Zompist Bboard Again

Up for debate, though: is Gravity science fiction?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:56 am Random unrelated question: Does the 1995 movie Apollo 13 count as any kind of science fiction? Yes, I know, it's not in a fictional future, or any kind of fictional setting. It is, in fact, based on a true story, and one decades in the past when the movie was made. But, that said, it is about space exploration.

In fact, it's historical fiction.

I don't see taking place in the future as germane to the label "science fiction" at all. Entire subgenres (e.g. steampunk) exist which are primarily set in historical times.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:52 pm
I don't see taking place in the future as germane to the label "science fiction" at all. Entire subgenres (e.g. steampunk) exist which are primarily set in historical times.

Completely true, of course. Even Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:57 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:52 pm
I don't see taking place in the future as germane to the label "science fiction" at all. Entire subgenres (e.g. steampunk) exist which are primarily set in historical times.

Completely true, of course. Even Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

And many people say it isn't really science fiction. Rather, high fantasy with science fiction props. Indeed, it works much like Lord of the Rings or similar stories.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 4:46 pm

And many people say it isn't really science fiction. Rather, high fantasy with science fiction props. Indeed, it works much like Lord of the Rings or similar stories.

Sure, but I'd say most science-fiction contains at least some elements that are closer to fantasy. Anyway, for a somewhat harder examples, there's Consider Phlebas, which is set during an interstellar war in the Milky Way that it says went on from 1327 to 1375 CE.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 4:53 pm Sure, but I'd say most science-fiction contains at least some elements that are closer to fantasy.

That's one reason some people prefer to call it "speculative fiction." Or, as I do, just SF.

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:06 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:56 am Random unrelated question: Does the 1995 movie Apollo 13 count as any kind of science fiction? Yes, I know, it's not in a fictional future, or any kind of fictional setting. It is, in fact, based on a true story, and one decades in the past when the movie was made. But, that said, it is about space exploration.

How can it be science fiction if it isn't fiction?

when a film says either "inspired by real events" or "some events have been dramatized"

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 8:27 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:06 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:56 am Random unrelated question: Does the 1995 movie Apollo 13 count as any kind of science fiction? Yes, I know, it's not in a fictional future, or any kind of fictional setting. It is, in fact, based on a true story, and one decades in the past when the movie was made. But, that said, it is about space exploration.

How can it be science fiction if it isn't fiction?

when a film says either "inspired by real events" or "some events have been dramatized"

While some events in Apollo 13 were dramatized, it was far 'harder' than even the hardest of 'hard' scifi, and the things that were changed were small enough overall that it does not seem right to call it a work of fiction.

Completely silly, completely random question:

One of my favorite jokes from the movie Airplane 2 is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D372SW-OhKA

It's probably only funny for people who remember both public payphones and how expensive long-distance calls used to be.

But now I wonder: If you scale up the prices of long-distance calls back in 1982 (when the movie was released) to interstellar distances, would six million dollars actually have been enough for the first three minutes?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 4:18 pmBut now I wonder: If you scale up the prices of long-distance calls back in 1982 (when the movie was released) to interstellar distances, would six million dollars actually have been enough for the first three minutes?

This can't really be answered without thinking about the technology involved, and of course there is none.

This page has some price comparisons for long-distance over the course of the 20th century. In 1980 (when the movie came out), a 10-minute call over 4000 km (a little less than coast to coast) cost $4.17, or $16 adjusted for inflation.It was expensive because the call went over physical wires; also, honestly, because AT&T liked it that way.* Cell phones work by radio, while VoIP uses the Internet, so the economics are completely different.

The only reasonable way to communicate at interstellar distances is using light (in its physics sense, including all forms of electromagnetic radiation), so the price would have to be based on that. Unfortunately the speed of light makes it impossible to have a phone conversation.

* Remember that Intro to Econ stuff about supply and demand dictating a single best price? It's nonsense. If people have more money, businesses would like to charge them more, and devote a lot of effort to tricks to invite them to do so. You can't really make a lot of money charging high prices on local calls, because it's a business model that depends on everyone using the phone. But making long distance calls expensive gets the real phone addicts (i.e. business) to pay more.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:24 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 4:18 pmBut now I wonder: If you scale up the prices of long-distance calls back in 1982 (when the movie was released) to interstellar distances, would six million dollars actually have been enough for the first three minutes?

This can't really be answered without thinking about the technology involved, and of course there is none.

This page has some price comparisons for long-distance over the course of the 20th century. In 1980 (when the movie came out), a 10-minute call over 4000 km (a little less than coast to coast) cost $4.17, or $16 adjusted for inflation.It was expensive because the call went over physical wires; also, honestly, because AT&T liked it that way.* Cell phones work by radio, while VoIP uses the Internet, so the economics are completely different.

Thank you! Bummer about the physics.

I observe on the front page of the board that it is elemtilas’s… er, 107th birthday, apparently. Happy birthday, I guess!

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 11:55 pm I observe on the front page of the board that it is elemtilas’s… er, 107th birthday, apparently. Happy birthday, I guess!

Happy Birthday!!

Don't worry, we'll protect you from those spreadsheet-abusers!

btw, 107 proves you're a Daine, right?

I had the same thought in response to the alleged "de-extinction" of the dire wolf as everyone else -- "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:41 pm I had the same thought in response to the alleged "de-extinction" of the dire wolf as everyone else -- "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

My thought was "thats a strange claim to make - that these dire wolf pups are going to look and behave just like dire wolves used to -- exactly what is going to teach these pups how to behave like a dire wolf? and you didn't de-extinct them: you rendered them re-moribund, because what are they going to breed with?"

keenir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 5:15 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:41 pm I had the same thought in response to the alleged "de-extinction" of the dire wolf as everyone else -- "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

My thought was "thats a strange claim to make - that these dire wolf pups are going to look and behave just like dire wolves used to -- exactly what is going to teach these pups how to behave like a dire wolf? and you didn't de-extinct them: you rendered them re-moribund, because what are they going to breed with?"

They’re not dire wolves in any case. They’re grey wolves with some characteristics which make them resemble dire wolves.

Hm, Wikipedia claims that "The dire wolf was about the same size as the largest modern forms of gray wolf (Canis lupus)". That really makes me wonder what the point of this is. I mean, if they would be as large as bears or something, that would be something, but wolf-like animals that are roughly the size of the largest regular wolves? Why?

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:38 pm They’re not dire wolves in any case. They’re grey wolves with some characteristics which make them resemble dire wolves.

Yes. I'm not sure I see the point either!

Dire wolves weren't even that close to wolves to start with (I mean, still closer related than say, bears, but less related than coyotes or maybe even foxes). So starting from wolves to "remake" dire wolves is ridiculous in the first place.

Hence allegedly "de-extincting" dire wolves -- while it would have been a bad idea if they had really "de-extincted" dire wolves, they haven't even done that.