I'm perplexed by the advice 'Be yourself': if one has to put in an especial effort to assume the attitude of 'being oneself', isn't this more artificial and hence less authentic than whatever attitude one would strike otherwise?
A lost Zelda demo, insulation against other people's opinions, and cultural heritage vigilantes
Apparently, besides the leaked and well known Yoshi and dolphin technical demos for the Game Boy Advance there was a version of the Zelda II overworld; quoting from the Internet Archive's Zeldapower cache: 'The demo wasn't playable and only showed the effects—over a nicely detailed map of Hyrule.'
I'd never heard of this one before, and it seems to be rather obscure; presumably it wasn't handed out to developers.
Mistaken analysis of the moment: 'What we are doing here tonight at the Oxford Union is putting them on a platform that will give them legitimacy and credibility. It is as if we are saying that we agree with what they are saying and that we think it is valid.'
If it were true that one pays attention only to those with whom one agrees it would follow, implausibly, that the purpose of the Oxford Union and indeed of every debating society is to engage in weekly doublethink. (A tingle of Durham schadenfreude, if it's correct to apply the word here: clearly there's ample room for intellectual feebleness under the dreaming spires.)
Given that preservation of heritage is often about keeping things from falling into further disrepair, and sometimes about restoring them, what's to be made of vigilante restoration?
Four members of an underground 'cultural guerrilla' movement known as the Untergunther, whose purpose is to restore France's cultural heritage, were cleared on Friday of breaking into the 18th-century monument... For a year from September 2005, under the nose of the Panthéon's unsuspecting security officials, a group of intrepid 'illegal restorers' set up a secret workshop and lounge in a cavity under the building's famous dome... [and] pieced apart and repaired the antique clock that had been left to rust in the building since the 1960s. Only when their clandestine revamp of the elaborate timepiece had been completed did they reveal themselves.
The French courts have cleared them of charges of wrongdoing; it's a good thing they had benign intentions in sneaking inside. I suppose the moral question is, what makes it right (or meritorious or, arguably, even required) for a given group of people to take charge in such a fashion, presumably on behalf of a 'culture' wider than itself? It's a question that can also be levelled at conventional political institutions, given that people can vote, but their cultures can't.