Makes me wonder what it’s like to identify with the villains in media. Zuck looking at the metaverse and thinking hey that’s a good idea! Or Thanos wasn’t so bad. Those rebel scum had it coming. Homelander is the good guy!
>identify with the villains in media. Zuck looking at the metaverse and thinking hey that’s a good idea!
Are there many stories where the bad guys create the metaverse? AFAIK, Stephenson coined the term in Snow Crash and there it was built by the main character and his buds.
The Matrix, I suppose? Though I think Zuck's (immediate) vision and who he identifies as is way more Hiro Protagonist or James Halliday.
You might be right. It’s been a while since I read snow crash. I just remember the metaverse as a sort sad state of society, but I don’t remember if the evil corp stuff was in there or just in the world at large
RPO's "bad guys" weren't the creators of the metaverse but a corp trying to win the contest to take it over. Halliday is flawed but a large part of the novel centers around that and he intentionally creates the contest in part to try ensure the metaverse ends up in appropriate hands, no?
Every story, even ours, needs a bad guy. Best villains don't think they are villains. They just do what they must/should/want (in that order, depending on their intensity), because they can.
I had no idea it was a lord of the rings reference. Here’s an apt quote from wikipedia: “The [palantir] stones were an unreliable guide to action, since what was not shown could be more important than what was selectively presented.”
Just for the overly suspicious among us, I looked up the edit that introduced that quote[1] and it doesn't appear to have been added as a dig against the company.
Well they weren't necessarily bad. I think the Numenor (?) Kings of Westernesse (?), I dunno whatever the old Gondor kings were called, used them effectively. It was just Sauron that took over and made them dangerous. So, effective but dangerous in the wrong hand. Yeah, I guess, even that is pretty prophetic, heh.
"The Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dûr can make them do so. He can, maybe, by his will choose what things shall be seen by weaker minds, or cause them to mistake the meaning of what they see."
It really is the perfect name. It's exactly what I would have chosen, if I hated the company and was given a choice of names. But it's a terrible product name for any media literate customer.
It's another example of how the intentions of the good can be easily lead astray by the corruption power brings.
Using it as the name of a military contractor misses the point so hard I almost expect it to be intentional, but I suspect it's just teenage-boy level foolishness.
Just a regular reminder Peter Thiel thinks that Greta Thunberg is the antichrist and hesitated when asked if humanity should survive because the question is "layered". This is not a person that should be powerful.
They justify it as defending their way of life, which can align with Tolkien a little bit with some mental gymnastics
> I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.
but overall Tolkien was against war, being a veteran of WWI himself, and the LOTR saga is about the heroism of the meek.
Peter Thiel clearly loves the sword for its sharpness, it drips from everything his companies do.
I think the movie was every bit as deep as the books. Remember how terrifying it was for Frodo to be seen by Sauron’s eye? No, they know exactly what they’re doing and they don’t care.
Are there many stories where the bad guys create the metaverse? AFAIK, Stephenson coined the term in Snow Crash and there it was built by the main character and his buds.
The Matrix, I suppose? Though I think Zuck's (immediate) vision and who he identifies as is way more Hiro Protagonist or James Halliday.