Scott examines three "model organisms" for understanding aesthetic taste: vexillology (flag design), movie plot holes, and tech company naming, using each to explore different aspects of what makes something tasteful or tasteless. Longer summary

Scott continues his exploration of aesthetic taste by examining three simpler examples that reveal underlying dynamics. First, he discusses Reddit vexillology and the debate over flag design rules, showing how supposedly timeless aesthetic principles are actually obsolete historical artifacts. Second, he considers movie plot holes and whether caring about internal consistency (like Ultra-Man's blaster range) represents genuine taste or just nitpicking. Finally, he analyzes tech company names like 'Infinita' versus 'Vitalia', arguing that the former represents an 'easy win' that feels manipulative - similar to how AI-generated poetry strings together cliches. Throughout, Scott grapples with the tension between rejecting elitist aesthetic rules while still acknowledging that some things (like cliche-heavy writing) genuinely feel tasteless. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his 'Don't Look Up' movie review, addressing criticisms and exploring various interpretations of the film. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his review of the movie 'Don't Look Up'. He acknowledges some valid criticisms of his review, discusses the feasibility of deflecting comets as portrayed in the film, explores the movie's political stance, and shares interesting observations from viewers. The post includes discussions on the movie's scientific accuracy, its portrayal of peer review, and speculations about which real-life tech CEO a character might be based on. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Don't Look Up', critiquing its contradictory narratives about trusting science and experts vs. outsiders. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews the movie 'Don't Look Up', focusing on its political implications rather than its message about existential risk. He summarizes the plot, then critiques the film's self-contradictory narratives about trusting experts vs. trusting outsiders. Scott argues that the movie unintentionally encourages conspiracy thinking while trying to promote 'trusting science'. He explains how people often hold contradictory political narratives, deploying whichever is convenient. The review concludes that the film succeeds in conveying emotions around existential risk debates but fails to coherently follow through on its intended message. Shorter summary