You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
It's fun!
We went to the science museum today. That was a lot of fun; I hadn't been there since 2010 and of course Anonus had never been...
Now we're just relaxing back at the hotel, since we were both tired as fuck (though unfortunately "tiredness" tends not to show on me very much)
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
What if like you both met in real life but you were so nervous and awkward that you just stared and never said anything and then each of you went home and never talked to each other ever again. o_o
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
I wish that I could remember Jade's rant about fursuits, because it would be perfect here.
What is this nonsense about fursuits!!! You do not own a fursuit. You think ANTHROPOMORPHIC FAUNA are really cute and enchanting and all, but it has never occurred to you to dress as one. Sure, it is fun to imagine what it would be like to run wild with a pack of wolves, or purr and frolic with a litter of kittens, but dressing up as an animal just seems ridiculous. It would still just be a silly girl draped in a raggedy synthetic tufty piece of crap, and seriously who are you trying to kid with that sort of baloney!
I think fursuits are almost universally kind of creepy looking, but as that is a personal opinion I'm not going to fault an entire internet group just for thinking they look okay.
HULK'S TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE IN AN OLD-AS-HELL ESSAY, BUT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO UNDERSTAND IN THE FIELD OF CRITICISM (OR ANYTHING REALLY) IS THE "THE TANGIBLE DETAILS THEORY." TO EXPLAIN: WE KNOW IN OUR GUT IF WE LIKE OR DISLIKE SOMETHING WHEN WE WATCH IT, BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHY WE LIKE OR DISLIKE SOMETHING, WE JUST END UP GIVING OUR REASONS BASED ON OUR RELATIVE LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF THE THING ITSELF.
FOR INSTANCE, HULK DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT CARS.
STILL, HULK DRIVES A CAR EVERY DAY (JUMPING AROUND IS TIRING). HULK KNOWS WHAT CARS HULK THINKS LOOK COOL (1963 CHEVY STINGRAYS). HULK CAN GET IN A CAR AND TELL YOU IF IT FEELS GOOD TO DRIVE OR NOT. WHICH ALL MEANS THAT HULK BUYS AND CONSUMES CARS IN A TOTALLY FUNCTIONAL STATE. BUT HULK DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THEM. HULK COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW THEY WORK OR WHAT IS WHAT IN AN ENGINE. AND SO HULK'S OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT A CAR IS "GOOD OR NOT" SHOULDN'T REALLY BE CONSIDERED WITH THE SAME VALIDITY AS SOMEONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY ENGINEER OR PROPERLY FIX A CAR. THEY SIMPLY KNOW WHAT MAKES FOR A GOOD CAR. BUT THE THING IS THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR RELATIVE AREAS OF EXPERTISE. MEANING THAT SAME MECHANIC CAN WATCH A MOVIE AND GO "that fucking sucked cause I hated his stupid face!" AND YET THEY CAN SIMPLY HEAR HULK'S ENGINE AND IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM FROM THE SOUND IT MAKES ALONE. IT IS ABOUT EXPERTISE IN A FIELD.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO MOVIES WE HAVE THIS ODD HABIT OF THINKING THAT:
1) WE ALL HAVE A LEVEL OF EXPERTISE JUST BECAUSE WE ARE AVID CONSUMERS.
2) ACTUAL EXPERTS DON'T EXIST.
AND NEITHER OF WHICH IS ALL THAT TRUE. IT'S THE SAME REASON SO MANY PEOPLE JUST ASSUME THEY CAN WRITE A SCRIPT / STORY OR BE AN ACTOR WITHOUT MUCH EXPERIENCE (HINT: THAT DOESN'T WORK OUT VERY OFTEN). AND IT'S JUST A FAILURE TO SEE HOW MUCH OF WHAT THEY ARE ENGAGING IS ACTUALLY TECHNICAL OR BUILT ON EXPERIENCE. WHAT MAKES IT SO FUNNY IS THAT IT'S THE KIND OF THINKING YOU RARELY SEE IN SPORTS. NOBODY ASSUMES THEY CAN JUST RUN OUT ON THE FIELD AND STRIKE OUT THE SIDE (IF YOU DON'T LIKE BASEBALL, THAT MEANS "DO REALLY GOOD"). PEOPLE DRIVE EVERYDAY, BUT NO ONE ASSUMES THEY CAN JUST HOP INTO THE DAYTONA 500 AND COMPETE. BUT FOR SOME REASON WE DO MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION WITH MOVIES ALL THE TIME. WE ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THE END RESULT OF HOW A MEDIA EXPERIENCE AFFECTS US, WE THEREFORE UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKED ON US. AND IT GIVES RISE TO ONGOING HABITS OF OPINION THAT MAY BE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, BUT THEY ARE NOT "RIGHT" IN THE WAY THEY ARE DIAGNOSING WHAT IS GOOD AND BAD. FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE CAN DISLIKE SOPHIE'S CHOICE BECAUSE IT MADE THEM SAD, BUT THAT DOES NOT VALIDATE THEIR OPINION THAT IT IS "A BAD MOVIE." IT DEPENDS ON A CRUCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF FUNCTION, NOT MERE EFFECT.
