Music Review: Sia - This is Acting

I don't get Sia. I admire her voice greatly, but she lacks any special qualities that make a music star. I also don't get this facade of not revealing her face. It's not edgy or original and actually has to be one of the crappiest gimmicks in musical history. Her albums are repetitively swooned over by critics and so I thought I'd give her another try, obviously being sensible and not participating in any internet defamation, writing a good honest review that won't to pander to a demographic.

The standout selling point for 'This is Acting' is that the material was written for other artists by Sia herself. Sounds intriguing doesn't it? Well no actually, because who wants to pay full price for an album that's essentially sloppy seconds rejected by other artists. Sia would have had to tailor these songs to other artists, so why the fuck would she then rehash them under her own banner only to collate the results into a cut and stick job for wholesale? If other artists have rejected the material then that takes balls to then try and rework them with your own neck on the line, because I would have thought that alarm bells would be ringing in Sia's head when she realises she's recording material that names such as Rihanna and Katy Perry have rejected. I mean have you seen the low quality material that Rihanna and Katy Perry actually choose to release? I'm not sure I would want to be performing the scrapings from the bottom of the barrel.

The big standout single is 'Alive', which is just awful, and feeling alive after a listen would probably be mankind's greatest achievement. It wasn't a million miles away from making my 'worst songs of 2015' list, as it's not exciting, it's not original, the pacing is terrible, and as for the crescendo, well why anyone thought repeatedly screaming I'm still breathing whilst noticeably gasping for air would sound good on a pop song is a mystery to me. The whole thing was just so unpleasant to listen to that it made by ears virtually bleed. If that's an iconic feature then this album should be heading to the bin instead of retail stores. Where emotions come into the equation is a mystery to me, as apart from wanting to put Sia out of her misery there wasn't any positive thoughts to be found here. It was actually a lot like listening to a live band at a crappy pub, not one of the most highly renowned artists of the decade. 'Alive' was such a terrible way to kick things off that the rest of the album becomes a bit like expecting a horse to win the Grand National after being shot in the head as a result of falling at the first hurdle. In short you can't build a house without foundations, and Sia's foundations were full of shit.

'Alive' isn't the worst song on the album though. Oh no, the worst song by far was 'Sweet Design', which isn't sweet and wasn't well designed. 'Sweet Design' samples the equally terrible 'Thong Song'. The thought of 'why?' ended up repeating itself in my head constantly, and at no point did it ever occur to me that something as poorly composed as this should ever be released to people with functioning ears. No album given five stars by anyone should ever contain anything as unpleasant as this. If this really does signify emotional completeness of the album then this is the part containing all the scorn and hate that dominate my emotional sphere; but just by giving 'Sweet Design' a listen you can understand why.

This album isn't remotely captivating or enticing. Instead 'This is Acting' is just uninspired and pretentious drivel that has a surprisingly samey formula that's overall really bland. I get that Sia has a great voice, and I love when she shows it off without becoming pretentious, but aside from the odd change in pace it's the same bread and butter formula as previous albums without adding anything interesting. Why the hell would anyone buy this? It's like rejecting a brand new lawnmower for an old used one that's the same price. I've seen reviews were the songs that in my opinion are pointless time-wasters, which by the way never create any kind of ulterior picture, are actually defended with the argument that they provided what is essentially comic relief; something I'm sure everyone buys a musical album for. If this is an emotionally charged album then what the fuck is this light hearted shit doing in there? Furthermore I've seen more reviews that claim this album is some sort of self help journey that gains confidence with each song. Sounds marvelous in theory, however any claim that any vulnerability has dissipated throughout the course of the album is quickly shot down by the final song 'Space Between' in which we find the line 'Oh, we don't bend, we're breaking'. Some fucking transformation here. You can't insert any argument you want as to how you think the album progresses, but it's instantly clear to me that there just simply isn't any, and this album was thrown together without a thought.

There are some plus point around; The lyrics are thankfully not generic drivel, and the production is absolutely stellar in places, but you would have to be a clinical moron to give this anywhere near a five star mark. I'm sure Sia herself wouldn't even class the results as one of the best albums recorded in recent years; and even she wouldn't resort to a pointless philosophical analysis in order to defend a work that never felt special. There's no journey here; just an age old formula that has stayed with Sia throughout her whole career. None of the content is remarkable in any way, and this is just another album from just another average performer. If this is how music should be done I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Final Score: 3/10

Top 10 Skyscrapers

A nice change in attitude for this article, which is all part of my newly positive approach to blogging after I was threatened with a court case. Here we will objectively take a look at skyscrapers in an adult fashion that reflects my interest in architecture rather than an emphasis on sarcastic and cheap jokes that will at no stage lead me to call anyone a vile human being.

#10 Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang, Incomplete)

Despite not being completed the Ryugyong hotel is the second tallest hotel in the world and the tallest incomplete building in the world. It's taken those not so industrious little Koreans since 1987 to top out the building at 330m, which is only just shy of its estimated 1989 completion date. The original plan is that this would bring in Western investors into North Korea, but mainly it was a middle finger to the investors of Singapore who had previously built the world's tallest hotel. That ship has long sailed though, and the most recent reports still suggest that this project is far from completion. Construction originally stopped in 1992 and didn't start again until 2008, leaving a huge concrete block in Pyongyang, which accompanies the existing skyline just brilliantly.

The project is now being run by Egyptians, which is always a byword for quality in engineering, and not surprisingly their shoddy job once again missed the revised estimated completion date of 2012. However this building makes the list because it is proof that North Korea does actually have some economic might when they're not in a time of crisis, which isn't often, and this menacing building is an ambitious project that actually looks well designed. Unsurprisingly the Ryugyong Hotel has been given the nickname 'The Hotel of Doom', but then it does look like something a Bond villain would build. Still, credit where credit's due, North Korea has designed and almost finished a fine looking building. Although when I look at North Korea the one thing the country really doesn't need is a hotel to support its always bustling tourist industry. I doubt the 3,700 hotel rooms will ever be at full capacity.


#9 Heron Tower (London, 2011)

The Heron Tower is one of the newest skyscrapers to grace London's skyline, and in my opinion looks damn fine. As someone who travels through London regularly it's not surprising that I have a biased view of this relatively minor creation on the global scale, but to me it's aesthetically pleasing enough to warrant a mention. The Heron Tower is the tallest skyscraper in the CITY of London, standing at 230m tall, and yes I know that doesn't make it the tallest building in the metropolitan area of London, just the inner city.

It may never win awards for being the tallest building in the world, but I think it looks great. The facade in particular makes it look like something you would find in the IKEA catalogue, and that's because the individual areas in the design are referred to as 'villages', of which there are ten, each having their own unique environment and contributing to make the building look like flat pack furniture. The star of the show is the huge aquarium that complements the modern looks and sleek design perfectly. The huge fish tank is the largest privately owned aquarium in Europe.and houses over 1200 fish. The building just like the tank is self sustaining and epitomises the economic growth of London, adding something to the London skyline with its practical design.


#8 Taipei 101 (Taipei, 2004)

At 509.2 m this building was the tallest in the world from its opening in 2004 until 2010, becoming the first building in history to break the 500m barrier. Even today this is still the tallest building considered 'green' on the planet and seen as a big milestone in engineering. The way this whole project was engineered is the reason why this building makes the list. It sort of needed to be; Taipei 101 is located just meters from a fault line and also in an area where the chances of a typhoon occurring are very high. I know it's Chinese and so is bound to have boundless resources poured into it, but this is a building that can withstand winds of 134mph and the strongest Earthquakes recorded by man. There's even a 660 tonne counterweight that suspends from the top that effectively sways to counterbalance a building under huge stress.

Even looking past the features that make this an engineers wet dream you still have a building that's still as sustainable as you can possibly get. It has an LEED platinum rating for energy efficiency, making it the only supertall skyscraper with that distinction. The building even acts as a huge sundial to Taiwan, and is even listed as the largest in the world. This is such a revolutionary construction that it's even considered by some publications to be one of the seven modern wonders of the world, and it's easy to see why when you consider the detail that's gone into it. Even minor features such as the elevators are engineered to perfection. To climb 84 floors just takes 37 seconds, making the lifts in this building the fastest in the world. But the thing I love about it the most is just how much it fits into the Taiwanese skyline. It's sort of like a big Chinese pagoda and incorporated just about every rule of Feng shui there is to follow, creating a masterpiece with a staggering amount of detail.


#7 The Shard (London, 2012)

Named because it quite literally looks like a shard of glass, this is in my opinion the nicest building by far in the London Skyline, and one easily recognisable to any Londoner. It also has the distinction of being the tallest building in the EU, although that's because Russia isn't a part of the European Union, which is a bit of luck considering they're quite good at this skyscraper business. However what hey haven't done is made one as aesthetically pleasing as this British beauty that for me is one of the most attractive ways to kick off the regeneration scheme on the London Southbank. This building is the perfect cornerstone for London based developments, although it's actually jointed owned by Qatar for whatever reason. But fair play to them, this conglomeration of oil money and architecture helped create what I think is a mildly arousing iconic landmark for London that in time will become synonymous with the city.


#6 Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong, 1990)

Look at that. I know very little about architecture, but even I can tell that this building is something special. It's record setting as well, and was actually the first of many buildings outside the USA to break the 305m mark, standing at an impressive 367.4m. That iconic triangular structure that gives this building such a breathtaking and unique look is meant to resemble the growing of bamboo shoots, which although sounding symbolic is actually ignoring feng shui principles that govern the majority of oriental buildings. And I for one am glad they told the feng shui guys to fuck off, because this building looks fucking brilliant. The disorder in the design is perfect, with sharp and angular edges that give it that character that a sleeker look wouldn't have given it. This building will undoubtedly have that lasting impression on the Hong Kong skyline that the designers were aiming for and it's a great symbol of complex architecture and engineering, being both striking to look at and practical on an everyday basis. At least it is if you haven't watched Battleship. In that film it was obliterated into an attractive pile of rubble.


#5 Shanghai World Financial Center (Shanghai, 2008)

That monumental construction in the foreground of the picture above is the eighth tallest building in the world. It's 492m tall, contains 101 floors, and cost 1.2 billion dollars in total. That 164 foot wide gap in the top by the way not only looks nice but serves as an observation deck and a nifty way to stop the immense wind pressure at that high altitude. Yeah, you read that correctly, an observation deck 474m off of ground level. The design does look a bit like a bottle opener, but a fucking attractive one at that. In theory this is almost the ultimate skyscraper. It looks brilliant, it cost a tonne to build and finance, and it has just about every single purpose known to man. It even contains the world's highest hotel.You have to give it to the Chinese, when they want to make a statement they do a damn fine job of it.


#4 Willis Tower (Chicago, 1973)

Most famously known as the Sears Tower before 2009, this skyscraper upon completion broke just about every single record possible for a building. At 442m it held the record for the world's tallest building for 25 years, although if you count the antenna this building retained that claim until 2008. To this day the Willis Tower is still the fourteenth tallest building in the world, and as such is till one of the most famous landmarks worldwide. It's well designed too, and despite looking a bit blocky is actually very economical in terms of cost. This gargantuan construction totals 416,000 square meters of floor space, which only cost the developers 800 million dollars in today's money, which for a skyscraper of this size is a bargain. In fact this building is sort of genesis for the styling and engineering of supertall structures that are now cropping up everywhere with this now universally used technique of minimising costs.

The Willis Tower has become an iconic landmark of Chicago, mainly because of how awesome it looks in black. That wasn't always the case as during the first decade half of the space was left vacant inside this revolutionary building. Now however over 1 million people a year visit the observation deck which actually sways due to the high winds of Chicago, and contains glass boxes that give uninterrupted views on the pavement 412m below. From the top of the building you can see four US states in the distance, although whether you would want to is another matter considering the glass actually cracked on one occasion, which is the stuff of nightmares.

#3 Burj Khalifa (Dubai, 2009)

The rule book on skyscraper design was thrown out of the window after this jaw-dropping construction was completed in 2009. It's barely believable that this creation even exists after reading the stats about this surreal building, but it's such a positive symbol for what can be achieved in engineering that you have to praise everyone involved with this outstanding project. This isn't just the tallest building in the world, it's the tallest structure in the world by a good 200m, and the nearest building in terms of height isn't even designed to be functional to humans. This however is, and it's a staggering 828m tall, has a world record 163 floors, has an elevator that travels 504m, has the world's highest observation deck at 545m in which you can see the shores of Iran, and that's without getting into the records set by all the technical details.

Somehow despite all these records this building only contains half the amount of steel used to build the Empire State Building despite being twice the size. The clever engineering means that the Y shaped configuration saves raw materials and also allows a maximum amount of potential sunlight to be harvested by the windows, although the 120,000m squared of windows require 4500kg of water to wash, and takes four months to complete. The spiralling pattern too means that wind is not so much a factor, which is very important to consider when you're over 800m in height. The weight of the concrete alone is 110,000 tonnes, so to minimise wind resistance is key to this building's design. It's no surprise then that this cost 1.5 billion dollars to complete, but then you really do get what you pay for. The Burj Khalifa is a building that shifted the boundaries of what is possible with architecture; a symbol of what humanity can achieve if you get Koreans to do the building for you, working with rubbish pay and conditions.


#2 One World Trade Center (New York, 2013)

I'll give you one thing America, you certainly know how to pull off a skyscraper. What's even more intriguing about this building is that it was built next to the site of the 9/11 attacks, which is presumably why this was given the symbolic name of the Freedom Tower during construction. It's an impressive statement in the face of terrorism, and in my opinion far more attractive than the previous Twin Towers that this new construction exists in the very large shadow of. Those towers never had a beautiful glass reflection or striking appearance, and so in some way their destruction could be seen as a blessing in disguise. When you look at the statistics it becomes even more impressive when compared to the original. The building is 541.3m, or 1776 feet, and I bet you can't guess why the freedom centre is that exact height? Fair play to America though, that's one way to stick it to the British. Maybe the next British Skyscraper should encompass a quarter of the Earth, because that's a respectable achievement to brag about.

Jokes aside this is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere. Although that title comes with controversy as many believe the spire is actually an antenna and therefore excluded from the total height. No, seriously this is a huge ongoing argument. Really is one of life's biggest issues. What isn't up for debate is that this building has a grand total of 104 floors despite actually only having 94, which makes no sense, but I doubt many Americans can count that high anyway so it doesn't really matter. Officially this is the world's most expensive skyscraper at an estimated cost of 3.9 billion dollars. But you know what? It looks like a 4 billion dollar building. In the same way that the Empire State Building once became the iconic landmark of New York, I feel this new building over time will become the same, putting not just New York, but America at the forefront of engineering greatness.


#1 2 International Finance Center (Hong Kong, 2003)

Oh yeah, in my opinion this is the greatest skyscraper in the world. For me it's the one that gets it just right. It's not to sleek, not to pretentious, just a huge and practical block of concrete that naturally accompanies the skyline without dominating it or just showing off, yet still leaving a large impression. Okay it's not built to break records, just operate like a normal building, but it fits into the surroundings perfectly and looks absolutely epic. As well as being an impressive structure and looking a bit like a dildo, the 2IFC doubles up as a multi-story underground mall as well as containing thousands of offices and public amenities. Currently the 2IFC is the eighth largest office building in the world, measuring 412m exactly, which is an impressive statistic, although the building is now probably most famous for being one which Batman jumped off in the Dark Knight. Probably wanted a better look at that gorgeous structure.

Christoforge vs Creationism: Answers in Genesis

Next up on out tour of creationist crap is the website 'Answers in Genesis' who have attempted to collate all the stupid arguments that evolutionists use. Let the irony commence.
_____________________________________________________________________________
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/
_____________________________________________________________________________

No, I'll admit that these first two points are actually fair points. Proclaiming something as a fact and only understood by the intelligent does make it true, and I find it increasingly noticeable that people use science as almost another religion, discrediting arguments in the same way that 'Answers in Genesis' is doing here. This ignorance fails to look at the larger picture, jumping to conclusions. This is hopefully what I'm going to be debunking today by actually providing some evidence instead of making the vague assumptions that 'Answers in Genesis' love to do, and I expect the same attitude from the source being as they've already voiced their displeasure at blind ignorance. I don't agree with their point that the unobservable past cannot be explained through human understanding, as then how can you explain anything? They seem to be pretty confident that the inverse argument is true even when by their own admission it's impossible to know for a fact since the unobservable past cannot be determined. Stating that a higher power was responsible is simply based on belief, and of course we know how much 'Answers in Genesis' hate it when people blindly determine facts. The sources used are even worse and just there to cut and stick bible verses in between scientific theories and quotes by people who are barely qualified to even be called scientists, but then what did we expect from an article that quotes directly from The Bible.

To actually respond to any of the arguments on this list you have to concede that any scientific theory is based on assumptions, so by simply dismissing a theory on that basis is simply rejecting scientific methods full stop. The theory of evolution is an example of this, and despite what you claim is a study that has no observational proof, there are many cases both in the lab and in nature that show the process is visible over a period of time. As a biology student I have actually undertaken that lab experiment sourced above, and in just a short four hour period I was able to evolve E.Coli into a resistant strain. As far as I'm concerned that's damn more direct, first hand, and observational proof than creationism has ever provided. The second argument is even worse and revolves around calling famous scientists of the past uneducated. Famous scientists I may add who are no longer living. Intelligence and scientific perspective are both relative and so change over time, meaning your comparison of scientific attitudes in different periods is both inaccurate and hypothetical. We're not living in the 19th century anymore and therefore the point that Isaac Newton wouldn't have believed in evolution today is hypothetical nonsense that you have no way of knowing. That's a bit like calling Archimedes an idiot for not knowing the now commonly accepted fact that there's a planet in our solar system called Uranus. Education is a pretty good indicator of the validity of a person's knowledge of a subject, hence why you source qualified scientists. And let me tell you, evolution is one of the most commonly accepted scientific theories out there.

