Hacker Cinema
Lincoln
2012 · Film · 150 min
Directed by Steven Spielberg
The revealing story of the 16th US President's tumultuous final months in office. In a nation divided by war and the strong winds of change, Lincoln pursues a course of action designed to end the war, unite the country and abolish slavery. With the moral courage and fierce determination to succeed, his choices during this critical moment will change the fate of generations to come.
8 positive2 negative10 neutralfrom 20 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
21 comments on Hacker News
That's really cool. I read Lincoln when I was around 18 and it has always stuck with me. The books you read become a part of you; they grow your view of the world. Books are the only way we have to capture the experience or mind of another person, and directly transfer not only their words but almost a sliver of the authors soul directly to others. Movies, sure.. But books hook into the imagination and mind.
A variation of Lincoln's Ethan Allen story appears in the 2012 film Lincoln: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRBmwljrHWw
DEI is truly division and exclusion. It is a euphemism for new types of discrimination. Hopefully Supreme Court rules on this soon as they did on affirmative action.
You cannot fix the world by implementing new types of bias and discrimination, even if it is being wrapped up and sold as diversity and inclusion or however else it is pitched. This should be unconstitutional and against the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution period.
We cannot and should not ever judge a book by its cover. We must always focus on merit, ability, and equality first. However, I do think society needs to provide social nets to help people get free education that are not able to afford it if the education has promise to lead to great career opportunities.
From the film Lincoln, 'Euclid's first common notion is this: "Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other." That's a rule of mathematical reasoning. It's true because it works; has done and will always will do. In his book, Euclid says this is "self-evident." You see, there it is, even in that two-thousand year old book of mechanical law: it is a self-evident truth of things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to each other. We begin with equality. That's the origin, isn't it? That balance-that's fairness, that's justice.'
We are all homo sapiens and need to be treated fairly, equally. No one should be given structural preferential bias on a public or private level. We have fought so hard for equality in this country, DEI is a step backwards in equality by sanctioning new biases.
No the movie really just was bad. I’m not even sure what the goal of the movie was. To make Napoleon look bad? To show his human side with his relationship with Josefine? Honestly afterwards I just have no idea. Really it was just a weird speed run through history. They just jumped from random event to random event over the course of like 25 years. Contrast this with the movie Lincoln which portrayed him during a relatively short period of his life. Ignoring everything else (there are many reasons why the Lincoln film is much better), the fact that the Napoleon film tries to cover so much really is an odd choice.
I personally would have walked out of the movie, but I was seeing it with a group of people and didn’t want to be too overly negative. (Afterwards I found out that most felt the same.)
This reminds me of what the Lincoln character said in the same named movie about the 13th amendment: "what you will be to our nation after this I don't know." Well, now we know.
You should wonder why did ACW did not degenerate into slaughterhouse like Russian or Chinese civil wars..
A lot of people now dream about such a thing, they have not perhaps read what that actually means. US let South get away with this crap because it WAS beaten and peace and unity of the country was worth a lot more.
The “traitors” things is somewhat silly, since even men who served with them Before the war did not consider them such. Most considered their state to supersede the union that is all. If Virginia did not secede Lee would have been happily helping Union put down rest of the states.
Lincoln movie has a great moment at the end of president talking to Grant, they were wise men and luckily for all involved did not turn the aftermath of the war into bloodbath that would span decades and turn US into police state.
Yes, for now.
Jio's rival Airtel owns satellite/cable tv platforms and even supplies wired internet in parts of major cities. No one with any ambition has really tried wired internet in India -- for a long time the only way to get it was via the government-run telecoms provider (who are -- surprise! -- not very good).
Jio's parent company produces a lot of movies in India and in Hollywood, including Arrival, Ready Player One, Ghost in the Shell, Lincoln, etc. They know the value of a converged platform that serves data + video. And they don't have a satellite/cable tv network because the Jio vision was all-digital, all IP. And they have been building the backhaul to do this at scale across India (lots of planning applications are online) and are now slowly trialling Jio GigaFibre (a Gigabit Home Fibre service) in parts of India.