AGAIN, THE THING ABOUT TANGIBLE DETAILS IS THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR RELATIVE CAPACITIES TO PERCEIVE BEYOND THEM OR FALL VICTIM TO THEM. FOR INSTANCE, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE MAY WATCH NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN AND BOTH LIKE IT, BUT ONE WILL JUSTIFY IT WITH SOMETHING SIMPLE LIKE "It was awesome they had the gunfight in the hotel!" WHEREAS THE OTHER COULD HAVE MORE THEMATIC, NUANCED LEANINGS AND SAY: "The ending is just a perfect encapsulation of how one essentially 'retires' from the world of material pursuits when they've seen the cost of those pursuits and the cavernous loss that it creates! The constancy of death is haunting!" BOTH CAME TO THE SAME EVALUATION OF "GOOD" THROUGH RADICALLY DIFFERENT MEANS. THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE. ONE PERSON CAN JUSTIFY THEIR DISLIKE BY SAYING "I thought the ending was stupid! I didn't get it! I wish we saw him get killed!" WHEREAS SOMEONE ELSE CAN SAY "I have a long-winded explanation for how the approach to the ending does not satisfy me on a cathartic level, even though that's totally the point of this movie and it builds to that message beautifully!" ...OKAY SOMEONE WOULD NEVER SAY IT LIKE THAT, BUT HULK LOVES THAT MOVIE SO DEAL WITH IT.
THE POINT IS THAT WE COULD JUST CHALK THESE DIFFERENCES IN OPINION OVER THE MOVIE UP TO A MATTER OF DRUTHERS, BUT WHILE EVERYONE IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION BEING RIGHT. THAT'S SIMPLY NOT WHAT SUBJECTIVITY IS ABOUT, YET WE MAKE THIS MISTAKE ALL THE TIME. JUST BECAUSE OPINIONS AREN'T FACTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOME OPINIONS AREN'T MORE COHERENT, HELPFUL AND PRODUCTIVE THAN OTHERS. AND THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "The gun fight is awesome!" AND THE "perfect encapsulation of..." IS THE QUALITY OF INSIGHT. IT'S THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE THE TEXT FOR ITS EXPRESSED PURPOSE, AND THEN THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS TO THE READER, FAR BEYOND THE LAME CONCLUSION OF BAD/GOOD WITHIN THE OPINION ITSELF.
THAT'S WHY HULK COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THE ONGOING CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF "AGREEMENT" AND "WORTH." YOU ALWAYS SEE ARGUMENTS LIKE "Oh, I love that critic! I always agree with them!" (WHICH ONLY MAKES SENSE AS A BUYING GUIDE, NOT FOR INSIGHT) OR "That critic thought that movie was the best of the year!? What an idiot! It's clearly only the 8th best movie of the year!" THAT STUFF ACTUALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MOVIES OR HOW THEY WORK OR ANYTHING THAT IS HELPFUL TO YOU. INSTEAD, HULK WANTS TO READ A CRITIC TO SEE HOW THEIR MIND MOVES. HULK WANTS RECOMMENDATIONS OR PRO-MOVIE ARGUMENTS THAT HULK HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE. HULK DOESN'T JUST WANT TO KNOW ANOTHER OPINION EXISTS, HULK WANTS TO EXPAND HULK'S MIND AND GAIN UNDERSTANDING OF CINEMA HISTORY OR HOW IT WORKS. SUBJECTIVITY IS ONLY REALLY MEANT TO BE A CAUTIONING REMINDER OVER OUR CERTAINTY AND A WAY TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH. SUBJECTIVITY IS WHY WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER AND NOT BE 100% SURE OF OUR OWN OPINIONS, BUT IT IS NOT WHAT MAKES US ALL EQUALLY RIGHT. SURE, MOVIES ARE THESE GRAND ARTISTIC THINGS THAT WE ALL HAVE EMOTIONAL REACTIONS TO, BUT THERE REALLY ARE THINGS LIKE CRAFT, COHESION, PURPOSE AND THE EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE, WHICH THEN MEANS IT'S ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO CONTEXTUALIZE AND EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT MATTERS, NOT THE SHOUTS OF "This is what I thought, dammit!!!" SERIOUSLY, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T COME TO DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIVE STATEMENTS WITH ART DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T DO OUR DAMNEDEST TO ESTABLISH A FIRMER GRIP ON THE NOT-SO-TANGIBLE DETAILS THAT HIDE BENEATH THE SURFACE AND UNVEIL THE REAL ENGINEERING OF MOVIES.
