Fleischer vs Disney

 Disney was not the first to make a cartoon with sound, but Disney wanted you to think that. Bette Boop is the remains of a studio that lost to the marketing prowess of Walt Disney and his brother. Some theorists even think Bendy and the Ink Machine references that studio. More on that later.

Courtesy of Animationresources.org

First of all, let's start by explaining the style differences between Fleischer Studios and Disney. Fleischer is grittier, more adult even, than Disney. Disney had a family-friendly animation style that had brighter colors. When you see the differences between these cartoons it isn't hard to see why family-friendly won out, yet there were also other reasons Disney beat out Fleischer. One of those reasons was marketing talent and the other was underhandedly claiming that Disney had the first sound cartoon (while also burying the evidence that they lied). 

Fleischer studios had the first sound cartoon four years before Disney did. Both were competing against each other in the movie theatres. Disney told the press not to put Fleischer in the articles they wrote. Disney won out and we only really remember Bette Boop and Popeye, which are both Fleischer. 

Fleischer Studios Brief History

Since I'm assuming you know next to nothing about Fleischer, we'll dive into the history of Fleischer Studios before we talk about the feud. They are famous for Bette Boop cartoons and Popeye, mostly, but Bette Boop seems to never die. She is a side character that is the counterpart to Bimbo the dog. Don't remember him? That's okay because Bette outshined her boyfriend (and yes, she was supposed to be a french bulldog). They had to tone her down when TV laid down the law on sexualizing characters (though I'd bet the almost original design is what you see on merchandise now). 

This studio was born out of a New York apartment, had one employee, and was called "out of the inkwell" studios, which later became Fleischer Studios. Max Fleischer had also invented the rotoscope. This device made cartoons look more lifelike. Their first character was a clown named Koko. After some time and lots of struggle, they moved the studio to Miami, Florida and hired 700 people. It was a lot better than a basement apartment below a brothel (yes, they worked on their animation just below a brothel). They eventually, after money problems that could have ended them, were absorbed into Paramount, where the name became Fleischer Studios. They also employed the first female animator and she animated thirteen films for them, including some Bette Boop films. 

The characters this studio brought to life were Koko, Bette Boop, Bimbo the Dog, Popeye, Superman, and several others. He has quite a lot of success and quite a lot of struggle. Let me show you an example of the grittier, even adult, style of these cartoons. Superman may not have been so much of this style, but I wouldn't like this style I put below if I were a kid. Bette Boop is not scarring (even tame compared to some movies today). "Swing You Sinner" is a bit weird, so strap in and hang on for the ride. 

Disney Vs Fleischer

Here is where we may just put in another Fleischer cartoon to make you question the sanity of the animators and writers. If you look at the beginning street scene you will find Mickey locking Bimbo into the cultists' underground area. This was likely made while things were a little heated between Disney and Fleischer. 

Max and Dave Fleischer didn't get along all the time, despite running a studio together. By WWII they were out of business. Around WWI they actually did cartoons and live-action together. They were ahead of their time. Despite all this, money was an issue. This led to coming into Paramount. When "Steamboat Willie" came out Mickey made waves. Bette Boop and Popeye were a way to try to keep up with Disney. One of Bette Boop's creators was eventually going to draw Snow White for Disney, stolen away to another animation company. After Snow White things got bad.

To quote the Sun Sentinel:

In his book about Hollywood, Just Tell Me When To Cry," Max's son, movie director Dick Fleischer, wrote: "At my parent's house, 'Disney' was a dirty word. If you said it at dinner you were sent away from the table. My father, let alone being a full-fledged, authentic genius, was the nicest, sweetest, kindest, funniest, most tolerant man who ever lived. But mention 'Disney' in his presence and his whole personality changed. An internal, seething anger would seize him."

Fleischer, after moving to Miami, Florida with his studio, got to work on Gulliver's Travels. It was completed despite the fact the two brothers were barely on speaking terms. It didn't beat Snow White. Superman gave them the boost they wanted, even though they didn't like the project. The loan was not yet paid and Paramount demanded they pay it, tired of the squabbling brothers. They couldn't, so it was renamed Famous Studios and they were evicted from it. 

The squabbling brothers had so many issues, but that may not have been all it was. Let me quote the Sun Sentinel again.

Courtesy of Pinterest

In his book on the Fleischers, Cabarga claims there were other factors that contributed to the brothers' breakup with Paramount. For example, Joe was angry at Max for blocking his efforts to become a partner. And Paramount and Max were disturbed that Dave was carrying on an extramarital affair with his secretary, whom he later married. Dave, on the other hand, claimed he had learned that Max and Paramount were siphoning off profits to another corporation.

"Dave told a story about a man from Paramount taking him and Max to a ratty shack in the Florida Keys with three girls," Leslie Cabarga writes in The Fleischer Story. "Dave says he slept on the porch that night to avoid the risk of being personally compromised in any way."

Max's son, Dick, on the other hand, believes that Paramount executives wanted the Fleischers out of the way so they could control the future sales of films to television, which was just coming into the picture.

