Greg T
@gregt314.bsky.social
Gentleman, wordsmith, man-about-town, et cetera and so forth.
Formally, property owners who are not nobles by blood.
Colloquially, those who are not in the wealthiest or poorest 20% of the population.
Aspirationally, pretty much everyone, including the dirt poor and the uber-rich.
Colloquially, those who are not in the wealthiest or poorest 20% of the population.
Aspirationally, pretty much everyone, including the dirt poor and the uber-rich.
November 10, 2025 at 11:39 PM
Formally, property owners who are not nobles by blood.
Colloquially, those who are not in the wealthiest or poorest 20% of the population.
Aspirationally, pretty much everyone, including the dirt poor and the uber-rich.
Colloquially, those who are not in the wealthiest or poorest 20% of the population.
Aspirationally, pretty much everyone, including the dirt poor and the uber-rich.
I took it as you saying one thing that was true rather than attempting to encompass all things that are true. :-)
But also I love your dialogue so, whatever the case, you're doing it right. <3
But also I love your dialogue so, whatever the case, you're doing it right. <3
November 10, 2025 at 10:43 PM
I took it as you saying one thing that was true rather than attempting to encompass all things that are true. :-)
But also I love your dialogue so, whatever the case, you're doing it right. <3
But also I love your dialogue so, whatever the case, you're doing it right. <3
Dialogue choices provide the player with something to *be*.
November 10, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Dialogue choices provide the player with something to *be*.
It is not. It is Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but with Frankenstein. If you liked that film, you'll probably like this one, and if you didn't then you probably won't.
November 10, 2025 at 11:05 AM
It is not. It is Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but with Frankenstein. If you liked that film, you'll probably like this one, and if you didn't then you probably won't.
Parton likes to be liked, and he'll do what it takes to be liked, unless it has any personal cost to him (including effort), but at the end of the day he comes first; his gambling, landlord and developer mates come second; and no one else places.
November 10, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Parton likes to be liked, and he'll do what it takes to be liked, unless it has any personal cost to him (including effort), but at the end of the day he comes first; his gambling, landlord and developer mates come second; and no one else places.
A good number of the things I have to say about Mark Parton are arguably actionably defamatory if published on Bluesky.
But the property development and gambling industries will be happy.
But the property development and gambling industries will be happy.
November 10, 2025 at 3:59 AM
A good number of the things I have to say about Mark Parton are arguably actionably defamatory if published on Bluesky.
But the property development and gambling industries will be happy.
But the property development and gambling industries will be happy.
Absolutely the perfect choice for a party that stands for nothing.
November 10, 2025 at 3:10 AM
Absolutely the perfect choice for a party that stands for nothing.
If Frankenstein doesn't win the costuming Oscar then whatever it loses to will surely be a hell of a thing to see.
It may get a Best Picture nom but shouldn't win. Best Director, maybe, but probably not. Isaac, Elordi, Waltz and Goth are all reasonable noms or even wins for the acting categories.
It may get a Best Picture nom but shouldn't win. Best Director, maybe, but probably not. Isaac, Elordi, Waltz and Goth are all reasonable noms or even wins for the acting categories.
November 9, 2025 at 11:28 AM
If Frankenstein doesn't win the costuming Oscar then whatever it loses to will surely be a hell of a thing to see.
It may get a Best Picture nom but shouldn't win. Best Director, maybe, but probably not. Isaac, Elordi, Waltz and Goth are all reasonable noms or even wins for the acting categories.
It may get a Best Picture nom but shouldn't win. Best Director, maybe, but probably not. Isaac, Elordi, Waltz and Goth are all reasonable noms or even wins for the acting categories.
This is a film where not a single thing is even a little bit subtle, and that just makes it all feel that much more operatic.
If I have complaints, it's that the second half is neither as clever nor as beautiful as the first, and that at 2 hr 30 min running time it's honestly a touch too long.
If I have complaints, it's that the second half is neither as clever nor as beautiful as the first, and that at 2 hr 30 min running time it's honestly a touch too long.
November 9, 2025 at 11:24 AM
This is a film where not a single thing is even a little bit subtle, and that just makes it all feel that much more operatic.
If I have complaints, it's that the second half is neither as clever nor as beautiful as the first, and that at 2 hr 30 min running time it's honestly a touch too long.
