In hindsight, I suppose I should have appealed to the fact that critiquing the seminal papers in the field is a serious data set bias and that trying to "learn to critique" on the best papers ever written in a field was less likely to produce a useful "critiquing" skill and more likely to produce some overfitted garbage skill, but, hey, I hadn't taken AI yet! I didn't know how to express that.
(It did produce a garbage skill, too. I tried writing "real" critiques using my brain, but after getting Cs and Ds for the first couple, I learned my lesson, and mechanically spit out "Needs more data", "should have studied more", and as appropriate, "sample sizes were too small". Except for that last one, regardless of the study. Bam. A series of easy As. Sigh. I liked college over all, but there were some places I could certainly quibble.)
Anyhow, this is the paper that needs to be assigned towards the end of the semester, and students asked to "critique" it. It's a much better member of the training data set for this sort of skill.
In my freshman Composition class we needed to pick a controversial topic and argue one side. Highest grade on that assignment went to someone who argued that smoking causes lung cancer (this was 2003). The instructor explained that it was the most convincing paper. Those who picked an actually controversial topics got the lowest grades because their arguments were less of a slam-dunk.
My professor was a Nobel laureate, so already pretty intimidating. After we each picked a theory and wrote an outline he asked that we review with him. Well, he said, “I don’t know why you’d pick that. That’s going to be too hard.” So I asked if I could change, but he said that it’s too late for that and wished me luck… I was more than happy with the C+ I got.
For a science paper, if it's something people are still reading 30-50 years later, it was apparently good enough. I can always critique the paper for failing to solve String Theory and then draw out from String Theory a mathematical demonstration of how their solution for getting robots to navigate around boxes is very good, but that's more a reflection of me than the paper.
https://github.com/journal-doi/cough
https://github.com/the-pudding/cough
https://github.com/arp242/goatcounter (bonus material)
Love it.
> We prefer subtitles over machine-learning-based detection because the presence of a cough in subtitles means it was prominent enough for a person to write it down. Also our postdoctoral fellow was the only one who completed the Tensorflow tutorial.
lol
Surprised one did, it is a real pain in the arse
the only reason i checked was because the layout and typography was too pretty for a real journal site :)
<3 pudding.cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpQAGQiv4Q
https://www.loc.gov/collections/wilbur-and-orville-wright-pa...
https://generalaviationnews.com/2011/05/09/fliers-or-liars/#....
Overall, an entirely irrelevant issue.
Anyway, the point is, coughs per hour would help us know if audiences simply favor longer or shorter movies at different points in time.
Probably adjusted for the number of nominees per year
= Durationgeist :)
I enjoyed Dune, and believe it should win best picture. Partly because I haven’t seen the other movies mentioned.
After learning about the coughgeist, I’m more convinced than ever they will win. Sound research.
That dude had a certain style, cinematic intellectualism with beautiful cinematography. It's definitely not for everyone. Dune is that unique blend of world building, political intrigue, religious exploration, coming of age, and a tiny bit of action. Hard to get all of that in one movie, and the trailers made it seem more Star Wars than Blade Runner.
It's the sort of movie to watch when you're seeking quiet contemplation, not popcorn pulp...
I was completely gripped with the new Dune but God help her if she tries to watch Lawrence of Arabia, Tarkovsky (e.g. Stalker), or 2001. For me it works, I appreciate others might not like it but I thought the style was great.
I didn't expect to like it because I didn't really like the book. For me, this is one of the few times where I think the movie is better than the book.
I am glad that a film like that can even be made these days given that I think you're right about modern attention spans.
This is because directors usually don't have anything to do with the trailers (in fact, it's typically outsourced to companies who specialize in making them). Trailers tend to reflect what the studio execs want people to think the movie is about, which trends towards "what gets the most people to buy tickets?"
Sadly, I don't think this will ever change.
I did enjoy the movie, though. Villeneuve really did the book justice, and I cannot wait for part two.
It's also pretty horrible from past audiences' point of view given that they'd expect to see more than a prologue in a 155m film. Villenueve makes truly beautiful movies but it comes at a cost.
Villeneuve has been dreaming of making his Dune since he was a boy and it shows. ignoring the visuals, the tone is just so much more ominous and alien than Lynch's. One thing that really dates old movies versus their modern counterparts (of sorts) is the sound design. Dune's sounds are absolutely fantastic.
Sorry but no, it really really isn't.
Just a few highlights:
* Why would soldiers sent to fight on a Desert-Planet wear black, vulcanised, full body rubber Hazmat suits?
* What on Earth is a "Wyrding Module" supposed to be?
* What exactly is achieved by charging into battle while holding a pug on ones arm?
* It says "Ornithopter" in the books, implying something vaguely animal-shaped, not a hovering metal box.
* Why do communication devices in the far future resemble telephones from the early 1900s?
* What exactly was the point of bringing the late-stage navigator to the meeting in a room-sized spice-tank, when his subordinate did all the talking anyway?
...did we see the same movie? It's a Villeneuve piece through and through.
For one thing, most of the characters are elided, they appear but they have so few lines and so little consequence that they might as well have been left out. Thufir Hawat especially was woefully neglected. Piter De Vries? No one even says his name! If you haven't read the book you wouldn't know who David Dastmalchian is supposed to be.
The movie is filmed in Jordan and Montreal, which have a similar feel to Dune, and I would say that he probably took inspiration from his Incendies days to make Dune.
The movie is based on a play by Wajdi Mouawad, who now works at the very prestigious théâtre national de la Colline as the director.
The 2021 Biology winner was:
> Susanne Schötz, Robert Eklund, and Joost van de Weijer, for analyzing variations in purring, chirping, chattering, trilling, tweedling, murmuring, meowing, moaning, squeaking, hissing, yowling, howling, growling, and other modes of cat–human communication.
So, when it is just the right amount, it makes for awards, but when too much - especially in a thriller - it gets panned.
By extension, eating and sleeping could work, though that is boring.
Now, if there was just some other vice that wasn't boring.... wait! So that is why porn is so popular ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxFQbjQbPq0
Do I need another reason?
DUNE (1984) - Brian Eno - Prophecy Theme: https://youtu.be/t4onBqilHvc
Is there anything so mundane or horrific that we as a species haven’t attempted to make light of it yet?
Maybe this dichotomy is what makes us human.
Edit: Just checked on opensubtitles.org and zero coughs!
