Mustamäe is really not a place with crime, because it's one of the oldest Soviet-era "Hills", and has 'grown up', so to speak. It's got lots of trees everywhere, a forest between the hospital and the university complexes, and patches of forest elsewhere, plenty of malls, and one big new cinema at Mustamäe Keskus. The district is also really compact. But since it's a sleeping area, it's got no nightlife.
Lasnamäe and Kopli have historically been more infamous, though I can't tell what it's like now. I'd venture to say, that Lasnamäe can be reasonably safe, as long as one doesn't associate oneself with questionable company.
One historically dangerous place has been Kopli Liinid on the Kopli peninsula, after which the outlying Kopli district is named. These 'Liinid are a complex of streets (liinid=lines) on one (probably eastern, IIRC) side of the peninsula with condemned and/or uninhabited wooden houses built a hundred years ago that often fall prey to arson. There are ruins. The peninsula is the endpoint of #1 and #2 tram lines.
The Kalamaja (sub)district is adjacent to Kopli near the Balti Jaam train station, and has seen gentrification. Kopli itself might one day become gentrified, too.
Õismäe and Lasnamäe are the ones with less trees. Lasnamäe is the newest and largest, and in the Soviet times, it was the endpoint for the many Russian workers and their families that came to work in the Soviet factories that were stationed here.
pühapäev, 23. aprill 2017
London Grammar - "Oh Woman, Oh Man" lyric interpretation
I've found two interpretations of the song. —
The line about taking 'a devil through yellow sands' probably relates to the temptation of Jesus.
The lyrics seem to compare how Adam and Eve gave in to the temptation, and how Jesus did not give in, specifically because He knew what happened to Adam and Eve, and because He was part of a ˇgreater plan to redeem humanity.
'Taking a devil through the yellow sands' could be interpreted as Jesus driving the devil away — so the lyrics refer in some way for the listeners to drive the evil away by avoiding temptation.
At the time, Jesus was fasting in the desert, and the devil tempted him to eat in return for kingdoms of the world and in return for avoiding God, but Jesus rejected the offer. After Jesus drove the devil away, the angels came and tended to Jesus.
'Choose a path or a child' might relate to choosing the narrow road (path) to reach salvation, and the child is more-or-less a literal construct. Or even the Child of God, which is Jesus.
The 'path or a child' are not so much the choices, but outcomes of choices.
Because the implication is, that a good person can drive the evil away by being responsible by avoiding temptation by choosing the narrow path (presumably safe sex), or choosing a child if they literally give in to temptation (unsafe sex).
Ergo, evil can be avoided by making a conscious choice towards either outcome, and then responsibly living with it.
The particular verse reinterprets giving in to temptation as abandonment of responsibility, and the next verse laments, that many do not understand; or, alternately, posits a question from a man and a woman, as to whether they understand this situation.
Now, the first verse of the lyric refers to a man giving up on a relationship with a woman, and the man does not seem to have been up to any good in the first place, per others' observations, but love can be so blind.
The woman in the song pursues her lost love, and she'd do anything to get her man back, but it seems, that the relationship is beyond repair.
I can infer form the second part of the lyric, that he woman is pregnant from that man, and so the song criticizes the man as being irresponsible for having left the woman.
There's another and a more darker implication with the "And I don't know where the rest go" line, that the woman was pregnant, but did not carry it to term (against the advice of her friends). The woman contemplates, that 'it should not mean that much to her', but it does, and she now has regrets. The woman apparently did everything she thought she could to please the man she loved, but he did not return anyway. In this light, it's a tragic case of unrequited love.
Because of all this, the man is impossible from the outset (as told by the friends), and the victimised party would be wise to drive that man away, with the song excoriating him for his evil of total neglectfulness and complete lack of responsibility. Not just because the man left the woman once, and so would not be able to come around in the future, but because the woman made a sacrifice, and would make them again.
The song laments the men and women failing to understand such situations, one another, and their inner selves enough to make a conscious and responsible choice on the possible outcomes.
The two parties are a man, who was looking for a fling, and a woman, who having misinterpreted it as a serious relationship, had become far too attached.
Do note, that since 'oh woman, oh man' are on the same line, then the roles can be reversed. though a woman is singing the song, and so the other party in the song can often be interpreted to be a man.
