Anas Ismail Khan

Let’s get to it. We all know about Dumbledore’s past, and his friendship with Grindelwald and the whole “For the greater good” thing. Not all of us, however, realized the fact that he never stopped living his life by that motto. Albus Dumbledore _always _did everything for the greater good.

“You’ve been raising him like a pig for slaughter.” – Severus Snape.

Yes, remember that big reveal to Snape? Dumbledore making clear his belief that in order for the Dark Lord to perish Harry had to die? Remember how he didn’t even try to deny the fact that he was, in fact, just keeping Harry alive so that he could die at the right moment?

But that wasn’t it. 

Then neither are bio-engineers.

You may be familiar with the 2014 film titled “Predestination,” that involves the most mind-blowing time-loop. While watching it, I didn’t fail to notice this:

“Never do yesterday what should be done tomorrow.”

At first I laughed. Then I decided to give it some thought. My first and last interpretation of it was the same. In short, it’s about not messing with the past. If something happened at a particular point in time, then you have no reason to try and make it happen earlier.

However, there is a far simpler explanation for it. And that’s simply the fact that it’s just a tiny bit of humor from the creators and logically, in essence, it isn’t a lot different from what Aaron Burr spoke of:

I’ll pretend to love your shitty startup.

So, I’ve been wanting to do this for quite some time. You see, there’s a whole lot of Batman movies out there along with a good number of _Batmen. _With different actors, playing the same character, in different movie adaptations, there come arguments between fans over the superiority of certain adaptations and portrayals.

In this post, I am going to analyze all the live-action movie Batmen, from Michael Keaton to Ben Affleck, and judge them based on how well they portrayed both Bruce Wayne, and Batman. Before we continue, let’s briefly discuss the two personalities. Bruce Wayne is a billionaire orphan, disciplined and mature for his age. While he may be well known to the world, he can be called reclusive. His _dark past _is what gives him his wisdom and what gives him the look of a man who has dealt with the truth, up close. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have feelings or a sense of humor. He can be touched, and he ain’t witless.
Batman, Bruce’s vigilante personality, is an all righteous, assertive tough-guy who values human-life above all emotion and justice. His instincts and choices are rarely to be doubted. He is also a quick-witted strategist and a really skilled fighter. Also, he is worthy enough to lift the Mjolnir. He knows the difference between what’s right and what’s (seemingly) needed, and he knows better than to let his emotions drive him. Well, let’s start analysing, shall we?

I’ve been casually going through the answers to this question for the past hour. I came across a lot of hilarious ones and an almost equal number of those that are probably hilarious to those that get them. Yes, that does imply that there are quite a lot of them that I don’t get. There used to be more, but I figured them out, all thanks to the internet.

It’s amazing how educational this shit can be. Consider the following scenario:

Joe is a Physics student. Joe loves Physics. Joe wants to be a Physicist. Joe idolizes Hawking, and shares – on his social media – jokes about Schrodinger’s cat. Joe is browsing Quora and he comes across this question. Among the answers, he reads this: Erwin Schrodinger and Werner Heisenberg are driving down the road with the top down, having the time of their lives. They blow past a hidden state patrol officer who jumps in his car and pulls them over a few miles down the road. The officer gets out of his car, hitches up his britches, and saunters up to Heisenberg who is driving.
He motions to roll the window down and Werner complies, then the officer asks: “Sir, do you have any idea how fast you were going?” To which Heisenberg replies: “No Sir. But I know exactly where I am.”

Joe doesn’t get it. He opens Google in a new tab and types “Heisenberg’s.” Googles suggest’s his uncertainty principle and the slightest bit of reading gets Joe smiling. Now he reads through the rest of the joke, which he gets, and reposts it.

Why does Joe behave this way, and how is this shit educational?