After The Studio Was Lost

The two brothers and everyone else stayed busy. Max continued in animation for different studios. He died in 1972, aged to 89. When his daughter Ruth showed him Life magazine with Walt Disney on the cover (despite barely being able to speak at that point) she heard the faint words "son of a b*tch". His brother Dave worked for Colombia and Universal and died in 1979.

Some staff stayed on at the newly named studio, others left, and one invented the pop-top that stays attached to the can after cutting his foot on a can tab somewhere. 

What may surprise you is that Max Fleischer's son, Richard, got the opportunity and offer from Walt Disney to direct "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". He told Disney he needed to talk to his father first, and Disney said sure. 

To quote Collider.com, this was the response:

For all the animosity he had harbored for Walt Disney over the years, Max’s answer was immediate. “You must do that picture,” he told Richard. “You didn’t have to call me to ask me…it’s absolutely vital for you…but I have a message I’d like you to give to Walt Disney.”

“What is that?” asked Richard.

“You tell Walt,” said Max, “he’s got great taste in directors.”

Soon after, Walt invited Richard's family on a personal tour. Max got to see a lot of past employees during this tour. Apparently they had lunch together often since that point. 

Oh, and in case you wanted the reference to Bendy, here it is. Enjoy!

(fleischerstudios.com)

Fleischer Studios in Miami | (cartoonresearch.com)

SHOWDOWN AT TOONTOWN – Sun Sentinel (sun-sentinel.com)

Walt Disney and Max Fleischer's Feud and Friendship Explained (collider.com)

celebrity court cases and public opinion

 We all know about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. What you see happening on social media are the whims of the public, which means that no matter the legal end of the case, the public will cause a celebrity's life and image to change. This can be for the better or for the worst. Let's talk about that. 

Courtesy of hotlifestylenews.com

The court of public opinion is the mechanic that caused lynchings in the west. The court system sees to it that we don't lynch people on a whim and only punish someone for actual criminal activity. At this point, I predict that Johnny Depp and Amber Heard will both be perceived differently and one (if you can't guess by the lack of support on social media, Amber Heard) will likely be losing a lot - and I don't mean money or trial outcomes. Depp is correct in saying he's already lost a lot, however, his fan base has not abandoned him and he is standing on the support of fans. Amber Heard will likely be less respected from now on because she allegedly lied in court at least once.

That court case aside, public opinion can poison a jury. It can ruin reputations in the blink of an eye. Never mind if it is true; it just has to sell newspapers. Whether you admit it or not, you follow the celebrity news when it comes up on your social media. When a case is made against a famous actor you often see the news blow it up everywhere. The public believing lies is dangerous. The truth being circulated is sometimes good for one person and bad for the other. If someone is too tired to fight, we see their health dive (Paula Deen) or they just admit to something that may or may not be true. What we see here is the mob justice in a watered-down version. No matter who wins the case, one or both parties win and lose their reputation. 

Already Intrusive Without A Court Case

How often do we follow what celebrities do? More than you think. Depending on how famous one actually is, one may be famous and feel like they are living in a glass house. Depp is a huge celebrity, for example, so we see his fanbase everywhere defending him. Heard, on the other hand, only has a few people speaking out, especially after Depp has finished his testimonies. This case is complicated. Even before this case, life as a celebrity is not all fun and games.

Courtesy of L'express

Imagine you are going on a walk and someone starts snapping pictures of you without your permission, sells those pictures to a sleazy magazine, and then you find them in a tabloid article that isn't true at all.  This happens to major celebrities quite often. Some will make faces when they see people sneak photos. They make it clear they see you and play with the people taking the photos on the sly. The celebrities that keep their lives private take a tremendous effort in doing so. Intrusive? Yes. Putting this in the context of a major, circus-like court case (which I'm sure the judge presiding just hates), being a celebrity in a courtroom is even worse. Everyone is paying attention to your case. If Amber Heard is truly making up stories, like some people think she is, she will get caught and the public will know everything. If Depp has done anything bad at all the same is true. All of it is put on display. It is only a matter of time before we find out who is telling the truth and who has lied. 

Courtesy of Ebaums World

The world was watching all this drama unfold even before the case went to court. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the truth of celebrity life. You broke up with someone? Let's hope you kept it quiet. You abused someone? It will all come out at some point. When the romantic lives of people in the spotlight go wrong everyone who follows their story wants to know more than they ever should know. A media circus simply turns up the heat on the drama and waits to see what happens, documenting every interaction until it floods social media. People love watching a trainwreck. 

When The Trail Outcome Means Nothing And Everything

Using the current Depp vs Heard case as an example, I'm going to explain why the trial outcome may mean nothing and everything. Depp is right in saying the allegations will follow him for the rest of his life. Again, though, social media favors Depp, meaning Heard could win the case and still lose everything. Why? Because Depp proved abuse against him with witnesses and evidence. We don't know what the rest of the case holds at this current time. Heard just told her side of it and there has been no opposition yet unless I missed something. 