The line about taking 'a devil through yellow sands' probably relates to the temptation of Jesus.
The lyrics seem to compare how Adam and Eve gave in to the temptation, and how Jesus did not give in, specifically because He knew what happened to Adam and Eve, and because He was part of a ˇgreater plan to redeem humanity.
'Taking a devil through the yellow sands' could be interpreted as Jesus driving the devil away — so the lyrics refer in some way for the listeners to drive the evil away by avoiding temptation.
At the time, Jesus was fasting in the desert, and the devil tempted him to eat in return for kingdoms of the world and in return for avoiding God, but Jesus rejected the offer. After Jesus drove the devil away, the angels came and tended to Jesus.
'Choose a path or a child' might relate to choosing the narrow road (path) to reach salvation, and the child is more-or-less a literal construct. Or even the Child of God, which is Jesus.
The 'path or a child' are not so much the choices, but outcomes of choices.
Because the implication is, that a good person can drive the evil away by being responsible by avoiding temptation by choosing the narrow path (presumably safe sex), or choosing a child if they literally give in to temptation (unsafe sex).
Ergo, evil can be avoided by making a conscious choice towards either outcome, and then responsibly living with it.
The particular verse reinterprets giving in to temptation as abandonment of responsibility, and the next verse laments, that many do not understand; or, alternately, posits a question from a man and a woman, as to whether they understand this situation.
Now, the first verse of the lyric refers to a man giving up on a relationship with a woman, and the man does not seem to have been up to any good in the first place, per others' observations, but love can be so blind.
The woman in the song pursues her lost love, and she'd do anything to get her man back, but it seems, that the relationship is beyond repair.
I can infer form the second part of the lyric, that he woman is pregnant from that man, and so the song criticizes the man as being irresponsible for having left the woman.
There's another and a more darker implication with the "And I don't know where the rest go" line, that the woman was pregnant, but did not carry it to term (against the advice of her friends). The woman contemplates, that 'it should not mean that much to her', but it does, and she now has regrets. The woman apparently did everything she thought she could to please the man she loved, but he did not return anyway. In this light, it's a tragic case of unrequited love.
Because of all this, the man is impossible from the outset (as told by the friends), and the victimised party would be wise to drive that man away, with the song excoriating him for his evil of total neglectfulness and complete lack of responsibility. Not just because the man left the woman once, and so would not be able to come around in the future, but because the woman made a sacrifice, and would make them again.
The song laments the men and women failing to understand such situations, one another, and their inner selves enough to make a conscious and responsible choice on the possible outcomes.
The two parties are a man, who was looking for a fling, and a woman, who having misinterpreted it as a serious relationship, had become far too attached.
Do note, that since 'oh woman, oh man' are on the same line, then the roles can be reversed. though a woman is singing the song, and so the other party in the song can often be interpreted to be a man.
The black goo spore in Alien: Covenant
This was a reply to a comment thread in YouTube discussing the effects of black goo.
The black goo reacts differently depending on what any of the other reactants are. Not just heat, but also air (+air pressure), different other gases, water or other solubles, contact with David's finger, sprakling wine, ingestion by Holloway, and contact with other Prometheus crew.
The process Holloway went through, is actually similar to what the Engineer in the opening went through, as both ingested black goo. As Holloway was "administered" much less of it and with champaigne, his 'decomposition', if you will, was a lot slower.
The "black goo" that gets into the Covenant cremember's ear, is no longer black goo, but either a spore, or a minuscule Alien life-form, as it can fly and target its flight path right into the ear of the poor colonist. I could count on the life-form being a back-goo-derived insectoid that acts as a very feeble wrapper of Alien protozoa that are to spread into a larger organism.
The black goo reacts differently depending on what any of the other reactants are. Not just heat, but also air (+air pressure), different other gases, water or other solubles, contact with David's finger, sprakling wine, ingestion by Holloway, and contact with other Prometheus crew.
The process Holloway went through, is actually similar to what the Engineer in the opening went through, as both ingested black goo. As Holloway was "administered" much less of it and with champaigne, his 'decomposition', if you will, was a lot slower.