If I have complaints, it's that the second half is neither as clever nor as beautiful as the first, and that at 2 hr 30 min running time it's honestly a touch too long.
My film for today was also Frankenstein! About to post it..
November 9, 2025 at 11:15 AM
My film for today was also Frankenstein! About to post it..
The evidence generally suggests that constructive third-party editing builds literacy skills rather than undermines them.
November 9, 2025 at 5:06 AM
The evidence generally suggests that constructive third-party editing builds literacy skills rather than undermines them.
It is absolutely not the case that we are all capable of writing a letter - 14% of all US adults were functionally illiterate well prior to ChatGPT - and of those who are functionally literate, a relatively small percentage are able to effectively tone-shift between audiences.
November 9, 2025 at 2:49 AM
It is absolutely not the case that we are all capable of writing a letter - 14% of all US adults were functionally illiterate well prior to ChatGPT - and of those who are functionally literate, a relatively small percentage are able to effectively tone-shift between audiences.
It gives the remarkable sense that a full twelve hours of narrative were shot, which were then brutally edited down into a relatively lean 126 minutes, and yet somehow it still occasionally feels slow. And yet, when it's good, it's good.
November 8, 2025 at 9:33 AM
It gives the remarkable sense that a full twelve hours of narrative were shot, which were then brutally edited down into a relatively lean 126 minutes, and yet somehow it still occasionally feels slow. And yet, when it's good, it's good.
Jude Law struggles valiantly as the villain in a script that rarely brings him face to face with the other leads. Charlie Hunnam is agreeably macho as Arthur. Aidan Gillen does a lot with a little as "Goosefat Bill". If the film fails, it's not for a lack of good ore to smith with.
November 8, 2025 at 9:31 AM
Jude Law struggles valiantly as the villain in a script that rarely brings him face to face with the other leads. Charlie Hunnam is agreeably macho as Arthur. Aidan Gillen does a lot with a little as "Goosefat Bill". If the film fails, it's not for a lack of good ore to smith with.
King Arthur as a working-class medieval London heist film is an idea that has legs, and Ritchie brings energy and humour to those scenes. King Arthur as an insane fantasy epic full of fireballs, giant snakes and demon elephants is also tempting, but the two visions never seem to cohere into a film.
November 8, 2025 at 9:27 AM
King Arthur as a working-class medieval London heist film is an idea that has legs, and Ritchie brings energy and humour to those scenes. King Arthur as an insane fantasy epic full of fireballs, giant snakes and demon elephants is also tempting, but the two visions never seem to cohere into a film.
I feel like if Joe Versus The Volcano had been made between 1995 and 2000 there's a pretty good chance the lead role would have gone to Jim Carrey rather than Tom Hanks.
November 7, 2025 at 8:30 AM
I feel like if Joe Versus The Volcano had been made between 1995 and 2000 there's a pretty good chance the lead role would have gone to Jim Carrey rather than Tom Hanks.
I don't agree with the article's contention that Sigil was doomed to fail "with the benefit of hindsight". It was also doomed with the benefit of even a modicum of foresight, and I said so at the time.
November 7, 2025 at 1:46 AM
I don't agree with the article's contention that Sigil was doomed to fail "with the benefit of hindsight". It was also doomed with the benefit of even a modicum of foresight, and I said so at the time.
The people I'm referring to include friends who use LLMs professionally to bridge communication gaps arising from (variously) dyslexia, dyscalculia, neurodivergence, mirror movement disorder, and vision impairment, and I'd really rather they weren't bullied for it, thanks.
November 7, 2025 at 1:15 AM
The people I'm referring to include friends who use LLMs professionally to bridge communication gaps arising from (variously) dyslexia, dyscalculia, neurodivergence, mirror movement disorder, and vision impairment, and I'd really rather they weren't bullied for it, thanks.
Bad uses of AI are often very visible, good uses rarely are.
(The bad uses that are invisible are the real worry.)
(The bad uses that are invisible are the real worry.)
November 7, 2025 at 1:02 AM
Bad uses of AI are often very visible, good uses rarely are.
(The bad uses that are invisible are the real worry.)
(The bad uses that are invisible are the real worry.)