Courtesy of skynetplatforms.com

As the case stands currently, many people think Heard is lying. If Depp's team takes her story apart piece by piece she has no legs to stand on. This is why she could lose it all. Money and trial results aside, my personal opinion is that her career is going to dip lower than she ever thought it could. Depp, on the other hand, is getting overwhelming support. Unless I missed something, Heard is in horribly deep water in the eyes of the public. Depp could win back everything (not speaking of money) or some of what he lost when she allegedly slandered him. Thus this trial could mean nothing and everything to Depp, given allegations don't just disappear from public memory. Heard could lose everything from all this exposure. 

Another aspect of this case is linked to Heard being a "spokesperson for domestic abuse". If she lied about it all she loses every ounce of credibility she ever had. Let's be real here; she's lost some of that credibility in the eyes of the public right now, let alone after this has concluded. Seriously, she won't have anything left of her career if she lied about her abuse experience. It will come back to haunt her for years. The same would go for Depp since we're looking at this objectively. If he lied about abuse or not being an abuser he'd be in the same boat. From what I've looked at in the trail updates, however, I am more inclined to say Depp is likely not lying. I guess only time will tell. Whatever the outcome, may God reveal the truth and the lies as all this unfolds.

*Please note that the trial is ongoing, so by the time I've written and scheduled this blog for posting it may not be accurate to the current state of the trial. Being accurate to the state of the trial was not what this was about.*

A commentary on patience

 I play Taonga Island and have watched people drop off of the game for weeks. There are only five to six neighbors left with awake islands. Why do people only want fast-moving games? Let's find out. 

Courtesy of bananatic.com

The patience level of the public is lower than it was before. As the levels of Taonga Island require either money for diamonds (that speeds up tasks) or waiting and coming back, people stop playing the game. Today we look at how much patience the public actually has. 

Our Current Society

Given the instant gratification that we expect from devices, it'd be no surprise that we'd get bored when something isn't instant. Advertisements talk about the speed of the internet. We can pay extra for same-day shipping and faster shipping. We are given stuff now, no delays, and it is taking a toll on our patience levels as a whole society. Even today I grumbled at my work computer for being slow. I see people get anxious after a brief waiting period and get upset or angry. All generations suffer from a lack of patience - particularly in the customer service department. Anyone working for the general public has seen this. We can tell stories about being yelled at for being slow, despite going the fastest that we physically can. Not only do we expect instant gratification from devices, but humans, as well! 

Courtesy of Pinterest

What doesn't help is that devices can give us faster gratification. Younger generations get used to this and don't like waiting for anything. I used to wait for an internet connection and a free phone line to use the internet. Dial-up has become high-speed internet and you can now make a call while surfing the web. Our technology growth is good, but the instant gratification that people get used to doesn't teach us to wait. Attention deficit disorder has gone up and we focus less. Why do you think social media videos are so short?

It is worth noting that some places need fast, like military operations and investigations. At the same time, we also need to learn that waiting for the right time to do something or making slow and steady progress is worth it. Let me point you to the arts that are incredibly detailed and take hours. You can't start that, get bored, and still have the pretty counted cross stitch on your wall. You miss out on the satisfaction of finishing a long journey and process to get the reward at the end. The journey is part of the fun. That cross-stitch is worth far more to you now than something you bought already made.

The arts that require time and patience are worth money. Have you noticed that? We pay someone to make a cabinet or do a craft that takes hours because we don't want to learn it ourselves. This certainly helps crafters (no complaints from my end on that), yet it also demonstrates how we don't want to take the time to make it ourselves. Obviously, not everyone has a wood shop or the space, so that is also part of why. The situation here is that we want a shortcut. Games take this opportunity to sap money from us to get money for a FREE game. Taonga Island is no different. This is one of the few criticisms I have of free mobile games.  

What games do to take advantage

There are two types of games that I'll talk about, but one is free if you have the patience to wait. If you don't, a free game can cost you money with in-game purchases of perks. The benefit of a game that already costs money is that you may not have in-game purchases in it. 

Free games, like Taonga Island, are fun if you have a higher patience level than most. Higher levels require more crafting items and more time to wait for them to finish. There is an energy limit built in so you don't burn out on it. The in-game purchases are usually meant to speed you along and con you out of money. It isn't worth it, since most times you can wait or come back the next day to find your crafting items all done. Those that don't have any attention span get taken advantage of by the mere offer (psychological suggestion) of spending money to speed up a process that doesn't have any urgency (unless you are addicted). 

The other type of game doesn't do this to you (unless you can get extension packs and perks). This is the game you paid money for and can play all day with no energy limit. Maybe you can have some in-game purchases, but they aren't shamelessly flown like a flag in front of you (at least I hope not) because the people already have your money. The key difference is that the makers of the game made you pay to get it, rather than making it free and limiting your playtime unless you pay for extra energy. 

Courtesy of laneros.com

Gamers with more attention span tend to pay for a game and then play it, as opposed to the free games limiting how much they can do. Taonga Island and many other free games are fun, yes, but they can take advantage of those that want instant gratification by taking their money for extra perks and faster play. Those that refuse to put money into a free game can get bored and that is why so many neighbors dropped off my list as time passed. The game could no longer hold the attention of some people. Others are still playing and active (me). 

