gon

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/66445706

Recently, I watched both Mulan (1998) and The Iron Giant (1999), and I feel like these movies show two extremes of animation, in a way. As such, I felt like talking about them, a little bit.

First, I'll tell you where I stand on both, individually: I think Mulan is mediocre and The Iron Giant is a masterpiece.

Maybe on the surface, both these movies might not appear to have that much in common, other than having come out at about the same time, but I think they're actually similar, in a way. They both center the idea of breaking out from a mold, of going beyond expectations and cracking open social norms, even overcoming great discrimination and severe resistance.

In Mulan's case, we have a young lady living in a world where the expectations for a woman, or rather, what the world demands of a woman is to be pretty and bear children. War is a man's business, so much so that the simple thought that a woman might participate in the war is outrageous, and the act is akin to sin and very much illegal, worthy of the death-penalty, no less.

As for The Iron Giant, we have a living weapon that chooses not to be one anymore. People aren't just wary, they're scared, and they react violently, being ready to obliterate it at a moment's notice. The army is mobilized, nuclear missiles are launched!

Our two hero's - though, in The Iron Giant's case, the protagonist is actually Hogarth, not the giant himself - both struggle and succeed in proving to the world that they're more than what they're told they are. Yet, one comes off as bland and uninspired, while the other is a magnificent cornucopia of emotional depth and intense characters.

Why is that?

Well, many things.

I'd like to highlight what I think is perhaps the most jarring difference between these two movies: the villain, or rather, the main antagonist.

In Mulan's case, that is Shan Yu, the Hun. He's violent and ruthless, as well as immensely powerful and terrifying. There, you know everything there is to know about Shan Yu. Another antagonist is the counsel of the emperor, Chi-fu. He, at least, isn't strictly evil either - he does what he thinks is right for his people - but he's also just an asshole. He's a talking caricature. A joke. He wields power, and is therefore a danger to Mulan's objectives, considering he's strongly opposed to her being in the army and being a pompous prick.

However, here's the thing with Chi-Fu: being a misogynist isn't special in this universe. Mulan's dad, while incredibly loving, also feels the same way about her being in the army. Sure, he loves her and doesn't want harm to come to her, but there's nothing in the movie that indicates he would've allowed her to go if her safety was guaranteed or something. It was simply, "not her place." Li Shang is the same! Even after Mulan saves his life, he doesn't change. Sure, a seedling of change may have been sown in his mind, but he disregards her warnings regardless.

The Iron Giant, on the other hand, doesn't have a villain. There's an antagonist, sure, Kent Mansley, but he's not evil. He's not violent, ruthless, immensely powerful, or terrifying. As a matter of fact, he's good. The government, as a whole, is also an antagonist, but it acts more as a force wielded by Kent which even then resists his misguided actions when the truth reveals itself.

The Iron Giant is set in 1957, during the cold war. People are scared - terrified, even - and Kent is no exception. We see what the kids learn in school through Hogarth, learning to hide under their desks to miraculously survive a nuclear strike... And then, an iron giant falls from the sky and starts eating cars! Kent definitely makes mistakes, and from our perspective - understanding the true nature of the giant - it seems that what he's doing is rather stupid and misguided. However, is it even? He wants to protect everyone! He just wants people to be safe, and he's a victim of the paranoia. He goes too far and lies, he exerts too much power, power he was not entitled to or ready to wield, and that led to terrible consequences, but he never aimed to harm. He wasn't a mindless, one-dimensional murderer. He was a civil servant trying to serve the public. His crime is fear and rashness.

Now, don't get me wrong. Misogyny isn't logical, so it does make sense that the character's aren't necessarily logical in their approach to it. It's about social norms, things that are taken for granted and left unquestioned. It makes sense that Mulan's struggle isn't just with the system, but with the unbending minds of those shaped by said system. However, I would mention that Mushu doesn't seem to have much of an issue with it, though he is painted as a bit of a cook and an outsider... Still, the antagonistic forces, the barriers that she overcomes are just that: they're barriers. Mindless barriers. The Iron Giant's antagonists aren't that at all, they're people. They're beings that have goals and objectives that go beyond "conquer China because me conquer" and "women weak because women."

There's a lot to both these movies, really, but that alone is enough to firmly place them on two very different tiers of animation.

Really, I found myself enraptured by every character in The Iron Giant maybe a thousand times more than any character in Mulan. Even Earl Stutz, the crazy fisherman, is more interesting than Mulan's companions. He, at least, tries to do something, instead of being comedy relief. He must have, what, 3 minutes of screen time? Maybe.

Overall, I feel like Mulan is populated by single-minded husks that sometimes say something funny and hit some notes, while The Iron Giant is a living and breathing world.