HULK FEELS LIKE THAT SIMPLE FACT GETS LOST ALL THE TIME: MOVIES ARE METICULOUSLY ENGINEERED. THEY TAKE YEARS TO DEVELOP AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE TO CRAFT THEM (WHICH MEANS THE FAULT OF BAD MOVIES IS OFTEN DUE TO LARGER CONCEPTUAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PURPOSE AND EFFECT AND NOT PURE INABILITY). THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS INHERENTLY LAYERED BENEATH THE TANGIBLE DETAILS. AND SINCE THEY ARE CRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY, HULK ARGUES IT IS NOT ONLY FAIR TO ENGAGE THEM ON THE LEVEL OF SAID METICULOUS CRAFT, BUT SHOULD ULTIMATELY BE REQUIRED IN A WAY. FOR THE MORE YOU ENGAGE THE MOVIE ON ALL THE TERMS IT'S TRYING TO ENGAGE YOU, THE MORE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE THE EVALUATION!
OKAY, BREATHE HULKY.
SO.
BEYOND THE PUSH-PULL OF THE RELATIVITY OF OPINIONS, HERE'S THE REAL REASON THE TANGIBLE DETAILS THEORY MATTERS: IF THERE IS NOTHING ON THE SURFACE THAT IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD, THEN THE NON-EXPERT CAN'T TELL IF THERE'S SOMETHING ACTUALLY WRONG.
IF HULK DOESN'T ACTUALLY NOTICE A PROBLEM WITH HULK'S CAR THEN HULK IS JUST GOING TO ASSUME IT'S WORKING FINE! (THAT'S EXACTLY WHY HULK ISN'T A MECHANIC.)
Comments
YNTKT
How is that anyway?
that's because you're trotting all wrong, Anonus-kun! I bet if I hit you with this crop you would trot the right way
but it's hard with you on top of me...
ohhh~ is it?
that is not what i meant
sexytiem
^perv
USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST
^ I don't think so since a fur suit covers the whole body I think, like a Disney World costume.
HULK'S TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE IN AN OLD-AS-HELL ESSAY, BUT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO UNDERSTAND IN THE FIELD OF CRITICISM (OR ANYTHING REALLY) IS THE "THE TANGIBLE DETAILS THEORY." TO EXPLAIN: WE KNOW IN OUR GUT IF WE LIKE OR DISLIKE SOMETHING WHEN WE WATCH IT, BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHY WE LIKE OR DISLIKE SOMETHING, WE JUST END UP GIVING OUR REASONS BASED ON OUR RELATIVE LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF THE THING ITSELF.
FOR INSTANCE, HULK DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT CARS.
STILL, HULK DRIVES A CAR EVERY DAY (JUMPING AROUND IS TIRING). HULK
KNOWS WHAT CARS HULK THINKS LOOK COOL (1963 CHEVY STINGRAYS). HULK CAN
GET IN A CAR AND TELL YOU IF IT FEELS GOOD TO DRIVE OR NOT. WHICH ALL
MEANS THAT HULK BUYS AND CONSUMES CARS IN A TOTALLY FUNCTIONAL STATE. BUT HULK DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THEM.
HULK COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW THEY WORK OR WHAT IS WHAT IN AN ENGINE. AND
SO HULK'S OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT A CAR IS "GOOD OR NOT" SHOULDN'T
REALLY BE CONSIDERED WITH THE SAME VALIDITY AS SOMEONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY
ENGINEER OR PROPERLY FIX A CAR. THEY SIMPLY KNOW WHAT MAKES FOR A GOOD
CAR. BUT THE THING IS THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR RELATIVE AREAS OF EXPERTISE.
MEANING THAT SAME MECHANIC CAN WATCH A MOVIE AND GO "that fucking sucked
cause I hated his stupid face!" AND YET THEY CAN SIMPLY HEAR HULK'S
ENGINE AND IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM FROM THE SOUND IT MAKES ALONE. IT IS ABOUT EXPERTISE IN A FIELD.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO MOVIES WE HAVE THIS ODD HABIT OF THINKING THAT:
1) WE ALL HAVE A LEVEL OF EXPERTISE JUST BECAUSE WE ARE AVID CONSUMERS.
2) ACTUAL EXPERTS DON'T EXIST.
AND NEITHER OF WHICH IS ALL THAT TRUE. IT'S THE SAME REASON SO MANY
PEOPLE JUST ASSUME THEY CAN WRITE A SCRIPT / STORY OR BE AN ACTOR
WITHOUT MUCH EXPERIENCE (HINT: THAT DOESN'T WORK OUT VERY OFTEN). AND
IT'S JUST A FAILURE TO SEE HOW MUCH OF WHAT THEY ARE ENGAGING IS
ACTUALLY TECHNICAL OR BUILT ON EXPERIENCE. WHAT MAKES IT SO FUNNY IS
THAT IT'S THE KIND OF THINKING YOU RARELY SEE IN SPORTS. NOBODY ASSUMES
THEY CAN JUST RUN OUT ON THE FIELD AND STRIKE OUT THE SIDE (IF YOU DON'T
LIKE BASEBALL, THAT MEANS "DO REALLY GOOD"). PEOPLE DRIVE EVERYDAY, BUT
NO ONE ASSUMES THEY CAN JUST HOP INTO THE DAYTONA 500 AND COMPETE. BUT
FOR SOME REASON WE DO MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION WITH MOVIES ALL THE TIME. WE
ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THE END RESULT OF HOW A MEDIA
EXPERIENCE AFFECTS US, WE THEREFORE UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKED ON
US. AND IT GIVES RISE TO ONGOING HABITS OF OPINION THAT MAY BE TOTALLY
JUSTIFIED ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, BUT THEY ARE NOT "RIGHT" IN THE WAY
THEY ARE DIAGNOSING WHAT IS GOOD AND BAD. FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE CAN
DISLIKE SOPHIE'S CHOICE BECAUSE IT MADE THEM
SAD, BUT THAT DOES NOT VALIDATE THEIR OPINION THAT IT IS "A BAD MOVIE."
IT DEPENDS ON A CRUCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF FUNCTION, NOT MERE EFFECT.
AGAIN, THE THING ABOUT TANGIBLE DETAILS IS THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR
RELATIVE CAPACITIES TO PERCEIVE BEYOND THEM OR FALL VICTIM TO THEM. FOR
INSTANCE, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE MAY WATCH NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
AND BOTH LIKE IT, BUT ONE WILL JUSTIFY IT WITH SOMETHING SIMPLE LIKE
"It was awesome they had the gunfight in the hotel!" WHEREAS THE OTHER
COULD HAVE MORE THEMATIC, NUANCED LEANINGS AND SAY: "The ending is just a
perfect encapsulation of how one essentially 'retires' from the world
of material pursuits when they've seen the cost of those pursuits and
the cavernous loss that it creates! The constancy of death is haunting!"
BOTH CAME TO THE SAME EVALUATION OF "GOOD" THROUGH RADICALLY DIFFERENT
MEANS. THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE. ONE
PERSON CAN JUSTIFY THEIR DISLIKE BY SAYING "I thought the ending was
stupid! I didn't get it! I wish we saw him get killed!" WHEREAS SOMEONE
ELSE CAN SAY "I have a long-winded explanation for how the approach to
the ending does not satisfy me on a cathartic level, even though that's
totally the point of this movie and it builds to that message
beautifully!" ...OKAY SOMEONE WOULD NEVER SAY IT LIKE THAT, BUT HULK
LOVES THAT MOVIE SO DEAL WITH IT.
THE POINT IS THAT WE COULD JUST CHALK THESE DIFFERENCES IN OPINION OVER THE MOVIE UP TO A MATTER OF DRUTHERS, BUT WHILE EVERYONE IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION BEING RIGHT.