Technology's Fault or Not?

Our phones are only a part of it. We teach our younger generations how to interact. Society also pushes quick progress, which doesn't help. I mentioned faster shipping, right? Well, yeah, that has something to do with it. Online shopping is an effect of society wanting everything now. It is how we use the technology, not the devices themselves. You can't blame a website for what it was programmed for because humans programmed it. The inanimate object doesn't use itself. 

What it really comes down to is how we use what we have. Inanimate objects don't move themselves (unless you program them to). It is our fault when it comes down to it. Society is moving too fast to cultivate patience. This may also depend on where you come from, so keep that in mind. Smaller towns tend to move slower and living in the middle of nowhere tends to cultivate patience in some ways. Aside from that, our lives move faster than they used to, even then. 

What do we do about it? 

Real life requires waiting in certain seasons. Staying at a job for a longer period of time gets you a promotion more often than job-jumping. Loyalty is rewarded in most places. Patience is required to stay at a job, especially if you want to rise up the ladder. What's more, some situations require social patience and blow over if you wait calmly. Not everything needs an immediate reaction. Not everyone can give an immediate answer. 

I don't truly know what will help this, other than perhaps training our younger generations to wait well. That is all we can do. We have to model this skill, however, so it won't be easy. The real, honest truth is that we need society to slow down. I don't see that happening anytime soon. We also need to get rid of game features that encourage immediate gratification in free games. Seriously, it gets annoying to have ads waved in your face (telling you to buy energy and diamonds to keep playing, no less). 

https://studybreaks.com/culture/instant-gratification/

https://medium.com/the-productivity-inn/why-the-world-is-getting-more-impatient-every-year-8ed0ac526354

https://www.zdnet.com/article/technology-is-making-us-more-impatient-says-study/

Needlework and Women

Women are the ones who tend to do needlework in society. I have never seen any man pick up a counted cross stitch. Please show me one if you have a picture. Let's look at why and take a trip back in time. 

Courtesy of Fabric Alchemist

Let's step back, back to the time when women ran the house and men went off to war or worked. In the movie Brave, we see Merida rip through a tapestry (months of work) in seconds. Her mother is horrified, then livid. Take another look at the tapestry and think of how much work went into it. In that period of time (14th century Scotland-ish) you couldn't just get a pre-mapped kit and buy the thread. No, sir! You had to make the thread yourself, design it all yourself, and sit for hours doing this. Only women would have the time to do this because men were busy doing other things. War, fighting bears, and many other activities were a bit more important than decorating the castle with tapestries. Yet, when we see castles we admire the tapestries. This is what the queen was making and it was a picture of her family. Only she would have the extra time to do this type of art. This is where we dive into further historical context as to why Herrshners sells more sewing to women than men. 

Women's Education

Gender roles have prevailed in the art of needlework, which involves crafts like embroidery, knitting, and crochet. Men are not targeted with ads for this art. Why? Years of teaching women sewing and domestic arts and teaching men to find work and pay the bills. Look at Joann's and tell me how many men you find in the needlework section or the entire store. Count them. I'll wait. The point is that it isn't common among men to be taught to sew. Unless you are a cosplayer or have broken the mold you are likely not a man who can sew. My husband is an obvious exception and loves to sew. You don't see it every day, but it can happen and I love it. 

Courtesy of Pinterest
A Sewing Sampler

Women have been educated in domestic arts throughout time. While life has changed, it somewhat hasn't. Herrshners can probably tell you that women are the ones ordering or men are buying for women. Domestic arts include sewing, housekeeping, and cooking. Women, as most of us know, have been confined to domestic spheres for many time periods. This is no longer true, yet most crafting stores appeal primarily to women, which is infinitely fascinating. Men, on the other hand, are targeted by hardware stores (most of which learn to appeal to women in the plant section). Gender roles don't just go away after years of use.

Being schooled in household arts meant that women were often excluded from public sphere topics. Cooking and caring for a home was par for the course when you weren't supposed to be in the workforce doing hard labor. Women were stuck in the domestic sphere, with the notable exception of wartime. Even then they had a house to run. Women who had less money sewed to keep their clothes together and richer women sewed for fun (embroidery or "ornamentals"). All classes sewed, but for different reasons. In some schools, men learned to sew (in co-ed situations) along with women. Sewing was considered good labor for women and was needed to maintain clothing and make a living as a seamstress (if you needed to). It was practical at that time to know how to sew (and it still is, frankly). The samplers you see young girls doing are practice for basic stitches. If you need an example, watch Little Women (2019) and pause when the camera focuses on Beth's needlework on her wall. 

Courtesy of Pinterest -
Women at Howard University

The arts are attributed to women for many reasons, one being that the education system split how boys were raised and girls were raised in two. The arts were sent in the female direction because it made them into more marriage material. Post-revolutionary parents liked that and dance was also added. This is why dance in some forms is considered more feminine. Women, in this way, also became hostesses and found some voice in political times over tea parties and salons. Some were educated at home, like the March family. Needlework boomed in women's education and decorative needlework was approved by parents. There were whole schools devoted to it, catered to women specifically. When Amy in Little Women says she'll be an ornament to society, she is referring to the "ornamental" arts that made women marriage material. (This also included painting, but that is rather co-ed by now.) As education was reformed these were not taught as much, but we still associate those arts, like dance and embroidery, with women. In fact, most arts -visual and performance- were taught to women during their schooling if they were at a girls' school. The level of schooling depended on income, however. Later on, women were hired into textile industries that used sewing machines because of all the education on sewing they received. 

Across Classes 

The elite, like in Bridgerton, did it to pass time. The lower class used it for either income or to maintain their clothing for the longest possible use. They may even make their own. The incredible thing about sewing is that most women of both classes knew how to do it. Whether it was for practical or time-passing reasons, women passed it on to other women for generations. At this moment, I can tell you with confidence that women and serious cosplayers do the most sewing in the world. My man made me a purse and will be making me another purse sometime soon. He can use a sewing machine better than I can, and I am happy to let him do that. 

Another angle to the arts being taught to primarily women is that women were taught to express emotion. What does this have to do with ornamental art? Lots, because men were taught primarily logic, which means they were taught less expression of emotion. The two balance each other out, like puzzle pieces clicking together. The gender box that each sex was put into survives to this day. This greatly explains why Joann's workers and clients are mostly women (and only a few men). Once the expectation was set that women did the sewing and artistic touches, our society ran with it. Crafts are taught to children and women, for the most part, even today. 

Courtesy of The Baltimore Sun

Is this good or bad?

Gender biases are breaking as life continues on, as most who pay any attention to our world will notice. The fact that sewing is considered the realm of women is not bad or good, but instead neutral. It can easily shift if men start swarming craft stores for kicks. It'd be the same as women spending more time in hardware stores. As our society continually shifts the roles of men and women change. It just is. It may not be in the future, but currently more women do sewing arts than men, minus a few cosplayers here and there.

I provided more sources on sewing and women below that I may not have used. Peruse the sources at your leisure, if you like. 

Women and the Needle – Part 1: Ladies' work - Naomi Clifford

Exhibition Notes: Needlework and the Education of Girls - Florence Griswold Museum

Powerful Women in Needlework (relicsinsitu.com)

Opinion | The Feminist Power of Embroidery - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Great Women in Sewing: A List of Incredible Seamstresses | Whipstitch (whip-stitch.com)

Sewing History - Sew Retro (sewretrothebook.com)

Women and Labor in Early America (thoughtco.com)

Introverts explained by video games

 I stumbled upon a line of thought that might help others, particularly those familiar with video games, understand introverted behavior! Let's talk about it. 

Courtesy of shirt.woot.com

Introverted souls have trouble at times, and sometimes with those that don't understand how they recharge and why they need space. What I have discovered is a comparison to video game content. Hear me out on this one. This may make it easier to explain introverted nature to your friends who need an illustration to get it. Just as long as they are gamers.

The Introvert Zones

The concept of an introvert zone is foreign to some individuals. This does not mean that they are awful people. It simply means they don't understand your comfortable silence. If you take this concept and connect it to the video game concept of a relaxation chamber or safe zone/ healing temple in Legend of Zelda it becomes relatable. A healing zone or recharging station is a perfect illustration of an introvert zone. 

Courtesy of Zelda Dungeon

An ocean temple is an even better example of how it functions in real life. For instance, the ocean temple drains you just by standing in it. In this case, it could be compared to a social situation where you are surrounded by people. The difference is that the purple zones (your introvert zone) that preserve your life force can be destroyed by those that pop up and stand in them without your consent. When you explain it like this, some humans may understand why you need to have your zone.

The enemies in this social battlefield are the loud, the shallow in conversation, the ignorant, and the needy. The loud shatter your zone. Shallow conversation wastes your life force. The ignorant break your zone unknowingly by being either loud, shallow, or needy. The needy demand your energy and help when you think they could easily do it themselves (which means those who need actual help may also drain energy, but not as much). They all have swords that shatter your safe zones in the ocean temple and make you lose social energy faster. Anyone who has played Phantom Hourglass understands that this temple is already hard to beat. 

Social Energy

Videogame status bars would be super helpful if they happened for introverts when they spent social energy. I have three colors that could explain to others our stages of losing energy. Green can represent when we are totally cool to hang out. Yellow is when we are proceeding to social situations with caution. Red is when we need to go home and stay there until we are recharged. If people could see the bar above our heads it'd be fantastic, but let me give you real-life guidelines instead.

Green is when you can be fooled into thinking we are extroverted. We're having the time of our life while we're chilling with friends. We are not proceeding with any caution and are freely jumping into social situations. This is when we are in our element with friends that give us energy back, thus charging us as much as we charge them. 

Courtesy of Introvert Dear

Yellow is when we start to lose enthusiasm for social contact. We choose who we interact with carefully and what we do with caution. We know that we need energy for later. We avoid the people who don't understand our need for space. We conserve like a laptop that needs to be plugged in but isn't yet dead. So, when you see us start to get quieter and interact less, be aware that our battery is running low. 

Red is when some people get hostile and irritable. We get annoyed when people remain in our space when we have nothing left. Some introverts get mean in this red status and others keep it together and crash at home, but we all share the social exhaustion that makes us want to be King Arthur from Monty Python. We want to scream "shut up" at people in this stage of social energy. If you see we have nothing left and are annoyed at those who come up to us expecting a conversation, help us rather than let someone annoy us into hostility. That is what friends should do for introvert-kind. You'll find your introverted friends will hang around you more if you do so.

Again, if someone could see our social energy status bar our lives would be so much easier, but that isn't reality. Consider this illustration when interacting with introverted people. 

This, too, has enemies attached to it. This also involves healers. Healers give off energy and we seek them out in all stages of our status bar. Enemies are just the opposite. They leach energy by being too close, too loud, too shallow, completely ignorant of our energy levels, and sometimes completely obnoxious (when everyone else also gets annoyed). Healers give us our energy back and help us last through the ocean temple while we travel with them. Enemies drain us of life force/energy faster and kill our social battery swiftly. 

Why Explaining This Is Hard

Courtesy of rogerogreen.com

The problem with introverted behavior being explained is that extroverts have always lived in a world tailored to them. We are fish out of water when we are not recharged. Look at your school systems, your work activities, your job, and what the outside world expects from you. Extroverts thrive in social situations. Trying to explain your introverted nature to someone who clearly has never experienced your troubles is challenging. 

Some people who are emotionally intelligent get it right away. The people who are highly extroverted (but no less intelligent - everyone has intelligence) sometimes have some trouble seeing the perspective of someone who needs alone time more often. That is a truth that we introverts face. I hope this can help you explain introversion to others. We need to try to speak our reality to our friends so they can support us. 

Is Portal possible?

 If you've played Portal 1 and 2 you may be wondering whether GLaDOS is possible, or if you can truly put your mind into a computer. Today we discuss the possibilities. 

Courtesy of uvlist.net

Both Marvel and Portal have shown a brain in a computer. Many sci-fi movies have portrayed an AI (artificial intelligence) going wrong. 

I have to warn you before you get too far into this post that this is loaded with Portal 1, 2, and 3 spoilers. If you want a spoiler-free gaming experience for either one you should stop reading now and come back after you've finished the games. I have to give background information to go into everything. Thank you for understanding and go on reading at your own risk. 

For those who are still reading

If you are still here, welcome! We need to talk about some important plot points in the game before going into all the evidence proving it or disproving it. I will primarily try to see whether you can put your brain into a computer and whether AI can go so horribly wrong (cough cough, GLaDOS, cough cough) it is deadly. Portal is a game where you literally have to kill the AI while surviving test chambers that you can potentially die in. Also, Aperture Science is extremely unethical for many obvious reasons and illegal in several ways. No other humans remain. This is proven when we look at the evidence of the ruins around us and the fact no one has leaked anything to the outside world (a dead giveaway that no one is alive to tell the tale). The AI has taken over the facility by Portal 2. 

First, we'll look at whether Aperture Science could have even been created. After that, we'll talk about whether Cave Johnson or Caroline could have put their brains in computer storage. After that, we'll discuss Glados and Wheatley (Portal 2). Shall we dive in? 

Aperture Science

Like I said, it is highly illegal to do the experiments and tests on humans that Aperture does. The game dialogue mentions Cave Johnson offering test subjects 60 dollars - 120 if you let them dismember and put you back together - for volunteering yourself. Clearly, he is aiming at the homeless who don't have anyone that cares whether they survive. He even reflects this when he offhand mentions that the waiting room is probably more comfortable than the park benches the test subjects were found on. Not ethical at all. Not nearly enough payment for scientific testing. Probably because he couldn't do it on employees anymore and was running out of money.

What are they testing? Portals and portal guns. Assuming they can create the gun, can portals happen? Yes, but not the way the game creates it. The laws of physics probably aren't going to work that way. It needs interaction with the gravitational field to avoid violating the conservation of energy, according to some comment strings on science that I found. Click here for details. It might also require nuclear power energy to make the gun work. The portals might be possible, yet they'd be bending physics and be extremely dangerous to use. You may be able to bend it. Yet, you can't break physics. As for creating the gun, well, good luck doing that. Science says no and has no support whatsoever for a real portal gun. You can make one look real with editing, but no, you can't have one. Technically Aperture science has already been debunked in one paragraph. Sorry, folks. 

The next question to answer is how Aperture Science even got permission to do any studies at all using humans. Seriously, either they lied through their teeth to get funding, didn't ask anyone, or they had an unethical person sending funds their way. Or Cave Johnson was rich to begin with and did all this on the down-low. We see that the lab is all underground, so the next logical question is whether you can hide a lab that is so extensive underground. Game creators can create whatever they want, but real building requires permits and other lovely paperwork that would make someone defund this lab or destroy it. Someone would ask questions while he bought the supplies to make everything function on its own. Fortunately, for Cave Johnson, this isn't a problem because he bought a salt mine no one cared about, thus no cared what he did with it. 

The answer to the question above is that it would probably not fly today for Aperture Science (except after an apocalypse), but what does go is a real underground facility studying geological material. It goes a mile underground and has funding from universities (which obviously check in on it). It has gotten awards. It is called Berkeley Lab. It is nothing close to Aperture Science. We are talking about geology, not portals. It is underground because they need to access rock for the geological experiments they do there. Notice that no one is using test subjects and AI. They are observed on all levels. Aperture had no one to answer to, thus it may be that Cave Johnson was rich and didn't need help. Which was actually the case. No one asked what he did with his salt mine.

 If no one knew anything but what they did you could get away with a lot. If war has taught us anything, it has taught us that signing a paper saying "I die of treason if I leak information" is effective. The same can go for a science facility. Bury the illegal experiments and testing deep enough and you could get away with it, sadly. Maybe you couldn't get away with it forever, but I'd bet you could do it for a short time. Unless, of course, everyone died. Then all the secrets would die with the scientists and their test subjects, and only papers would remain. This is the only possible part of this storyline. Subjects and scientists all died because GLaDOS went rogue. 

According to the fandom wiki, it started as a shower curtain company. It turns out that selling shower curtains to the military made Cave Johnson rich. Apparently, he tried to create deadly shower curtains and send them as a nasty gift to the Navy (who didn't want his shower curtains) and then got exposed to mercury. He then realized he was dying and created a plan to make Aperture Science last forever. The first two projects to make it last forever just failed miserably, but portal science bloomed, thus we get to GLaDOS being created to beat Black Mesa's technology as they studied portals. The company started as one thing and became another. Also, Cave Johnson needed no extra funding and dodged a lot of questions that should have been asked. He had truly terrible ideas.

The sad truth of unethical experiments is that they did happen. Asylums did lobotomies. A woman let test subjects do anything to her to see what they would do if no consequences would happen during that hour. We know that people have dropped drugs in someone's drinks for military testing. There is even an urban legend of a game that caused LSD-like symptoms and disappeared three weeks after it appeared. Is it possible that someone made a rat maze and put a human in it to see if they'd solve it? Maybe. I doubt I'll ever find the evidence online unless I hit the dark web (I'll pass on that). I just know that science has not always been ethical.

A brain stored in a computer

Now we get to the ludicrous part. Uploading your brain into a computer might be possible, but there are complications that mean it may not be 'you' precisely. It wouldn't be to the level of GLaDOS. Science doesn't know what would happen. Scanning your brain potentially means invasive surgery because mapping it with a simple scanning device is not possible. We are too complicated. Computers may never be fast enough to actually scan your brain and understand it all. 

Cave Johnson and Caroline
Courtesy of chteuchteu.com

Assuming you managed to find the technology to do this, could you live a full life after your brain had technically died? Not unless you are in virtual reality. Your senses would never be the same. You wouldn't have a human body. You'd have half the life that you did before. Would it be worth it? Probably not. I'd probably just go meet my creator instead. You could also be deleted by someone. Oops, you died like Caroline (Portal 2). 

The reality is that this isn't possible - yet. I actually hope it is never possible, mostly because of the ethics of the concept itself. God offers us Heaven, but we have to die on Earth first, so it makes no sense to me that uploading yourself to live forever is good. I'll take Heaven rather than live forever and have half the life I did before. Also, if our brains are as complicated as science claims, it is likely impossible to live forever like Caroline or Cave Johnson (Portal 3) - and Cave begged to be killed! Keep that in mind. 

GLaDOS and Wheatley

GLaDOS is the system that runs the testing facility. Upon being activated, she became independent and sent neurotoxins all through the building on "bring your daughter to work day", resulting in a lot of death and a morality core being put into her. Wheatley comes along in Portal 2 and leads Chell right into where GLaDOS was defeated, thus reactivating her when Chell pushes a button. Wheatley eventually replaces GLaDOS and creates a whole different monster, where Glados has to help you defeat Wheatley so she can be back in her robotic body. The real question is this; are independent AIs possible?

I don't want GLaDOS to be doable in real life. Why? There are countless reasons. One, she is lethal. Two, she went rogue and killed so many test subjects and scientists it isn't even funny. Rumor has it that she has stuffed test subjects in companion cubes. Rattman survived by hiding in walls for a long time.  She's terrible. End of comment. 

Wheatley is just stupid. GLaDOS calls him a moron multiple times. He fails to maintain the building in a way that keeps it from self-destructing. Forced between choosing two evils, you as a player have to put GLaDOS back in her body. After this, she deletes the backed-up mind of Caroline (the only good part of GLaDOS) and lets you leave the facility. I don't want Wheatley to be a reality either because he killed multiple test subjects to get to GLaDOS and take her place. He also tries to kill Chell. 

We need to ask the obvious question; can AI go rogue? It depends on the algorithm. If it is made too complicated it is possible. You have to be able to understand the code or it could choose to do destructive things. Some people want regulation on AI to make sure rogue doesn't happen and are convinced they are more dangerous than countries we are at war with. Others say that it isn't human intelligence, so at worst it breaks and the system attached breaks with it - if you don't overpower it. 

