Hacker Cinema
Film
2011 · Film · 87 min
Directed by Kerem Topuz
Amateur filmmaker Kemal Mutlu captures scenes of everyday life with plans of making a film. He lives with his housemate Nuri in a small flat in Istanbul. One day,Nuri's friend from orphanage, Izzet, comes to visit unannounced. Just out of prison, Izzet's colorful character grabs Kemal's attention, and he decides to make a film about him. Unfortunately, it soon turns out that underneath his friendly exterior, Izzet is a psychopath. When he is refused entry into a bar, he gets in by force and kidnaps actress Oznur Kula. Kemal is happy to have found an actress to star in his film, however things soon get out of control as Izzet's sick plans unfold.
7 neutralfrom 7 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
7 comments on Hacker News
Film and tv are safe, this was done by political appointees. The civil servants (you know, the "deep state") are much better about it because it's their job.
> I also think using the "it could be worse" excuse to avoid working for better conditions that are totally feasible isn't a great thing to do.
Unions fuck up the incentives. Tenured positions are coveted and come with privileges that make the job easier and the position more cushy. New hires want those perks and will rest once they attain them. This is the opposite of what you want in a workforce: you want the top 50% to work hard and fight for raises and promotions.
In our industry, when we don't get the promotions or raises we want, we switch jobs. Job switching has been an incredible means of advancing our careers and being exposed to new tech and new problems. Because of tenure and different jobs using different unions, unions will lead to fewer job changes and more "lifers" that stick around at a single job for a long time. That ossifies code, stops the influx of new ideas and talent, and causes super weird code / business unit ownership drama. It's also super boring.
Tech companies aren't afraid of high salaries (evidently so!) as much as they are of non-fungibility and ossification of the workforce. Unions make slow businesses even slower. Because of this, unions lead to offshoring.
Unions have ground so many industries to a halt in the US. Manufacturing, automotive. Most recently, the film industry (particularly crew) have been offshored -- in the last several years productions have moved to Eastern Europe and Asia sans any US workforce. They fly the cast (without crew) out for the shoots. It's all because of unions.
If we wish this upon ourselves -- in one of the cushiest careers in the world -- we'll soon find all of our jobs moving overseas.
You completely misunderstand my argument with your nitpicking on a specific sarcastic description I made about the current communicative state of most AI chat systems.
In reality, even if they improve to be completely indistinguishable from the sharpest and most persuasive of human minds our society has ever known, i'd still make exactly the same arguments as above. I'd make these for the same reason that I'd argue for how no regulatory body or self-appointed filter of moral arbiters should be able to restrict the specific arguments and formas of expression currently available for persuasive human beings, or people of any kind.
Just as we shouldn't prohibit literature, film, internet blog posts, opinion pieces in media and any other sources by which people communicate their opinions and information to others under the argument that such opinions might be "harmful" , I wouldn't regulate AI sources of information and chatbots.
One can make an easy case for regulating and punishing the acts people try to perform based on information they obtain from AI, in terms of the measurable harm these acts would cause to others, but banning a source of information based on a hypothetical, ambiguous danger of its potential for corrupting minds is little different from the idiocy of restricting free expression because it might morally corrupt supposedly fragile minds.
> I'd love to poke in people's head to be sure what are the motives behind their behavior
I suspect you're approaching things too logically. In my experience most people do something then rationalize why they've done that later, if at all. And that's without any perceptive, or memory problems or anything like that, and assumes good intent-- which a lot of people don't have.
I also suspect some people's brains work so differently from my subjective experience that there's effectively no way to understand them.
A very hard lesson for me was "don't try to use logic to understand irrational people."
I now tend to think of people in terms of, "can I predict a response or action by them?" By observation, you can kind of build a set of rules and start hypothesizing about them and update your model when you get more evidence. But you still need to be mindful that different conclusions can be reached with different or conflicting information.
It worked so well on an ex of mine that she thought I was spying on her somehow, because I often had reasoned out things I shouldn't have known. The most terrible example-- that she was cheating on me. I came to this conclusion from a few bits of evidence-- she wasn't really the curious type. Most of the film, music, etc she knew about were from me. And then one day, she started talking in detail about a film I knew she hadn't seen, and she used a word I had never heard her use before.
This lead me to think, "She's having some sort of social interactions that I'm unaware of, and they're probably watching movies together, and if its being kept secret, its probably something bad."
And I was correct.
> With determinism free will is ruled out.
This is a popular statement but I've never thought that to be the case. Imagine you're creating a movie. You can pick the actors, the characters, the plot, etc. When you play the movie, the playback is completely deterministic. But that doesn't mean free will didn't design the film.
I could see something similar applying to reality. Your actions may be predetermined, but that doesn't specify exactly how they were determined.
I've been able to get through my career without LinkedIn or GitHub accounts as proof of my skills. I've pored my time and energy into the jobs I hold and hadn't gotten inspired to start contributing to OSS until just this week[1], so I have no publicly available proof of my skills. However, I can give in depth descriptions of interesting algorithms and data structures I developed and deployed related to:
1) Motion detection algorithms for security cameras in outdoor environments with a lot of ambient noise that needed to be ignored.
2) Medical informatics data model with a recommendation engine component for predicting which ICD/CPT/SNOMED code to use for optimal chance of insurance coverage.
3) R&D, implementation, and deployment of an EAV/CR [2] open schema based analytics platform using the neo4j graph database for persistence
So far I've had the luxury of only using meatspace networking to find interesting jobs to work at, but I stress over suddenly finding myself unemployed in the future and having to face the modern interviewing process with social networking activity used as a screen.
Can anyone describe how one's GitHub is used in an interview? Is a candidate with an interesting, non-trivial personal project on GitHub considered, or are candidates judged on their contribution to others' projects?
[1]Started working on a neo4j data science project involving gathering, refining, and translating film, actor, and director data into a graph data model for efficiently answering deeply recursive queries.
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93attribute%E2%80%93value_model#Representing_substructure:_EAV_with_classes_and_relationships_.28EAV.2FCR.29
Film, as an artform, will survive. The current studio system, hoisting this crap into the theaters will not. The faster we can end the current paradigm, the faster we can move to the new order.