THAT'S SIMPLY NOT WHAT SUBJECTIVITY IS ABOUT, YET WE MAKE THIS MISTAKE
ALL THE TIME. JUST BECAUSE OPINIONS AREN'T FACTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOME
OPINIONS AREN'T MORE COHERENT, HELPFUL AND PRODUCTIVE THAN OTHERS. AND
THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "The gun fight is awesome!" AND THE
"perfect encapsulation of..." IS THE QUALITY OF INSIGHT. IT'S THE
ABILITY TO ENGAGE THE TEXT FOR ITS EXPRESSED PURPOSE, AND THEN THEIR
RESPECTIVE ABILITIES TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS TO THE READER,
FAR BEYOND THE LAME CONCLUSION OF BAD/GOOD WITHIN THE OPINION ITSELF.
THAT'S WHY HULK COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THE ONGOING CRITICAL
DISCUSSION OF "AGREEMENT" AND "WORTH." YOU ALWAYS SEE ARGUMENTS LIKE
"Oh, I love that critic! I always agree with them!" (WHICH ONLY MAKES
SENSE AS A BUYING GUIDE, NOT FOR INSIGHT) OR "That critic thought that movie
was the best of the year!? What an idiot! It's clearly only the 8th
best movie of the year!" THAT STUFF ACTUALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
MOVIES OR HOW THEY WORK OR ANYTHING THAT IS HELPFUL TO YOU. INSTEAD,
HULK WANTS TO READ A CRITIC TO SEE HOW THEIR MIND MOVES. HULK WANTS
RECOMMENDATIONS OR PRO-MOVIE ARGUMENTS THAT HULK HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE.
HULK DOESN'T JUST WANT TO KNOW ANOTHER OPINION EXISTS, HULK WANTS TO
EXPAND HULK'S MIND AND GAIN UNDERSTANDING OF CINEMA HISTORY OR HOW IT
WORKS. SUBJECTIVITY IS ONLY REALLY MEANT TO BE A CAUTIONING REMINDER
OVER OUR CERTAINTY AND A WAY TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH. SUBJECTIVITY IS WHY WE
HAVE TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER AND NOT BE 100% SURE OF OUR OWN OPINIONS,
BUT IT IS NOT WHAT MAKES US ALL EQUALLY RIGHT.
SURE, MOVIES ARE THESE GRAND ARTISTIC THINGS THAT WE ALL HAVE EMOTIONAL
REACTIONS TO, BUT THERE REALLY ARE THINGS LIKE CRAFT, COHESION, PURPOSE
AND THE EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE, WHICH THEN MEANS IT'S ABOUT OUR ABILITY
TO CONTEXTUALIZE AND EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT MATTERS, NOT THE SHOUTS OF
"This is what I thought, dammit!!!" SERIOUSLY, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T
COME TO DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIVE STATEMENTS WITH ART DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T
DO OUR DAMNEDEST TO ESTABLISH A FIRMER GRIP ON THE NOT-SO-TANGIBLE
DETAILS THAT HIDE BENEATH THE SURFACE AND UNVEIL THE REAL ENGINEERING OF MOVIES.
HULK FEELS LIKE THAT SIMPLE FACT GETS LOST ALL THE TIME: MOVIES ARE METICULOUSLY ENGINEERED.
THEY TAKE YEARS TO DEVELOP AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE TO CRAFT
THEM (WHICH MEANS THE FAULT OF BAD MOVIES IS OFTEN DUE TO LARGER
CONCEPTUAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PURPOSE AND EFFECT AND NOT PURE
INABILITY). THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS INHERENTLY LAYERED BENEATH THE
TANGIBLE DETAILS. AND SINCE THEY ARE CRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY, HULK ARGUES
IT IS NOT ONLY FAIR TO ENGAGE THEM ON THE LEVEL OF SAID METICULOUS
CRAFT, BUT SHOULD ULTIMATELY BE REQUIRED IN A WAY. FOR THE MORE
YOU ENGAGE THE MOVIE ON ALL THE TERMS IT'S TRYING TO ENGAGE YOU, THE
MORE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE THE EVALUATION!
OKAY, BREATHE HULKY.
SO.
IF HULK DOESN'T ACTUALLY NOTICE A PROBLEM WITH HULK'S CAR THEN HULK ISBEYOND THE PUSH-PULL OF THE RELATIVITY OF OPINIONS, HERE'S THE REAL
REASON THE TANGIBLE DETAILS THEORY MATTERS: IF THERE IS NOTHING ON THE
SURFACE THAT IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD, THEN THE NON-EXPERT CAN'T TELL IF THERE'S SOMETHING ACTUALLY WRONG.
JUST GOING TO ASSUME IT'S WORKING FINE! (THAT'S EXACTLY WHY HULK ISN'T A
MECHANIC.)