Lurker > Anteaterking

dameon_reaper posted...

Pretty much how I felt about A Knight's Tale. Weird to see modern music pelted into it lol

Idk I think in A Knight's Tale the rationale of "We can connect more to the characters because we're hearing our version of the type of music they would be playing at the joust" is at least a defendable artistic decision.

Like I don't think the movie would be better if they played madrigals and stuff instead.

stage4saiyan posted...

I have very little respect for anyone that immediately jumps onto a side in an argument without educating themself on that matter. Being neutral until reviewing the facts isnt being a fence sitter, its being intelligent.

Most political disagreements aren't rooted in factual disagreements.

Foppe posted...

What about adding more political parties?

what would these new parties look like?

I was told to read Mistborn trilogy and Warbreaker and then I read the short story "Edgedancer" before starting the third book of the Stormlight Archive series which I'm on now.

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Its certainly arguable. HoD benefitted from also having a bigger budget than GOTs first season. You could say GOTs greatest strength were its characters and having someone to root for.

It also benefited from having GoT exist first imo. They were able to do things with the pacing and what information they gave us knowing that the audience generally was familiar with the original show.

Zithers posted...

also i don't think that was the answer but im past it now. prob woulda made more sense had i not been doing it at 2am..... doing some debugging lesson

You can also do return(len(s1+s2)) but it's not inherently better or worse than darkmaian's answer.

Do you know how to calculate the length of one string?

SenlinDescends posted...

I mean, f*** HL and f*** JKR yes, but doing this makes you just as bad.

*just* as bad?

Beyond just the aspect of it feeling "rushed", you're also conveying a sense of urgency that to most people would be off putting. Like I understand that you don't want to spend two years with someone and then find out they don't have the same goals as you. But bringing it up on the first date feels more like "If I even went out to drinks with someone who didn't want to have kids, I'd be wasting time I could spend finding someone to raise kids with me". Which...even if the other person genuinely had that as a life goal, it's a little off putting.

There's also an aspect of this that is gendered. From a woman's perspective, hearing a person who doesn't have to actually put their body through pregnancy tell you about how much he's looking to make miniature versions of himself turns it from a "I'm looking for the right person to start a family with" to "I'm looking for anyone to start a family with". Not even saying that's what you believe or anything, but you understand how that might come off to someone who is meeting you for the first time.

People from my high school will share "why don't they teach finance in school!" memes even though we literally did.

There's nothing wrong with teaching personal finance, but "I'm going to teach you how to balance a checkbook" often implies that the problem is the actual mechanics of adding or subtracting rather than poor impulse control or simply not earning enough money to account for expenses. The standard math curriculum teaches exponential functions with the motivation of compound interest and other financial things. People not putting away money in savings isn't due to a misunderstanding of the rule of 70.

If having kids is so important to you, why don't you bring it up *before* the first date?

A dolly.

MabusIncarnate posted...

It should only matter if you are super religious and believe in all that marriage before sex crap. Otherwise it's not some spiritual and special thing for a lot of people, if it came down to it and I still was a virgin, I'd rather pay for it and experience it once instead of waiting forever for the right one that may never come.

Yeah I just think that what Khlavic is saying is that if someone was willing to "bully" you for being a virgin, you going out and paying money to have sex and then going "Ha I showed you, I paid a sex worker and now I have officially had sex" isn't going to make them say "oh my apologies dear sir I thought you still hadn't had it".

Tbh the whole idea of virginity as a proxy for being a "loser" is dumb anyway. My roommate throughout college was Mormon and thus didn't have sex but was far more successful then the loser we knew who had had sex once but still was 95% an incel.

I saw someone quote tweet this and didn't even realize who the poster was.

Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic but I think the cons for the worker of remote work are going to overtake the pros.

Disney adults == Harry Potter adults == Pokemon adults

Tyranthraxus posted...

Holding can prevent a defender from being in a position to cover the receiver. You can't say it's completely unrelated.

It was a defensive holding call. And also I'm not saying "it doesn't impact the game", I'm saying when determining whether something is defensive holding "is the ball catchable" isn't one of the considerations, whereas with passing interference it is.