The "black goo" that gets into the Covenant cremember's ear, is no longer black goo, but either a spore, or a minuscule Alien life-form, as it can fly and target its flight path right into the ear of the poor colonist. I could count on the life-form being a back-goo-derived insectoid that acts as a very feeble wrapper of Alien protozoa that are to spread into a larger organism.
laupäev, 15. aprill 2017
Especially the lies.
From DS9's "The Wire".
I think the daughter of an important Cardassian military person was also an Obsidian Order operative and Garak's accomplice. My thinking is, that Garak let the Bajoran children go, but she noticed it, and planned to tell Tain. To avoid that, Garak had to off her, and so there was that minor shuttle incident. And hopefully fabricated Bajoran life signatures, too.
Another option is, that she picked up the children _after_ Garak let them go, and entered the shuttle with them, thinking, that Garak would not have the shuttle destroyed, because children. Since he knew anyway, that she was going to tell on him, Garak had no choice. A suboption is, that the children were in the shuttle, but Garak also learned about their demise post factum.
I like to think, that Garak must have been instrumental in how the Cardassian occupation of Bajor ended. Somehow, the Cardassian Central Command discovered, that Garak was complicit. (Dukat's fuming about Garak having killed Dukat's father, who was an archon (a Cardassian justice), seems to be an interesting piece of a puzzle.)
Enabran Tain couldn't have Garak killed, since Garak had to have had something very valuable with him, so Tain covered for his (former) right-hand-man, and Garak was exiled; with Tain hoping at least (or at best) to later bring the exile back into the fold, or else let him go. Tain's price for all that was, that he had to resign from being the head of the Obsidian Order.
I think the daughter of an important Cardassian military person was also an Obsidian Order operative and Garak's accomplice. My thinking is, that Garak let the Bajoran children go, but she noticed it, and planned to tell Tain. To avoid that, Garak had to off her, and so there was that minor shuttle incident. And hopefully fabricated Bajoran life signatures, too.
Another option is, that she picked up the children _after_ Garak let them go, and entered the shuttle with them, thinking, that Garak would not have the shuttle destroyed, because children. Since he knew anyway, that she was going to tell on him, Garak had no choice. A suboption is, that the children were in the shuttle, but Garak also learned about their demise post factum.
I like to think, that Garak must have been instrumental in how the Cardassian occupation of Bajor ended. Somehow, the Cardassian Central Command discovered, that Garak was complicit. (Dukat's fuming about Garak having killed Dukat's father, who was an archon (a Cardassian justice), seems to be an interesting piece of a puzzle.)
Enabran Tain couldn't have Garak killed, since Garak had to have had something very valuable with him, so Tain covered for his (former) right-hand-man, and Garak was exiled; with Tain hoping at least (or at best) to later bring the exile back into the fold, or else let him go. Tain's price for all that was, that he had to resign from being the head of the Obsidian Order.
reede, 7. aprill 2017
Science fiction television and use of colours
For a moment there, I thought, that a lot of it had to do with the quality of actual film that was used.
The VFX and makeup in TOS must have looked like the high end at the time, but they also did a lot of work with choosing the right colours to make interiours look futuristic and maybe even unobtrusive. Colour on television was still something very new, and the respective personnel probably did their best to accentuate the magic of colour. TOS stands out in clean and straight lines, primary colours, and many pastel colours everywhere.
TNG interiors have a lot of light and Enterprise beige, which at the time looked quite futuristic. Non-Federation ships often had different colours to accentuate their otherness. Exterior-wise, Enterprise-D itself withstands the test of time admirably.
DS9 the station is dark and artfully stylish. Compare also TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. Personally, DS9 stands out to me as having struck the best balance. Interestingly enough, Season 2 of TNG had also struck the right tones. maybe it had something to do with Diana Muldaur.
Voyager had tech-y sets, but mostly failed to be dark and gritty. Ronald D. Moore fixed that with BSG.
Farscape thrived with colours, and shined in ways unimaginable.
Stargate Universe channelled the coloration of Blade Runner.
It may seem like a minor detail, but the kind of coloration, how much and what kinds of colours one uses, and then the amount of makeup on actors determines a lot in the character of a television show. JJ-verse 'Trek often feels plastic.
reede, 24. märts 2017
Canonicity of cancer and alien embryo removal
This was written in reply to a thread under a YouTube video concerning the Alien franchise, which discussed the possibilities of alien embryo removal.
The canonicity of the embryo being cancerous is up for debate: The movies never mention cancer, but it's possibe, that early on in the gestation process, the embryo works like a cancer to avoid early removal.
Only after the embryo has developed well enough to have formed a placenta around itself, would it be possible to remove it, _with_ the placenta.
The removal must be not just quick, but also clean and careful.
Because the trouble with trilobite removal from Shaw is, that right after the trilobite placenta was removed, the trilobite expanded and broke the placenta, out of which the fluid that the trilobite was in, squirted right back into Shaw's open abdomen, thus (in my view) infecting her. I expect to see a continuation of that situation in "Alien: Covenant".
High care must also be taken wrt the umbilical cord: Once broken, the creature becomes conscious and begins to move.
The canonicity of the embryo being cancerous is up for debate: The movies never mention cancer, but it's possibe, that early on in the gestation process, the embryo works like a cancer to avoid early removal.
Only after the embryo has developed well enough to have formed a placenta around itself, would it be possible to remove it, _with_ the placenta.
The removal must be not just quick, but also clean and careful.
Because the trouble with trilobite removal from Shaw is, that right after the trilobite placenta was removed, the trilobite expanded and broke the placenta, out of which the fluid that the trilobite was in, squirted right back into Shaw's open abdomen, thus (in my view) infecting her. I expect to see a continuation of that situation in "Alien: Covenant".
High care must also be taken wrt the umbilical cord: Once broken, the creature becomes conscious and begins to move.
neljapäev, 9. märts 2017
Outside influence and cultural conditioning to disbelieve the truth
followup | Update: Now, I can't recall what kind of a post caused me to write this.
Outside influence is easy to explain away as a source of corruption. I thought of a mystery element that would leave UFP Starfleet ppl inside a problem, but unable to find a solution. Sort of like cultural complacency, whereby people notice the house on fire when it's almost too late already. I recall there's a picture meme with a big-eyed doggy surrounded by flames.
Strangely enough, political corruption on the grass-roots level can happen just like that, too, with swathes of people putting party before country, and a large and vocal chunk of them unable and unwilling to believe verified and well-sourced information, just because it disagrees with them. Some of those and some others contend, that 'everybody lies.'
This unwillingness to accept verified information as truth, and pliability to conspiracy theories is nearly always a dangerous situation, IMO.
In part, such a massive disbelief of truth is actually borne out of the methods of competitive newsmaking, which perhaps unwittingly has culturally conditioned large segments of different populations to believe bad or worse-sounding news as being truer than actual facts. This makes a population gullible to only believe the lying liars who are the loudest in shouting the worst.
A little out of context: Past events do have a lot of true meaning in real life; it's that in-universe prequelisation (in Star Trek) sort of gives off a feeling that we've been there already.
24.04.2017 Update:
wrt massive disbelief of truth, then there are two other factors in having such disbeliefs:
* One is gullibility in believing everything that's seen on tv.
The argument "But it was on tv!" inherently suggests, that proper and diligent fact-checking was performed—when it really was not. Assumption of proper fact-checking of news aired on American television dates back to the early days of tv in functioning democracies. In Europe and Canada and several other countries, this remains true even now and into the foreseeable future.
But not so in the very competitive news tv market in the U.S., where lying whilst professing the reportage of news is somehow acceptable to very many people.
There, a famous (or, rather, an infamous) tv channel about news would by all appearances rather prefer to disseminate falsehoods; as if it almost specialised in shrouding the truth in a web of lies. Because, in what I could infer to be their worldview, a garish untruth supposedly sells better. As if. (Hint: One of its major personalities recently left the network amid multiple scandals over harassment, and major loss of sponsorship.)
Since that channel's audience will lap anything up, then that channel's leadership would be wise to consider reporting verified and accurate information — instead of their usual fare that's been bandied around for twenty-odd years now. Because their advertised terms of'f a i r' and 'b a l a n c e d' do not equate with truthful or accurate.
Production of lying news can—and often does become news in and of itself, and inevitably, it becomes bad news for those that have spread and continue to spread untruths.
Alas, what causes bad newspeople to be fired and bad politicians to leave office, is often a sex scandal, or a scandal involving large amounts of money.
