Apr. 7th, 2017

kyburg: (Default)

The U.S. is bombing a country because we’re outraged a leader gassed his people, but we’re not outraged enough to take those same people in as refugees.

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oR5xKS
kyburg: (Default)

Liberals after the missile attack in Syria: If you voted against Hillary or didn’t vote because you “just didn’t like Hillary” I will never fucking forgive you. This is your fault! She would have never put us in this…

Hillary Clinton: 

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oN4NJy
kyburg: (Default)

This could save somebody’s life…

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oRtuBS
kyburg: (Default)

Dragons Like You Don’t Usually See Them by Brian Kesinger.

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oRjdp7
kyburg: (Default)


The show has 4 seasons, 105 episodes in total. So, where to start and what do you need to know?

First of all, there’s no continuous story in the show, so, you can technically start wherever you want or watch random episodes. But it’s advisable to start with seasons 1 or 2 and leave season 4 for the time you’ll get really used to the characters and know them well.

Season 1 is shot in black and white. It started off as a pretty serious spy show with Napoleon Solo as a central character. If you start watching the show from 1.01 you need to know who Napoleon Solo is.

Napoleon Solo has nothing in common with James Bond. He has a very likeable personality and he’s a man you can trust. He’s good enough to be a leading character. He’s not brooding or openly mysterious, you can swear you see every emotion he has on his face. He’s a very nice guy in general. And to enjoy the show properly you need to trust him. Many people have problems with him at first, because he flirts with every woman he sees, but he doesn’t really pursue them, he just really likes women and respects them, he’s ok with being rejected and is very good with his dates. Besides, it seems he flirts with women in the first 15 episodes as many times as in the rest 90. I mean, the quantity decreases massively as the show goes on. Well, maybe that’s because he finds someone else to flirt with. Here we go.

Illya Kuryakin was to be a side character, then a side-kick, then a co-star. The real show starts when he joins the action and starts interacting a lot with Napoleon Solo. You’ll love Illya the moment you see him. He’s very easy to like because he’s perfect. Of course, there’s more to him than just being a cute little kitten. Well, imagine, a Russian co-star in an American TV-show in the 60s. He had to be very good to survive. He’s very competent, very skillful, very efficient and very mysterious. David McCallum put a lot of effort into creating his personality and in the end we have a completely unique character.

Still, the most important thing in both Napoleon and Illya is their wonderful relationship that makes every second they share on screen golden. If that’s what you’re watching the show for, start with 1.03. Up to 1.09 you’ll have plenty of Illya in almost every episode. 1.10-1.12 will be short on him, but they’re all worth watching. Starting with 1.13 Illya becomes a proper co-star and appears in every episode except for 1.17. Also, note that 1.23 was shot before 1.03, you might try watching it in this order, it might be interesting.

Every single episode of season 1 is worth watching.

If you prefer things to be colourful, you might start with season 2. This season has a lot of wonderful episodes. The only thing I want to say is that in 2.01-2.09 Illya and Napoleon are less relaxed with each other than usually. So, if you’ll feel they’ve lost something, don’t be afraid, they’ll regain it shortly. 2.10-2.17 is my personal favourite bunch of episodes because of their dinamics.

By the end of season 1 the show had lost all its seriousness and now it’s pure spy-fi of a very high quality.

Season 3 is a bit more difficult than season 2, but it’s still full of wonderful episodes and golden moments. It has the worst episode of the show (3.14, you might skip it), but the rest of it is pretty ok. Up to 3.12 the show does brilliantly even if often over the top. The middle of the season is a roller-coaster and it’s worth experiencing. The last third of the season is not too strong, but never awful. If you get through it, you’ll be rewarded with the next season.

Season 4 is absolutely exquisite. All I can say, if you reached it, don’t die. And don’t start with season 4, never, please. It feels like a different show, but with the same characters. It only makes sense if you know them well and love them. It’s full of totally heartbreaking stories, but will leave you happy in the end. It’s advisable to watch the final episodes not in their original order, but safe 4.14 to watch the last one as it was probably shot the last one and it will leave you with a very sweet finish.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has everything for you to enjoy it. It might be a bit difficult to get hooked on it at first, but if you do, you’ll never regret it.

I think some of you might find this post handy.

Try this one. Promise, it’s a keeper.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oRpv8y
kyburg: (Default)

They’re gorgeous! #RepresentationMatters 

Here’s his Instagram.

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oMPvVq
kyburg: (Default)

It blows me when they only ask black qbs if they can handle a playbook

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oN5mDf
kyburg: (Default)





chicken shaming 



ive had this picture saved to my computer for years for just an occasion such as this.


from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oRlkJC
kyburg: (Default)



I have posted about survivorship bias and how it affects your career choices: how a Hollywood actor giving the classic “follow your dreams and never give up” line is bad advice and is pure survivorship bias at work.

When I read up on the wikipedia page, I encountered an interesting story:

During WWII the US  Air Force wanted to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. The Center for Naval Analyses ran a research on where bombers tend to get hit with the explicit aim of enforcing the parts of the airframe that is most likely to receive incoming fire. This is what they came up with:

So, they said: the red dots are where bombers are most likely to be hit, so put some more armor on those parts to make the bombers more resilient. That looked like a logical conclusion, until Abraham Wald - a mathematician - started asking questions: 

- how did you obtain that data?- well, we looked at every bomber returning from a raid, marked the damages on the airframe on a sheet and collected the sheets from all allied air bases over months. What you see is the result of hundreds of those sheets.- and your conclusion?- well, the red dots are where the bombers were hit. So let’s enforce those parts because they are most exposed to enemy fire. - no. the red dots are where a bomber can take a hit and return. The bombers that took a hit to the ailerons, the engines or the cockpit never made it home. That’s why they are absent in your data. The blank spots are exactly where you have to enforce the airframe, so those bombers can return.

This is survivorship bias. You only see a subset of the outcomes. The ones that made it far enough to be visible. Look out for absence of data. Sometimes they tell a story of their own.

BTW: You can see the result of this research today. This is the exact reason the A-10 has the pilot sitting in a titanium armor bathtub and has it’s engines placed high and shielded.

If you want to think scientifically, ALWAYS ask what data was included in a conclusion. And ALWAYS ask what data was EXCLUDED when making a conclusion.If they have excluded information because “it doesn’t exist” or “it was too hard to get” or “it was good data but was provided by people we don’t like”, then that is a BIG RED FLAG that the analysis was flawed.

Another example of this is originally doctor’s thought smoking protected people from developing dementia until someone pointed out it was because smokers didn’t usually live long enough to get the most common forms.

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oN5DpT
kyburg: (Default)



Eli Bosnick had the best response to this ridiculousness.

“If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?”

“Are the other skittles human lives?”


“Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?”

“Well sure. But the point-”

“I would eat the skittles.”

“Ok-well the point is-”

“I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single fucking skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.

Because your REAL question…the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN…

… and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question… is yes?”

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2oN3QB9


kyburg: (Default)

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8910111213 14
15 16 17 18 192021

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 21st, 2017 03:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios