im

Generalist

[im @imitrovic]

@JamesWHankins1 Timaeus

[im @imitrovic]

@elonmusk In the beginning was a symmetry. In an energy stable state. It was the original model of all future things, matter, and objects. The symmetry contained the idea of matter. Plato was right

[im @imitrovic]

@TidefallCapital There were signs, though

[im @imitrovic]

I have just finished reading Physics and Beyond, a memoir by Warner Heisenberg, of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle fame, the founder of quantum mechanics and Nobel Prize winner. He wrote that in the summer before applying to university (1920), someone gifted him a copy of a math book on Einstein’s relativity theory, written by the famous mathematician Hermann Weyl. The book literally blew his mind, and he decided there and then to devote his life to studying mathematics.
So, he applied to study mathematics at the University of Munich and had an interview with a mathematics professor, Ferdinand von Lindemann (famous for proving that π is transcendental and for his solution of the ancient problem of squaring the circle).
So, they sit by the table, and the first question von Lindemann asks him is which math book he recently read that he found exciting. Heisenberg couldn’t wish for a better question. He excitedly described Weyl’s “Space, Time and Matter” book. After Heisenberg finished, von Lindemann quietly looked at him for several seconds, then closed the conversation with, “Then, there is no hope for you in mathematics.” And that was the end of the interview. Heisenberg then applied to study physics and was accepted.

[im @imitrovic]

Matthew McConaughey would be a much better choice for Odysseus than Matt Damon.

As for who should play Helen, "let the most beautiful woman in the world step forward," says Eris, goddess of discord. Eris is experienced, as she helped the original Helen become eternally famous.

BTW, there isn't much of Helen in Odyssey. She really has only one scene in Sparta, Book 4. Not much to argue about.

[im @imitrovic]

It’s called analysis, Watson :-) Though your focus on reasoning back, starting from failure, would only make sure that you don’t fail. But it wouldn’t protect you from mediocrity

“In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment and a very easy one, but people do not practice it much. In the everyday affairs of life, it is more useful to reason forwards, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically.”

“I confess,” said I, “that I do not quite follow you.”

“I hardly expected that you would. Let me see if I can make it clearer. Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you what the result would be. They can put those events together in their minds, and argue from them that something will come to pass. There are few people, however, who, if you told them a result, would be able to evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backward, or analytically.”

“I understand,” said I.

Arthur Conan Doyle - A Study in Scarlet, (Sherlock Holmes)

[im @imitrovic]

Selinunte in Sicily is Europe's largest archaeological park. Selinunte was destroyed by a Carthaginian attack in 409 BCE. You can still see the traces of the battle. The whole plain where the city was built, with its sea views, is beautiful. The temples are beautiful.

Also, visit the nearby quarry where ancient Greeks cut the stones for temples. The work on the stones stopped on the day of the attack. The traces of the sudden stop, when they had to run to the city to fight, are still visible, and you can easily imagine the drama of that day.

[im @imitrovic]

To be fair, the Maginot Line‘s role indeed was to force the Germans to go around it, through Belgium, just as the Germans did in World War I. The problem was that the French expected them to come down on them, from north of Brussels, just as the Germans did in World War I. Not with 2000 tanks through the wooded hills of the Ardennes, behind the French back.

[im @imitrovic]

@BMcskellington @SandyofCthulhu No. They didn’t. It was just a show of force. They wanted to wait until spring, when the British would join in. They didn’t even want to send the airplanes to attack the Germans, so as not to provoke them into a larger war.

https://t.co/kBshKdfgK3

[im @imitrovic]

@MartinMacEwen @SandyofCthulhu They needed 30 days to move the heavy equipment to the German border. It would have been late, and Poland would have fallen anyway. But you are mostly correct.

https://t.co/kBshKdfOzB

[im @imitrovic]

1) No. At the August 1939 meeting, the French government decided to launch a limited offensive against Germany once Germany attacked Poland, but only enough to make it appear that France had fulfilled its obligations to Poland. The French government didn’t want to fight a major war at the time. They wanted to wait until spring, when Britain would join in. Nothing to do with Poland's defeat.

To make things worse, Hitler totally gambled, knowing that the French would not attack. And he succeeded.

Look at this... The French had 90 divisions already mobilized, with 2,500 armored vehicles and 10,000 guns. Opposing them were 32 German reserve divisions of poor quality, backed by only 11 core German divisions at the start of the Polish campaign. The Germans opposing the French had no tanks and only had a small number of old airplanes at their disposal. They had enough ammunition to fight for only three days.

I wrote about the Saar Offensive here

https://t.co/eNbv2k0d78

[im @imitrovic]

@Kadamitas @PanurgeJr @TheGreatB00ks Thank you for pointing that out. I will change who I am from now on.

[im @imitrovic]

@TimAllenis @jringenberg @TheGreatB00ks Great. And all without using “complicated”

[im @imitrovic]

@TimAllenis @jringenberg @TheGreatB00ks Amazing! Take it from there! And translate polytropos as “forced to go out and meet new people.”

[im @imitrovic]

But Homer has another adjective for Odysseus that describes his cunning and adaptability: polymetis. You could then argue that polytropos in a purist sense only means many turns, implying his voyage; otherwise, Homer would use polymetis, as he does. But who are we to argue :-) Honestly, I will say something totally heretical and banal: Odyssey, for me, is a story about talking to strangers. That is what Odysseus does. He constantly meets strangers, talks to them, and listens to their stories. Knowing where society goes, maybe someone translates the Odyssey in a way to appeal to people who stay at home and don’t meet strangers

[im @imitrovic]

Well, think of it. Polytropos means “many turns”. Polytropos Odysseys is a man of many turns. That meaning is understandable. He wants to go home, but he keeps turning from island to island, ten years of turning.
However, he is turning because he is cursed, punished. So not only does he actively turn, but he is also being constantly turned. And he suffers while turning and being turned.
So “many turns” describe both his active turning and his being turned by gods and suffering.
On top of all that, he is an intelligent, cunning man, a man of many turns, capable of getting out of any situation using his brain, metis alone.
Not easy to translate. Sure, he is a man of twists and turns, but that doesn’t clue you into these three meanings. Polytropos is super overloaded.
So what can you do? You can just call him complicated and thank the gods of Facebook for putting the phrase “complicated” on a pedestal of super-loaded phrases and making people understand its new, overloaded meaning.

[im @imitrovic]

Many women are uninterested in Odysseus and find it complicated. Way more than men. After all, why do you think she came out with this translation?

As for a bad translation, probably, but I am kind of prepared to die on a hill that “complicated” is way better than “a man of twists and turns.”

But you are right. I could’ve just said “Perfect is the enemy of good” instead of writing a whole ditiramb

[im @imitrovic]

Agamemnon is supposed to look terrifying in his armor. Homer describes Agamemnon's armor as the most frightening of all Greeks. We don't see his shield in the trailer, but Homer said that it was the most dreadful part of Agamemnon's "setup", with the gods of Terror and Panic depicted on it. I don't think that wearing the exact armor Homer described would look so terrifying to us today. The one in the movie trailer does. I would wait for a new trailer featuring the shield

[im @imitrovic]

Not only that, I now understand how unimportant things are and that I am not obliged to take any stance on any topic. The emperor Marcus Aurelius absolved us all nearly 2000 years ago.
“You are not compelled to form any opinion about this matter before you, nor to disturb your peace of mind at all. Things in themselves have no power to extort a verdict from you.”
-Marcus Aurelius