Brad Bird, I'm single.

But what do you think?

---

Mulan: 3/5
The Iron Giant: 5/5

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/66445706

Recently, I watched both Mulan (1998) and The Iron Giant (1999), and I feel like these movies show two extremes of animation, in a way. As such, I felt like talking about them, a little bit.

First, I'll tell you where I stand on both, individually: I think Mulan is mediocre and The Iron Giant is a masterpiece.

Maybe on the surface, both these movies might not appear to have that much in common, other than having come out at about the same time, but I think they're actually similar, in a way. They both center the idea of breaking out from a mold, of going beyond expectations and cracking open social norms, even overcoming great discrimination and severe resistance.

In Mulan's case, we have a young lady living in a world where the expectations for a woman, or rather, what the world demands of a woman is to be pretty and bear children. War is a man's business, so much so that the simple thought that a woman might participate in the war is outrageous, and the act is akin to sin and very much illegal, worthy of the death-penalty, no less.

As for The Iron Giant, we have a living weapon that chooses not to be one anymore. People aren't just wary, they're scared, and they react violently, being ready to obliterate it at a moment's notice. The army is mobilized, nuclear missiles are launched!

Our two hero's - though, in The Iron Giant's case, the protagonist is actually Hogarth, not the giant himself - both struggle and succeed in proving to the world that they're more than what they're told they are. Yet, one comes off as bland and uninspired, while the other is a magnificent cornucopia of emotional depth and intense characters.

Why is that?

Well, many things.

I'd like to highlight what I think is perhaps the most jarring difference between these two movies: the villain, or rather, the main antagonist.

In Mulan's case, that is Shan Yu, the Hun. He's violent and ruthless, as well as immensely powerful and terrifying. There, you know everything there is to know about Shan Yu. Another antagonist is the counsel of the emperor, Chi-fu. He, at least, isn't strictly evil either - he does what he thinks is right for his people - but he's also just an asshole. He's a talking caricature. A joke. He wields power, and is therefore a danger to Mulan's objectives, considering he's strongly opposed to her being in the army and being a pompous prick.

However, here's the thing with Chi-Fu: being a misogynist isn't special in this universe. Mulan's dad, while incredibly loving, also feels the same way about her being in the army. Sure, he loves her and doesn't want harm to come to her, but there's nothing in the movie that indicates he would've allowed her to go if her safety was guaranteed or something. It was simply, "not her place." Li Shang is the same! Even after Mulan saves his life, he doesn't change. Sure, a seedling of change may have been sown in his mind, but he disregards her warnings regardless.

The Iron Giant, on the other hand, doesn't have a villain. There's an antagonist, sure, Kent Mansley, but he's not evil. He's not violent, ruthless, immensely powerful, or terrifying. As a matter of fact, he's good. The government, as a whole, is also an antagonist, but it acts more as a force wielded by Kent which even then resists his misguided actions when the truth reveals itself.

The Iron Giant is set in 1957, during the cold war. People are scared - terrified, even - and Kent is no exception. We see what the kids learn in school through Hogarth, learning to hide under their desks to miraculously survive a nuclear strike... And then, an iron giant falls from the sky and starts eating cars! Kent definitely makes mistakes, and from our perspective - understanding the true nature of the giant - it seems that what he's doing is rather stupid and misguided. However, is it even? He wants to protect everyone! He just wants people to be safe, and he's a victim of the paranoia. He goes too far and lies, he exerts too much power, power he was not entitled to or ready to wield, and that led to terrible consequences, but he never aimed to harm. He wasn't a mindless, one-dimensional murderer. He was a civil servant trying to serve the public. His crime is fear and rashness.

Now, don't get me wrong. Misogyny isn't logical, so it does make sense that the character's aren't necessarily logical in their approach to it. It's about social norms, things that are taken for granted and left unquestioned. It makes sense that Mulan's struggle isn't just with the system, but with the unbending minds of those shaped by said system. However, I would mention that Mushu doesn't seem to have much of an issue with it, though he is painted as a bit of a cook and an outsider... Still, the antagonistic forces, the barriers that she overcomes are just that: they're barriers. Mindless barriers. The Iron Giant's antagonists aren't that at all, they're people. They're beings that have goals and objectives that go beyond "conquer China because me conquer" and "women weak because women."

There's a lot to both these movies, really, but that alone is enough to firmly place them on two very different tiers of animation.

Really, I found myself enraptured by every character in The Iron Giant maybe a thousand times more than any character in Mulan. Even Earl Stutz, the crazy fisherman, is more interesting than Mulan's companions. He, at least, tries to do something, instead of being comedy relief. He must have, what, 3 minutes of screen time? Maybe.

Overall, I feel like Mulan is populated by single-minded husks that sometimes say something funny and hit some notes, while The Iron Giant is a living and breathing world.

Brad Bird, I'm single.

But what do you think?

---

Mulan: 3/5
The Iron Giant: 5/5

Recently, I watched both Mulan (1998) and The Iron Giant (1999), and I feel like these movies show two extremes of animation, in a way. As such, I felt like talking about them, a little bit.

First, I'll tell you where I stand on both, individually: I think Mulan is mediocre and The Iron Giant is a masterpiece.

Maybe on the surface, both these movies might not appear to have that much in common, other than having come out at about the same time, but I think they're actually similar, in a way. They both center the idea of breaking out from a mold, of going beyond expectations and cracking open social norms, even overcoming great discrimination and severe resistance.

In Mulan's case, we have a young lady living in a world where the expectations for a woman, or rather, what the world demands of a woman is to be pretty and bear children. War is a man's business, so much so that the simple thought that a woman might participate in the war is outrageous, and the act is akin to sin and very much illegal, worthy of the death-penalty, no less.

As for The Iron Giant, we have a living weapon that chooses not to be one anymore. People aren't just wary, they're scared, and they react violently, being ready to obliterate it at a moment's notice. The army is mobilized, nuclear missiles are launched!

Our two hero's - though, in The Iron Giant's case, the protagonist is actually Hogarth, not the giant himself - both struggle and succeed in proving to the world that they're more than what they're told they are. Yet, one comes off as bland and uninspired, while the other is a magnificent cornucopia of emotional depth and intense characters.

Why is that?

Well, many things.

I'd like to highlight what I think is perhaps the most jarring difference between these two movies: the villain, or rather, the main antagonist.

In Mulan's case, that is Shan Yu, the Hun. He's violent and ruthless, as well as immensely powerful and terrifying. There, you know everything there is to know about Shan Yu. Another antagonist is the counsel of the emperor, Chi-fu. He, at least, isn't strictly evil either - he does what he thinks is right for his people - but he's also just an asshole. He's a talking caricature. A joke. He wields power, and is therefore a danger to Mulan's objectives, considering he's strongly opposed to her being in the army and being a pompous prick.

However, here's the thing with Chi-Fu: being a misogynist isn't special in this universe. Mulan's dad, while incredibly loving, also feels the same way about her being in the army. Sure, he loves her and doesn't want harm to come to her, but there's nothing in the movie that indicates he would've allowed her to go if her safety was guaranteed or something. It was simply, "not her place." Li Shang is the same! Even after Mulan saves his life, he doesn't change. Sure, a seedling of change may have been sown in his mind, but he disregards her warnings regardless.

The Iron Giant, on the other hand, doesn't have a villain. There's an antagonist, sure, Kent Mansley, but he's not evil. He's not violent, ruthless, immensely powerful, or terrifying. As a matter of fact, he's good. The government, as a whole, is also an antagonist, but it acts more as a force wielded by Kent which even then resists his misguided actions when the truth reveals itself.

The Iron Giant is set in 1957, during the cold war. People are scared - terrified, even - and Kent is no exception. We see what the kids learn in school through Hogarth, learning to hide under their desks to miraculously survive a nuclear strike... And then, an iron giant falls from the sky and starts eating cars! Kent definitely makes mistakes, and from our perspective - understanding the true nature of the giant - it seems that what he's doing is rather stupid and misguided. However, is it even? He wants to protect everyone! He just wants people to be safe, and he's a victim of the paranoia. He goes too far and lies, he exerts too much power, power he was not entitled to or ready to wield, and that led to terrible consequences, but he never aimed to harm. He wasn't a mindless, one-dimensional murderer. He was a civil servant trying to serve the public. His crime is fear and rashness.

Now, don't get me wrong. Misogyny isn't logical, so it does make sense that the character's aren't necessarily logical in their approach to it. It's about social norms, things that are taken for granted and left unquestioned. It makes sense that Mulan's struggle isn't just with the system, but with the unbending minds of those shaped by said system. However, I would mention that Mushu doesn't seem to have much of an issue with it, though he is painted as a bit of a cook and an outsider... Still, the antagonistic forces, the barriers that she overcomes are just that: they're barriers. Mindless barriers. The Iron Giant's antagonists aren't that at all, they're people. They're beings that have goals and objectives that go beyond "conquer China because me conquer" and "women weak because women."

There's a lot to both these movies, really, but that alone is enough to firmly place them on two very different tiers of animation.