It’s understandable for people to not get jokes, and even more understandable for people to not get Physics related jokes. But is it acceptable for a Physics geek to not get a particular joke? Of course it is. Joe, however, was afraid that if people found out that he didn’t know Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle they’ll never respect his intelligence again. He is particularly afraid of his fellow _“physicists” _finding out. Joe felt ashamed of himself. He couldn’t stand how he’d failed to get a popular Physics joke – one that starred Hawking. He felt compelled to figure that joke out and chose to research and expand his knowledge enough to, if not more, get that joke. When he was done, there was one less Physics joke that he didn’t get, and one more principle that he knew.

It seems that Joe’s preferred road to being a Physicist involves reducing the number of Physics jokes that he doesn’t get to a minimum. It sounds funny, and stupid, but it’s smart, and it works. Let’s do a little math, shall we? There are 100+ answers on that Question. Most of the ones I came across had at least two jokes. It’s unlikely for two successive jokes in an answer to be about the same principle, so that means that there are at least 200 jokes below that answer. Obviously, there would be repetition, so let’s just go noob and halve the number. Now we got 100 unique jokes. If Joe reads them all fails to get half of them, he will research and read up on at least 50 different principles/theories.

Jokes motivate Joe to study. But what if Joe actually spent all that time, which he spends reading jokes, studying? That way he could still learn 50(or more) different principles/theories in the same time as he could before and he could do more.

Conclusion: Joe is lazy, not stupid.

First, it’s based on microkernel architecture, which allows to assemble ‘from blocks’ different modifications of the operating system depending on a customer’s specific requirements.

Second, there’s its built-in security system, which controls the behavior of applications and the OS’s modules. In order to hack this platform a cyber-baddie would need to break the digital signature, which – any time before the introduction of quantum computers – would be exorbitantly expensive.

Third, everything has been built from scratch. Anticipating your questions: not even the slightest smell of Linux. All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind, so it’s simpler and safer to start from the ground up and do everything correctly. Which is just what we did.

Let’s talk about this. Micro-kernel design? Interesting, but MINIX has had that for ages now. Linux vs MINIX = Monolithic vs Microkernel = Performance vs Security. Yes, going for one kernel design instead of the other does equal compromising one aspect for the other. In short, this decision to use the micro-kernel isn’t honestly innovative.

Built-in security system? Oh wow.. Sure, whatever. Give us more details and then we will consider it’s existence and efficiency.

Everything has been built from scratch? I admire your effort, but at the end of the day, it is going to have to be POSIX compatible. It’s hard to say whether or not it really was worth the effort. And I hate to break this to you, but it would have saved time, and made more sense, to proofread  the code instead of rewriting it.

In short: As of now, it offers nothing too interesting. Sure, I’d like to download an image and give it a go but that’d probably be it.

Elon Musk wouldn’t.

When nine people agree on something, it’s the tenth man’s responsibility to disagree no matter how improbable the idea.

So, around the time Assasin’s Creed Unity came out, I came across this video. It was quite popular among my friends back then. At 1:18, we see two guys seated on a table facing one another and as something lands on it, one of them says: “Oh no! My omelette du fromage” _at which, Arno pops up and replies: “It’s actually omelette au fromage.” _That’s the first and last time I heard that phrase.

A few days ago, I came across the term again somewhere on the internet and so I googled it. Its literal meaning being “omelette of cheese,” it actually originates from an episode of the popular tv show “Dexter’s Laboratory.” _The episode itself is called “The Big Cheese,” in which, Dexter can’t say anything except _“oomelette du fromage”. 

Funnily enough, throughout the episode, his day at school is better than the average because, as it happens, saying that same damned phrase everytime he opens his mouth, seems to work out just fine for him. He nails a french test, and a mathematics question and gets a bunch of girls fawning, and even manages to deal with some bullies.

So why does Arno say “It’s actually omelette au fromage.”? _Because “omelette au fromage” means _“omelette with cheese,” _and that’s the correct term to use for a cheese omelete. As you can guess, _fromage  means cheese, while omelette means pretty much what you think it does. Therefore, “du”=”of” and “au”=”with.”