Assuming it could go rogue, the danger you are in depends on how much power it was given in the first place. If your little vacuum robot goes rogue you can literally kill it with a few blows of a hammer. Glados and Wheatley, on the other hand, were given complete control of a facility. Oops. Yeah, let's not overpower our AI if going rogue is possible. In real life, however, I doubt that anyone would be willing to build Glados....oh, wait, someone made Alexa turn into an animatronic Glados. 

The only way Glados can work is if we fully understood the brain and could map it fully (Which means you die in the process, so Caroline probably died to become Glados. Not great.). The video above explains it better than I ever could, so click that and watch it for more information in better detail (and in English and not science-ese). Below is the Alexa that got turned into Glados. It clearly can't kill you in this animatronic version. But please don't attempt anything past the animatronic version or we all might die as a society. 

Conclusions

While the lab itself is only possible within the apocalyptic universe of the game (given that people would start asking questions when he bought moon dust), the lab testing itself (minus the portals within the game and the gun itself) could potentially happen. Again, you couldn't test portals, but you could make a human run a rat maze, then kill off the subjects and scientists to hide the experiments. As for GLaDOS and mapping the mind to upload it, we aren't there yet. We may be at some point in time. I sure hope we never make it that far because we may destroy ourselves if we do. Just for kicks, let me leave the game theory on the companion cube down here for you to watch. 

Sources:

science based - Are portals possible? - Worldbuilding Stack Exchange

How an Underground Science Facility Got Off the Ground (lbl.gov)

The Science Behind Uploading Your Brain to a Computer (businessinsider.com)

Aperture Science | The Aperture Science Database Wiki | Fandom

AI could 'go rogue' and turn on humanity, expert warns | Daily Mail Online

Can AI Go Rogue? If Yes, What Would Be The Consequences? | Technology Talk | TechTalk (techatalk.com)

Common objects in mystery games

When you play mystery games there are common objects that are picked up by players. What are some of these objects? That's today's agenda.

Courtesy of Old-games.com

There are many categories. One is everyday tools, another is mystery-solving tools. A third category could possibly be evidence/weaponry. We'll start with common, across-the-board objects in most games of the mystery/horror variety (because they overlap).

The basic idea of today's topic is just to look at what objects commonly appear in mystery genre video games. Horror and mystery are one fine line away, so they may cross over, particularly in weaponry and puzzle-solving aspects. For instance, Ghost of Thornton Hall is an example of such crossover (even if extremely light in the horror aspect). 

Everyday Tools

Ladders, screwdrivers, oil to make things move, boards to cover holes, pocket knives, crowbars, shovels, lanterns, and many basic household tools are in many games as you are required to fix holes and do tasks. This means that what I just listed could be in any mystery game you encounter.

Courtesy of questtime.net

Why is this? Because everyday tasks are sometimes required to find hidden passages, get across the room to a door, or just because the plot has chores and tasks built into it that use common objects. We see them every day and know what they do. 

Common objects in life end up in games all the time. How often do we use ladders, screwdrivers, and shovels? It makes total sense that what we use often gets portrayed in our gaming experiences. This includes food.

Mystery Solving Tools

This category includes tools that sleuths commonly use. In this category, we have flashlights, magnifying glasses, books, journals and notebooks, keys, fingerprint kits, recorders of varying types, pens and pencils, cameras, newspapers, and metal gears. The items listed are either part of puzzles, outline what puzzle needs to be solved, can be used to take notes, or allow the detective to see or hear something more clearly. 

This is a no-brainer and you can find sleuth kits in a lot of places. Books are often used to solve puzzles and tell you how to work a machine or play the piano. Gears are usually going to be part of a box. The point is that no mystery is complete without puzzles with pieces, background information (books, newspapers), and ways to forensically solve the crime. It pays to plan like a boy scout when you are coming up against crime. 

Weaponry and Evidence

The crossover of horror and mystery comes more here than anywhere else. Murder mysteries need a weapon. knives, guns, rope, lead pipes, candlesticks, scarves, and poisons all go here. The game Clue generally encompasses all the weaponry that is common to both of these genres. Some might get a bit creative within horror games, but still, we're looking at mostly knives, guns, water, and blunt objects. 

Courtesy of speed-new.com

Evidence is anything that can be used to prove guilt or show something happened. Watches, clothing, blood, handkerchiefs, ripped fabric from clothing, photos, videos, witnesses, disturbed items, footprints... The most common ones you see are footprints, torn fabric, witnesses, blood, and photos from what I listed, but this is a broad category. Horror games will have all this in more gruesome detail. 

This last category is quite large and many games can use this to show evidence of what happened before or after an event. Horror games use a lot of visual evidence in rooms where horrible things occurred. Games meant for adults who like horror expect you to put the dots together yourself and may not have books to explain it. Or they do and you find a diary to explain more details. It depends on the age they expect to reach, which is what it comes down to when it comes to helping the audience put two and two together. Adults don't need Nancy to say obvious evidence, but younger kids might. Portal won't tell you a thing unless you look around at the lab.