I agree completely. There were points during the Mandalorian city liberation too where I thought they looked the exact opposite of a seasoned fighting force. But this isn't Andor - we shouldn't expect realistic drama. It's much broader than that.

It's a bit down compared to series one. Personally, I think Grogu shouldn't be in it any more - it's absurd that he lugs around essentially a baby on risky combat missions, although I recognise this is just part of the show I need to accept to engage with it.

I found the Empire infiltration plot interesting - best sequence for me so far was the plight of the Imperial scientist working for the New Republic now. It was at least interesting and new.

I also like the general Mandalorian rebuilding plot - we'll see where they go with that.

Weak plots have been everything involving giant monsters attacking foundlings, an overused idea. I found them boring and also kind of dumb.

I have only ever walked out of one film, at a horror film festival: The Death of Alice Blue. We have sat through worse, but it was a combination of not enjoying the film at all and a generally bad day. We got drunk instead.

There are mathematical proofs of convergence for a single perceptron matching a linear classification, but for more realistic modern neural nets, I don't believe there are any proofs guaranteeing general convergence because I don't think convergence is actually guaranteed, for the reason pointed out, you can't be certain gradient descent will find the "right" minima.

I have to reluctantly agree. Glass Onion was decent fun but essentially absurd and lacking the kind of murderous credibility that is maintained throughout the first film.

It's not a "selfish" motivator to give up your happiness or well being for another.

Semantics is not an irrelevance. Words carry meaning. When you use the word "selfish" to mean "self chosen" you, deliberately it seems, rob the word of its usual meaning.

The "deepest underlying motive" of giving one's life for another is not selfish. It's selfless. Redefining those words is a choice whose effect is to blur the moral value of the act in exactly the way Ayn Rand would like.

"Selfish" does not mean "anything done through free will". As the vast majority of people understand the term, it means doing what you want regardless of the effect on others. Choosing to define it differently is choosing to misunderstand the common meaning of the term without any benefit.

Defining "selfishness" as "doing what you think is right" or "doing what you think will make you feel morally good about yourself" robs the word of its usual meaning. Selfishness is pursuing your self interest regardless of others.

When our self interest is tied into the good of others, it's absurd to use the same term - it robs us of a meaningful distinction between two very different motivations for our actions.

A stranger risks her life to save a child - only the cheapest moral outlook can shrug its shoulders and equate that with a miser robbing his employees of their due. The only connection is that both acted as they wished to act. Equating them morally is a profound absurdity.

>There is literally no such thing as altruism. People do NOT do things for others "selflessly". There is ALWAYS some personal satisfaction, whatever it may be, in helping others.

This is hopelessly naive and exactly the same kind of lame reductionism that creates a prison for thought.

Of course there is altruism. Hunting around in it and dressing it up as selfish says significantly more about you than it does the concept of altruism itself.

I think Flip is beyond good and evil, like Cthulhu.

I am a big fan of Connie Willis. But my favourite book of hers may be the comparatively slight Bellwether.