Disseminating lies and proselytizing hate wrapped in news-like entertainment is irresponsible, and so devalues freedom of speech. Countering lies with truth and facts enhances this freedom, and thus increases its value.
Once informed, the public and advertisers will eventually lean towards those newspeople and outlets they deem to be consistently reliable and responsible in their newsmaking.
One can still be entertaining while reporting accurate and verified information, and earn great revenue with that.
* The other factor is confirmation bias. I might expand on it later, but it boils down to this: "I like their news, because I agree with their worldview."
On the surface, it looks like an innocent statement, but is not right, when the the news source intentionally spreads falsehoods, hate, supports discrimination and harassment, and promotes war, or a combination thereof.
Such a viewership would even accept lies in lieu of news, if these lies confirm their (hateful) worldview, which some use as justification to commit actual acts of hate.
The hate crimes statutes were implemented for a reason.
Outside influence is easy to explain away as a source of corruption. I thought of a mystery element that would leave UFP Starfleet ppl inside a problem, but unable to find a solution. Sort of like cultural complacency, whereby people notice the house on fire when it's almost too late already. I recall there's a picture meme with a big-eyed doggy surrounded by flames.
Strangely enough, political corruption on the grass-roots level can happen just like that, too, with swathes of people putting party before country, and a large and vocal chunk of them unable and unwilling to believe verified and well-sourced information, just because it disagrees with them. Some of those and some others contend, that 'everybody lies.'
This unwillingness to accept verified information as truth, and pliability to conspiracy theories is nearly always a dangerous situation, IMO.
In part, such a massive disbelief of truth is actually borne out of the methods of competitive newsmaking, which perhaps unwittingly has culturally conditioned large segments of different populations to believe bad or worse-sounding news as being truer than actual facts. This makes a population gullible to only believe the lying liars who are the loudest in shouting the worst.
A little out of context: Past events do have a lot of true meaning in real life; it's that in-universe prequelisation (in Star Trek) sort of gives off a feeling that we've been there already.
24.04.2017 Update:
wrt massive disbelief of truth, then there are two other factors in having such disbeliefs:
* One is gullibility in believing everything that's seen on tv.
The argument "But it was on tv!" inherently suggests, that proper and diligent fact-checking was performed—when it really was not. Assumption of proper fact-checking of news aired on American television dates back to the early days of tv in functioning democracies. In Europe and Canada and several other countries, this remains true even now and into the foreseeable future.
But not so in the very competitive news tv market in the U.S., where lying whilst professing the reportage of news is somehow acceptable to very many people.
There, a famous (or, rather, an infamous) tv channel about news would by all appearances rather prefer to disseminate falsehoods; as if it almost specialised in shrouding the truth in a web of lies. Because, in what I could infer to be their worldview, a garish untruth supposedly sells better. As if. (Hint: One of its major personalities recently left the network amid multiple scandals over harassment, and major loss of sponsorship.)
Since that channel's audience will lap anything up, then that channel's leadership would be wise to consider reporting verified and accurate information — instead of their usual fare that's been bandied around for twenty-odd years now. Because their advertised terms of
Production of lying news can—and often does become news in and of itself, and inevitably, it becomes bad news for those that have spread and continue to spread untruths.
Alas, what causes bad newspeople to be fired and bad politicians to leave office, is often a sex scandal, or a scandal involving large amounts of money.
Disseminating lies and proselytizing hate wrapped in news-like entertainment is irresponsible, and so devalues freedom of speech. Countering lies with truth and facts enhances this freedom, and thus increases its value.
Once informed, the public and advertisers will eventually lean towards those newspeople and outlets they deem to be consistently reliable and responsible in their newsmaking.
One can still be entertaining while reporting accurate and verified information, and earn great revenue with that.
* The other factor is confirmation bias. I might expand on it later, but it boils down to this: "I like their news, because I agree with their worldview."
On the surface, it looks like an innocent statement, but is not right, when the the news source intentionally spreads falsehoods, hate, supports discrimination and harassment, and promotes war, or a combination thereof.
Such a viewership would even accept lies in lieu of news, if these lies confirm their (hateful) worldview, which some use as justification to commit actual acts of hate.
The hate crimes statutes were implemented for a reason.
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)