Really, I found myself enraptured by every character in The Iron Giant maybe a thousand times more than any character in Mulan. Even Earl Stutz, the crazy fisherman, is more interesting than Mulan's companions. He, at least, tries to do something, instead of being comedy relief. He must have, what, 3 minutes of screen time? Maybe.

Overall, I feel like Mulan is populated by single-minded husks that sometimes say something funny and hit some notes, while The Iron Giant is a living and breathing world.

Brad Bird, I'm single.

But what do you think?

Mulan: 3/5
The Iron Giant: 5/5

I hate Demon Hunter!

The winrate seems to corroborate my impression that this deck is absolutely running through Standard...

What actually beats this?

Saw this post on Reddit and thought it was interesting to see someone's experience.

I've been trying for a few months to get rid of any stuff made out of EU (even before it was mainstream lol), and here are my conclusions at the moment:

Groceries: It's pretty easy. I try to go to local stores, but if I need to go to a supermarket, I go to Carrefour, Mercadona or Froiz, all european, and I've reached to the point that EVERYTHING I buy is european (mostly spanish, portuguese, french or italian).

Clothes: This has been tricky. To buy sneakers has been more dificult than I thought it would be. There are a lot of european brands that actually make it's products in China, Bangladesh, etc., so I had to look very close. Finally, I buyed Victoria sneakers and I'm very happy with them. For shoes and boots, Pikolinos is a very good brand also. Miguel Bellido shirts are very good as well.

Furniture: Well, Ikea is the obvious choice, but I do preffer to buy on spanish and portuguese stores that also have prety good quality for a good price, like Lufe.

Sports: Only sport that I play is climbing, and my last pair of climbing shoes are Tenaya Ra, and I couldn't be happier with them. La Sportiva has amazing products also, being italian and as far as I know, still manufacture in Italy.

Technology: Oh man, this is a pain... I don't want to throw away my iPhone 13 mini until it's done, but when the time comes, I don't know if there are going to be any alternatives. Fairphone, probably, but the components are also from China, right? And anyway, I will struggle with a big phone, which I hate. In PC I can move from Windows to Linux, but the mayority of the PC parts would be made in USA.

Good news is that the only USA page that I actually visit is Reddit, as I don't have Instagram, facebook or any other social media. Bad news is that it will be virtually impossible to leave Whatsapp.

Well, this is it, I guess that all of you are struggling with the same, being the technology the real issue, cause the rest is pretty easy to find alternatives even better.

My faith in Europe has risen since few months back, and I hope it's not too late for us to being able to compete in this new world that is emerging, where if you depend on any way on USA or China, you're lost.

A hug from Spain to all of you, european brothers. And sorry for my poor english.

I came across this website on Mastodon.

Switching.software

It doesn't have any European bias, seemingly, but it could be a resource for people interested in ditching the big US tech firms.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/57576884

There's so many ways to interact with the Fediverse. The most popular, by far, seems to be Mastodon, but Lemmy, Misskey, and Pixelfed are also relatively popular. Kbin used to be popular, but it has apparently been abandoned, and is mostly dead at this point.

I recently learned that Mbin is a thing, checked it out, and it looked really cool! Has anyone used it? How different is it from Lemmy? I hear they have better integration with Mastodon.

What Fediverse services do you actually, regularly use?

For me, it's mostly Lemmy, though I do hop on Mastodon every now and then.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/57576884

There's so many ways to interact with the Fediverse. The most popular, by far, seems to be Mastodon, but Lemmy, Misskey, and Pixelfed are also relatively popular. Kbin used to be popular, but it has apparently been abandoned, and is mostly dead at this point.

I recently learned that Mbin is a thing, checked it out, and it looked really cool! Has anyone used it? How different is it from Lemmy? I hear they have better integration with Mastodon.

What Fediverse services do you actually, regularly use?

For me, it's mostly Lemmy, though I do hop on Mastodon every now and then.

There's so many ways to interact with the Fediverse. The most popular, by far, seems to be Mastodon, but Lemmy, Misskey, and Pixelfed are also relatively popular. Kbin used to be popular, but it has apparently been abandoned, and is mostly dead at this point.

I recently learned that Mbin is a thing, checked it out, and it looked really cool! Has anyone used it? How different is it from Lemmy? I hear they have better integration with Mastodon.

What Fediverse services do you actually, regularly use?

For me, it's mostly Lemmy, though I do hop on Mastodon every now and then.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/57380534

The Warriors have been doing really well since the Jimmy trade. They're 9-2. That's very, very good.