The article continues with this denial of scientific progress. In this particular scenario 'On the Origin of Species' and The Bible are simply two sides of the same coin. Before The Bible was published creationism wasn't a big deal, so it's actually quite ironic to bring up a point about how attitudes change in accordance with revolutionary works. Scientists at the time of Darwin had no way to prove evolution that modern technology now allows us to, but does that suddenly mean evolution couldn't have happened? I still don't understand why evolutionists can't use this argument. The only point being made in this argument is that evolutionists can't be right because the author has a differing opinion. Bit of a hypocritical stance really isn't it?

The next argument is even more stupid. I wasn't aware that studies in physics and biology were instantly comparable, and in my funny little world I always thought that the scientific methods used were the only comparable part. Gravity for example is a constant and therefore isn't a random process, which explains why it can be proven instantaneously. In reality that experiment you explain with the pencil would not prove gravity exists, rather that a force is exerting itself on the pencil, attracting it towards the centre of the Earth. To then make the childish comparison of that experiment to an amoeba instantly turning into a goat is idiotic. Not only are the chances of that amoeba turning into a goat minute, because as explained previously evolution is a random process, but even if all criteria were met that process would take hundreds of millions of years with many transitional species in between. This stupid argument forgets that evolution is not a forward thinking process and instead falsifies a whole theory based on a singular piece of evidence, taking an entire process out of context. You may as well have jumped to conclusions by falsifying the theory of gravity because pencils float in space, therefore proving that gravity can't exist.

Firstly you can easily observe that the Earth is round by using a sundial or observing the path of a ship on the horizon, so that point about The Bible proving that fact is just nonsense. The quotations used from The Bible are also just so vague. It's clear that quoting from a work of literature shouldn't be taken literally, especially when it's used as a source for scientific evidence. But, yeah right it's the evolutionists who are the ones with the assumption based beliefs. The second explanation is even more bizarre. Basic numeracy has nothing to do with the validity of scientific theories, which for the record cannot be found in any sort of framework from The Bible no matter how many quotes you try and desperately squeeze for alternative meanings. We get no explanation of the relatedness of species or how 'lines of descent' are explained between fossils from any holy book. I wouldn't expect that explanation from a source such as The Bible, because as previously stated it's not something that should be taken literally, and the points made are allegorical instead of primary evidence.

I hope evolutionists don't claim that natural selection and evolution are the same thing, as natural selection is a component leading to the change in allele frequency over a period of time. However the explanation from 'Answers in Genesis' is just as bad as those that mix up two scientific principles. It is correct in claiming that natural selection, which by the way isn't necessarily observable, cannot cause speciation, since that is determined by reproductive barriers, but then it fails to actually explain what natural selection is in the first place, or what the consequences are. This article jumps to the conclusion that evolutionists believe that natural selection causes an instantaneous change in morphology of organisms over a single generation, when in reality this is caused by mutations that are then subsequently selected for. This line of argument sure as hell doesn't disprove the process of evolution, and the claim that The Bible is supporting of natural selection is encroaching on the controversial world of eugenics.

Argument eight is again banging on about assumptions. The Bible and creationism are of course not assumptions if you were to believe this source, and so entirely more valid arguments in every single way despite any reasoning. This argument is also atypical of all the points I've previously raised on here as it continues with vague waffle that isn't backed up by any evidence. Do they have any right to even claim that a common designer fits in with the evidence of common descent better without providing any counter evidence? I'm sure 'Puff the Magic Dragon' fits the evidence that he is the creator instead of evolution occurring, but that doesn't make his existence any more valid. Is intelligent design really the more logical conclusion when taking into consideration the diversity of life on the planet? Take the penis for example; the morphology of a penis is different in just about every single organism, but why would something with the same function be made differently every single time if it served the same function? It's just entirely illogical.

Oh not these fucking assumption again. IF YOU TRY AND DISPROVE EVERY ARGUMENT BASED ON THE FACT IT'S CONSIDERED AN ASSUMPTION THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORIES FULL STOP. As for the second point, well that's just idiocy. It is correct in saying there are trade-offs between the rate of mutations and the rate of evolution, with the majority of mutations being deleterious, but that is exactly the purpose of natural selection. Earlier this article banged on about about how natural selection being part of the biblical worldview, yet here you simply dismiss its very conventions. Stop contradicting yourself, and stop making vague assumptions with zero evidence.

The final two points suffer from exactly the same flaws as every other one on this list, yet it's us evolutionists that should apparently stop using the same arguments all the time. None of the points on here have been disproved with any evidence, with the only source being The Bible; a work of literature. Leave science for scientists to determine, and not for spiritual individuals to just aimlessly guess.