What I don't know is if they can turn these trials into a compellingly priced proposition Indians will pay for (and get rid of their cable tv subscriptions for -- and cable is very popular in India, even wired cable tv -- even in low-income neighbourhoods. So clearly India can solve the last-mile wiring problem if they want to). But they have been able to do it with 4G and I suspect they wouldn't trial a Gigabit fibre product if they didn't have a proposition in mind.
Incidentally if you're wondering: "won't 5G make wired internet redundant" -- India has lots of cell towers but also lots of people connecting to each of those towers. This means that often speeds during the daytime are pathetic. I personally used Jio and Airtel while visiting India recently in May, and even web pages had trouble loading (on both networks) in the afternoon^. I suspect the effective bandwidth available per subscriber in even small Indian cities (1M would be small in India) would be quite variable, and certainly small during busy periods.
Sorry if this is too much detail. I just find the ambition involved in bringing internet at scale to an entire country (especially one the size of India!) endlessly fascinating.
^ May is 'peak summer' in India, and the afternoon sees very few people on the roads and the bazaars are deserted as people rest or take a siesta. I suspect internet usage goes through the roof then.
> They are being used to force through a policy that is not supported by either legislature or executive. That's not a function of a proper court.
They're asking the court to reverse the repealing of legislation, with the argument that the FCC should not have been allowed to repeal it because their legal reasoning was flawed.
Who is pushing policy? Was Obama pushing policy by instituting regulation? Was the FCC pushing policy by repealing it? Are the states pushing policy by trying to get the repeal revoked? Yes, Yes, Yes. Welcome to government.
It's all about pushing policy, any way you can. The system regulates the ability to push policy by allowing you to push policy, within the confines of the system, and gives you the tools to continually push or pull policy.
> Your side may temporarily win, but when the other side does the same, you end up with the broken system where nobody respects any decisions and the only thing that matters is which side you're on.
I re-watched the film Lincoln recently. It's basically about pushing for the 13th Amendment, well before it was politically tenable to adopt it. Bribery, back room deals, switching allegiances, concealing moves, political pressure, manipulation. Politics is the art of doing anything you possibly can to advance your agenda, to the exclusion of others' agendas. Your side doesn't even matter, it's what you can gain or lose that matters.
This is fine as a theoretical construct, but the reality is that a lot of the best features of American government were the result of quid pro quo deal-making. A huge example is the entire Bill of Rights, which was the price of creating a stronger central government. And the movie "Lincoln" illustrates (with only a little exaggeration) the deal-making that went into passing the 13th Amendment.
As an aside, I happen to think that there is an important difference between "bipartisan" and "deal-making," and the latter is really where it's at in governance. Earmarks are tools for deal-making.
Framing things as "both sides" inappropriately elevates the 2 major political parties as a central feature of our system of government. They're not; in fact the largest political affiliation in the U.S. today is "indepdendent"!
And on any serious legislation, there are typically more than two "sides" with an interest in a particular outcome. That's why making deals is so important.
Arnold Swarzenegger suggested tiered pricing 25 years ago, that a big-budget movie like Terminator 2 should be $25. The problem is that movie budget is inversely proportional to audience budget. A big, special-effects movie appeals to kids with no money. A deliberately paced character study like Lincoln appeals to grown-ups, who could afford to pay $25.
With what I see on Youtube that can be made with one person and a copy of After Effects, maybe one day kids' movies will be the cheap ones. The superhero movies will "just" have special effects and some mid-priced actors. Meanwhile the grown-up movies will have all the best screenwriters and actors, which will be the major expense left after technology levels everything else.
Exactly the same with my Echos.