Here's the thing: in that stretch of games, they faced exactly 0 (zero) actual contenders. By actual contenders, I mean OKC, the Nuggets, Boston, and Cleveland. The closest things to a contender they faced were the Mavs, the Knicks, and the Bucks, but the Bucks didn't have Giannis, they went 1-1 against the Mavs without AD and they're cooked regardless, and well the Knicks were actually good and got blown out. That is to say, I'm unconvinced.

You see people talking about how Steph's been unleashed by Jimmy, which might be fair

he has been playing really well, regardless of whether that can be attributed to Jimmy or not

but misses the point, at least in part. Has he been playing well against fuckass OKC? Because, quite frankly, if they can't beat Shai, it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

Steph needs another ring, Jimmy needs a ring. Anything outside of a championship is a failure for this season. Time is running out, and I just don't see this team performing at a high enough level to get there. I say this with a pained chest, of course, but they just aren't good enough.

I know, I know, shocker. Nobody's really walking around saying that the Warriors have a shot at the big-one, so it's not like I'm providing revolutionary analysis here, but it does frustrate me to watch this.

---

I'd also like to talk about NBA nicknames. I've always thought nicknames are one of the coolest aspect of NBA fandom; the joker, king James, chef Curry... These are iconic. They make watching the games that much more fun. Recently, the NBA has underwent a bit of a nickname renaissance, so to speak, seemingly on the back of "The Anomaly," referring to Jayson Tatum. It's not a bad nickname, as far as nicknames go, but it doesn't fit at all. It's a brilliant example of undeserved glazing, if anything. However, people have taken it in stride and started developing nicknames for other, sometimes mostly irrelevant NBA players.

My favourite ones so far are "The Trolley Problem" for Santi Aldama, and "The Ad Hominem Fallacy" for Jalen Green. I've tried looking it up, but I have no idea why Jalen got stuck with that, which makes it even funnier. They're so ridiculous, like Santi's, but mostly they're comprehensible. The idea is that Aldama presents a moral dilemma to the defender. Not bad, not bad... But I think that the sheer absurdity of a nickname as incomprehensible, nigh undecipherable, as Jalen Green's pushes it over the top of great into legendary status.

I saw a comment on a TikTok where the nickname "The Butcher" for Draymond Green was advanced. It pointed out how the Warriors have a chef, a butcher, and a butler. That's just perfect.

The Warriors have been doing really well since the Jimmy trade. They're 9-2. That's very, very good.

Here's the thing: in that stretch of games, they faced exactly 0 (zero) actual contenders. By actual contenders, I mean OKC, the Nuggets, Boston, and Cleveland. The closest things to a contender they faced were the Mavs, the Knicks, and the Bucks, but the Bucks didn't have Giannis, they went 1-1 against the Mavs without AD and they're cooked regardless, and well the Knicks were actually good and got blown out. That is to say, I'm unconvinced.

You see people talking about how Steph's been unleashed by Jimmy, which might be fair

he has been playing really well, regardless of whether that can be attributed to Jimmy or not

but misses the point, at least in part. Has he been playing well against fuckass OKC? Because, quite frankly, if they can't beat Shai, it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

Steph needs another ring, Jimmy needs a ring. Anything outside of a championship is a failure for this season. Time is running out, and I just don't see this team performing at a high enough level to get there. I say this with a pained chest, of course, but they just aren't good enough.

I know, I know, shocker. Nobody's really walking around saying that the Warriors have a shot at the big-one, so it's not like I'm providing revolutionary analysis here, but it does frustrate me to watch this.

I'd also like to talk about NBA nicknames. I've always thought nicknames are one of the coolest aspect of NBA fandom; the joker, king James, chef Curry... These are iconic. They make watching the games that much more fun. Recently, the NBA has underwent a bit of a nickname renaissance, so to speak, seemingly on the back of "The Anomaly," referring to Jayson Tatum. It's not a bad nickname, as far as nicknames go, but it doesn't fit at all. It's a brilliant example of undeserved glazing, if anything. However, people have taken it in stride and started developing nicknames for other, sometimes mostly irrelevant NBA players.

My favourite ones so far are "The Trolley Problem" for Santi Aldama, and "The Ad Hominem Fallacy" for Jalen Green. I've tried looking it up, but I have no idea why Jalen got stuck with that, which makes it even funnier. They're so ridiculous, like Santi's, but mostly they're comprehensible. The idea is that Aldama presents a moral dilemma to the defender. Not bad, not bad... But I think that the sheer absurdity of a nickname as incomprehensible, nigh undecipherable, as Jalen Green's pushes it over the top of great into legendary status.

I saw a comment on a TikTok where the nickname "The Butcher" for Draymond Green was advanced. It pointed out how the Warriors have a chef, a butcher, and a butler. That's just perfect.