to the universe or I am hoarding. Every painting I make must be preserved for all time. Every notebook in high school that I drew on has to be archived for public to scrutinize in 100 years. If I create a video and then delete it, Iāve destroyed the publicās property and right to view my video.
In my opinion there is no definitive way to say DaVinci making a timeless work is more or less valid as an artistic work than Daryl Brown making a super sick Stuccy S on his Trapper Keeper in 8th grade?
If DaVinci paints the Mona Lisa as part of his normal work as an artist, and never shows more than a few people who see it in process, never gives it away to a patron or sells it, and later on then burns it out of frustration or spite or to keep warm in the winter or whatever, thatās entirely his prerogative.
Once it leaves his hands and goes into display or is published or released to the wilds in some way, then itās not up to him anymore, and I start to agree. But the artist, the creator, or those who are directly commisioning works in collaboration with the artist, should be able to maintain some ability to say "this is not for the public. This work is not ready, or it is bad,
1 Like
Clearly itās not practically possible to release and preserve all works. If we could then yes, we should. But since we canāt, thereās got to be priority given to things that have some measure of importance, however you want to measure that. So given that, yeah, something that someone makes and keeps private is probably low on the priority list and thereās not much need to go around trying to start taking all the crayon drawings from the worldās children to scan them into archive.org.
That said works that may seem bad or unimportant at the time can often end up being very very important. There are many times I went to museum exhibits about a particular artist and sure enough some of the most interesting stuff is āHereās this artistās sketchbook from when they were very young.ā Lucky they didnāt throw it out or have their estate keep it in a vault because thatās going to still be valuable and interesting for a very long time after that person is dead.
So yeah, ideally we should be sharing every psd to the universe. If it was achievable I would like to do it. Iād like to make all the software open source, too. That way everyone could actually view those psds without having to pay a pile of money. But since we canāt do that, at the very least we should absolutely not be having a documentary film of a very historically significant musical group locked up where so few can see it.
As for my thing of the day:
Someone ought to record themselves manufacturing a batch of these badbois, following each step to the letter of the regs and report how they turn out.
I enjoyed that the other day. Hereās the original version from YouTube without it being lazily cropped to remove the creatorās watermark:
5 Likes
Thatās an amazing video, thanks for sharing the original source.
Normally I donāt like a video like this which was so clearly just generated as YouTube filler with their name and subscribe buttons all over it. But in this case there was actually some effort made to put it together and itās really quite fascinating.
Yeah Metaball does some really interesting videos even if itās clear that to some degree itās setup to be rapidly turned around āfillerā content, there is some actual thought and effort put in, and some fun easter eggs which tell me thereās some real people behind it having some fun with the project.
Plus it canāt be that easy to churn out since they seem to only recently average about 2 videos a month. It was a lot less prior to that. And putting those assets into a rendering program, scaling it accurately, doing the research, and making a coherent flythough with appropriate sound cues at times does make it more interesting. Their sci-fi ship-scale videos were fun and I liked how theyād weave together the soundtrack so that as certain ships came by the music would reflect the show or movie it came from.