The problem with asking these things questions when you are in a group of people is that now the whole conversation pauses to hear the damn answer. And then there is the 5-10 second processing time and the very slow non-interactive answer. It's just so much more efficient to have one of the people in the conversation whip out their phone and use Google, then say the answer when it's ready. Especially if the answer is not "Who was the start of The Martian" but something like "How closely was Lincoln the movie based on historical events?"
I will say, I also use my main Echo to play music. It is really nice that way, though song, artist, and playlist name recognition is atrocious. "Play Top Hits" and "Play Today's Top Hits" produces completely different result. Don't you know what I mean Amazon? Don't you know what I mean?
My kids (turning 4 soon) have figured out how to use it too, which is kinda neat.
Usually when people tell me about some of the awful things that were said in the e-mail Wikileaks released I go look at the original e-mail and read it in full. It's almost always the case that if you read these statements in context, they just aren't that offensive.
For instance, the comment about public/private positions is one of the most common ones you hear people complain about (and Clinton was asked about it during the debate). Here's the full statement:
"You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work."
I would encourage everyone to look at the original source anytime someone makes a claim about what was said in the e-mail.
It's easy to underappreciate the ratcheting effect of cultural change.
For example, the idea that black people should be the legal equals of white people was indeed seen as nuts by most Americans before, during, and even following the Civil War. There existed a huge gulf, even among abolitionists, between the idea that black people should not be property, and the idea that black people are entirely equal. The movie "Lincoln" touches on this a bit--even while arguing in favor of the 13th Amendment, every political leader agreed publicly that black people could never be equal with white people.
That gulf has essentially collapsed now, so it's hard to appreciate how large it actually was. And it collapsed progressively. First, people weren't property any more. Then they were citizens and deserved equal treatment under the law. But then it took 100 more years before Americans broadly agreed that federal law should protect their right to sit where they wanted on a public bus.
Likewise in the gay rights movement, which saw its first public airing in establishment settings at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. There weren't reporters asking President Reagan (or any previous president) about gay rights, but they did start asking questions about AIDS, which at the time was thought to only affect gay people. But if you go back and read the transcripts, not only did the Reagan press secretary publicly mock being gay, the reporters played along with the jokes, even while asking pointed questions about AIDS. Being gay had such low social currency, even among liberals, that it took a massive public health crisis to even elevate it into broad public conversation.
I agree with you that the mere fact that a movement starts "outside the mainstream" does not help predict that it will succeed. But let's not forget to take off modern glasses when looking at the cultural environments in which the movements we know today as successful, started.
Most importantly, don't despair. Things may not turn out exactly the way you want them to, but they will turn out ok. You live in a great time and have phenomenal skills and experiences. You'll do ok. Never lose sight of that.
It's great that you asked the question. When you're overtaken by waves of emotions, it helps to get an impartial perspective. Here is what I think about your situation. In the movie Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis delivers this line:
A compass, I learnt when I was surveying, it'll point you to True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?
You just screwed up with your tactics and fell into a swamp. That's ok -- just make sure to learn your lesson. Deals fall through. No deal is ever done until the paperwork is signed and money is in the bank. When it comes to deals, never put your eggs in one basket. I'm sure you already got it, so there is no use brooding over it. It's time to move on.
The biggest question you need to answer right now is if you still believe your startup is the True North. Is it the best possible thing you could be working on? From your question it sounds like you still believe that. If you do, good. Then it's time to fight like hell. If you don't, there is no harm done. If it's not the True North, what does it matter if you fell in a swamp? You can pull the plug and start again, with the new, truer direction, now based on everything you've learned.
If you still believe in your company, then fight! I don't know the details of your particular situation (valuation, metrics, team size, runway, amount of money you need to get to the next milestone, etc.) so I can't give tactical advice on how to get out of your particular swamp (or even if it's possible). Pick five advisors you really trust. Poll them on what they think you can do to get out of your situation and move on to building your company. Then decide on the best strategy and fight like hell to make it happen.
