This is one of the most ridiculous trends in museums/archaeology recently. I don't think it was ever *seriously* argued for, it just got adopted via a ratchet effect: "should we choose to be a bit more woke than we were yesterday? Yes"
Add to that the more specific problem in the OP - failing to engage the museum goer because of this hesitation around a vivid display - and it really is just totally stupid and almost exclusively about the curators' senses of their own virtue
BBC History Extra podcast had an episode about a bit of the Burmese campaign recently and the interviewee was asked why we don't remember this theatre. Can't remember what she said but the obvious point she didn't make is that it's imperial rather than national history.
Anyone want to play 'Circle The Inaccuracies In A Single Paragraph'?
Happy to advise on a rewrite, @HodderEducation
Because the word 'empire' now has a very tight semantic field (mostly dominated by such concepts as 'extraction', 'slavery', and 'evil'), we find it quite easy to back-project Britain-as-a-nation-state onto the Britain of the Empire.
How to evaluate an adaptation is quite interesting and a lot of the Le Based commentary on it presented divergence from Homer as *evidence* of its low quality, which is retarded. Anyway, I happen to be rereading it with an excellent commentary so will re-review in the future.
Only just got round to seeing it, but here’s some thoughts on Nolan’s Odyssey [obviously spoilers etc, though im not sure you can spoil a 000's year old tale]:
A VERY 2026 adaptation of the text, which I mean as both a compliment and a criticism. Not particularly "woke" (unless you think the casting itself is woke), but very much a product of contemporary sensibilities in how it approaches the characters, particularly Odysseus himself.
It diverges from the text quite substantially, often successfully. Making Circe an older, witchier figure rather than a lover, for example, works really well. But the biggest and most interesting change is to Odysseus himself.
Homer's Odysseus is a trickster, whereas this Odysseus is fundamentally a good man who has fallen. I don't think Homer's Odysseus would experience guilt and trauma in anything like the way Damon does here. He's also a much more sexless, faithful figure. Again, very 2026.
I think this broadly works, but it does narrow the text. There’s some debate about the extent to which Odysseus is an unreliable narrator in the original, and I think this adaptation pretty much eliminates that ambiguity. Removing the 'Nobody' trick from the Cyclops encounter takes away one of the clearest demonstrations of Odysseus's capacity for deception, while having him recount his adventures to Calypso as he slowly regains his mind positively encourages us to believe him.
This Odysseus isn't a cunning, morally ambiguous storyteller. He's a traumatised man coming to terms with what he's done.
I actually really liked the decision to make the Trojan Horse a great original sin, with repercussions that echo throughout the film. But I found it slightly incongruous that the man responsible for what is effectively a gigantic war crime is also the man who twangs his bow to give his prey a fighting chance. These two versions of Odysseus aren't irreconcilable, but I think the film could have done a little more to bridge the gap. Perhaps a scene with Agamemnon before the Horse, establishing how Odysseus was forced to make that decision.
As spectacle, though, there are some absolutely incredible sequences. The Cyclops, Circe and Hades scenes were all magnificent, and I really liked the Sirens too. Very glad I saw this in IMAX. By contrast, the final confrontation with the suitors felt weirdly Marvel-esque, although I'm not entirely sure how you could stage that scene faithfully without running into the same problem.
The casting was, broadly, very good. I know some found Tom Holland annoying as Telemachus, but frankly I found Telemachus annoying in Homer too. Damon wouldn't have been my choice for Odysseus, but he's a good choice for *this* Odysseus. I liked Helen, Pattinson was great, and I absolutely loved Agamemnon. After initially being unsure of it, I thought Zendaya as a Trojan manifestation of Athena was particularly inspired . My one real casting complaint was Elliot Page, whose performance was fine (particularly in Hades), but who simply didn't convince as a character who was meant to be a young man of approx 20. It was oddly immersion-breaking.
I'm still not quite sure what I think about the Sea Peoples material, or the decision to end with everyone heading west and leaving Odysseus's crap son in charge.
Overall, though, I really liked it. A fine adaptation.
It's remarkable how many Shakespearean actors in this country are black or half black, especially compared to baseline interest within that demographic. There can be more black people in a production's cast than in the audience.
Ben Judah encounters the world like a small child, publicly registering a stream of novelty, except with a great deal less dignity
Far too many ordinary interactions now are prefaced by the thought 'are they going to understand me?' Ridiculous thing to inflict on a society.
Oxford University has told staff not to use common phrases such as "learn the ropes" or "find your feet" over fears they confuse foreign students, sparking concern at the new scheme of language policing. dailysceptic.org/2026/10/12/…
Centrists fundamentally misunderstand by thinking immigration is a perturbative change only, so they consistently refuse to project into the future. That 2nd gens could be less well-integrated than their parents - distinct non-linearity - shows it is non-perturbative.
This is an extreme example of the schizophrenic undetermination of cultural identity by history: history is too rich to compel this or that particular narrative account "this is who we are." Subjective selection that conflates Is with Ought is inherent to any such statement.
The idea that everyone was supposed to be giddy with excitement about the coincidence of a handful of Main Characters as appointed by a demonstrably superficial industry
These results don’t matter in any practical way, but imo it does expose a fundamental messiness in the world that our human preference for neatness and order obscured.
AI may show us that a lot more things are like packing n=17 squares than n=4. In this sense, it is blasphemy.
oh yeah btw guys we can do integer multiplication faster than n log n lol
I was definitely very surprised when this one came in lol
github.com/openai/math/tree/…





