Feel free to contact me privately if you need to (email in profile), and good luck! Don't despair. Take a day off and do what you have to do to forget about your company for that day. Then pick yourself up and get into work. It's the first day of your company's new life. Where do you want to take it?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604
From the article: "...half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln."
To some of the sub-comments to this:
Not at all (AT ALL) defending Prop 8 here, but where do you draw the line in cutting these people out of your life? Take the issue of abortion, which is easier to see that there are no easy answers. You either believe that abortion is MURDER or stopping abortion curtails PERSONAL LIBERTY for all women. Either way, people are defending a highly moral position and you can argue against their conclusions but you should at least try to respect their personal opinion, especially if they afford you that same respect.
I look at the new Lincoln movie and that makes a lot of these points for me. Everyone is entitled to shun bigots and work only with people they agree with, but there is an opportunity to improve things for everyone by sitting down at the same table with people we disagree with rather than vilifying their existence.
I suppose it says something that Argo and Moonrise Kingdom are the only movies that I can remember really liking in 2012. Flight was also memorable, if you're into character dramas. I've also heard really good things about Searching for Sugar Man, but I didn't get a chance to see it in theaters.
Avengers was solid entertainment, but I wouldn't make a special trip to see it. Most of the other big releases with nerd draw were disappointments: Lincoln was overhyped Oscar-bait, Brave was forgettable, and the last Dark Knight movie was just bad (below average for summer movies, which is a low bar).
These are some of the movies that I watched and liked in 2012:
The Grey
Prometheus
The Avengers
The Dark Knight Rises
Skyfall
The Hobbit
And these are some of the good ones I would like to watch:
Argo
Lincoln
Looper
Life of Pi
Zero Dark Thirty
Spot on: in fact you bring up another great point... local knowledge is a wonderful thing to share and when someone feels you know something about their special place, they're always impressed!
The film Lincoln did a good job of showing old Abe doing that quite a bit in order to gain favor :)
The criticism is: economic liberty, mobility blah blah, you need discipline at the individual level to balance that. Good education from parents and the eco-system you take part in, but i guess that is under your "certainly not sufficient" bit, but i believe that discipline takes you farther even in a not so ripe economic situation, i've seen joyful people in poor conditions, i've seen people bettering themselves in no to ripe conditions
i think this is the classic problem of people trying to fix their situations from the outside in, instead of from the inside out, ex: better economic situation = better people, but that is clearly faulty logic, i think it should be more like better people = way better economic situation
but then again why would a system that depends on its economy so much enforce such an idea: "better people", better people doesn't make enough money as it stands for them, that is why they don't put that in their ads instead of "buy this because of (some bullshit reason here) messaging" because "buy this because of this fucked up reason we created for you" makes more money, period,
politicians don't give a fuck about you and me man, they care about numbers, because of their vantage point, the ones that do end up getting wiped out, as we have seen throughout history, just like this new awesome movie lincoln shows "man wants people of all races to be free" get asassinated because of people with no self-discipline and no fucking compassion that were mostly focused on themselves
history really explains a lot about us, and so far it looks like we really haven't learnt too much
i wonder to think, what would the world be like if people in current power positions would actually be altruistic, sounds like a pipe dream to me
Your first stament is wrong. Theater requires you lie to your audience. For example, there are two movies coming out about Abraham Lincoln this year:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/
Clearly one of these is an outright fabrication of the events of Lincoln's life.
In the other Steven Spielberg is going to produce a film that is 100% fabricated and yet people are going to gush about the truth of Abe Lincoln that it captures. The sets will be fake. Most of the dialogue will be made up and dramaticized. No one will question this. No one will care.
Mike's issue was that he wanted to do more and he shouldn't have. He should have stayed off of NPR, out of print, and off the talk shows.
I still think that his show is closer to "Lincoln: The sixteenth President of the United States guides the North to victory during the Civil War" than "Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter: Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, discovers vampires are planning to take over the United States. He makes it his mission to eliminate them."