Ludwig_Von_2 posted...

His arm was not wrapped around him dont be fucking lying. He barely touched his back. And that ball was uncatchable. So yes, the only part you got right is that you are a football novice.

The catchability of the ball is not relevant on a holding call, only passing interference.

Damn_Underscore posted...

It was a ticky-tack call. It increased the Chiefs' chances of winning by like 30% and if you're going to do that the call should be more egregious

I think this is the wrong mentality to have. If they're going to call it, it shouldn't be influenced by "how close is the game" or anything like that.

MICHALECOLE posted...

I have a friend who is a big game gambler who bet 13,500$ on there being no safeties in the Seahawks vs broncos Super Bowl

first play of the game was a safety

I know, I know, gambling doesn't have to be rational, but I don't understand big bets with low payoffs. Like looking at today's game, they have a safety happening as -2000 for "no" ,which would be your friend betting $13500 to win $675. I just feel emotionally like I'd rather be on the "bet $675 to win $13500" end of things.

rexcrk posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/9/4/AACE4xAAELYa.jpg

My middle school friend group would have arguments over whether "nerd" or "geek" was the positive term and the other the negative.

I think in the year of our lord 2023 "nerd" has won out as being the only real term(?)

Can you extend it to him recovering a lateral between Eagles players?

pegusus123456 posted...

For context, he's a completely cismale who crossdresses because it makes him f***ing bank in donations.

Thanks for this, because I saw some tweets about this and was very confused.

cjsdowg posted...

In America is a sign of respect. The reason women seemingly get more upset is because issues that they face with not being a respected in general compared to male conterparts. While the first lady was a bit much it is understandable while most be like that is Ms. James.

This.

And sometimes male teachers unintentionally make it worse by setting it up as a dichotomy of "You can call me X because I'm the fun teacher".

It's going to be a close game but I think the Eagles have been able to skate by easier than the Chiefs have. Who was the last good team the Eagles beat?

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

You think Elon Musk or Ron Desantis or Taylor Swift could handle working long physical shifts for mim wage while being yelled at by drunks, teens and Karens all day?

I think the problem is that in these conversations people conflate three different kinds of "difficult/hard" together and shifts to whichever one someone needs for their argument to be right at that particular moment.

The minimum wage part is irrelevant to how difficult the job is. It does impact the willingness of Elon Musk, Ron DeSantis, or Taylor Swift to *do* the job but it doesn't make the job inherently harder. When I worked at WalMart, my job was incredibly easy by the standard of "ability for someone to do my assigned tasks". It was soul crushing, which did affect my willingness to do it for a longer period of time, and that impact on your work/life "balance" can certainly add some difficulty to your life, but it always leads to this weird framing of customer service jobs as being "super difficult" instead of it framing customer service jobs as being "unenjoyable to work".

Akagami_Shanks posted...

What good does that do? Alienate people who bought the game who may otherwise be unaware of what JK Rowling said or have no interest in following the Twitter life of someone who wrote a children's book they read 20 years ago?

I mean you're giving part of how it's "doing good" right there: it makes people who are otherwise unaware of the bad actions of someone they nominally like have to confront that.

Akagami_Shanks posted...

As to my next point, why this game specifically? Why not one of JK Rowlings other revenue streams that give her far more money? I don't see people boycotting WB or standing outside Universal Studios since she makes far more money there. What about the previously mentioned in this topics illicit dealings between Saudi Arabia and several gaming companies? What about NBCUniversal? Anywhere that sells Harry Potter products? Is it because it's easy to just go on a forum and say, Harry Potter game bad, like if you agree? LEGO is still selling Harry Potter toys too.

"Why are people talking about a boycott of a game that was just released?" Because it was just released, so this is the point in time where a boycott is most noticeable/effective. If you think the Hogwarts Legacy boycott was ineffective, imagine how noticeable/effective boycotting a theme park over a decade old would have been. Also it shouldn't be surprising that on a video game forum filled with people who consume streaming content that you're going to see more calls for the boycott of a new release than children's lego sets.

Akagami_Shanks posted...

oh and somewhat ironically, a lot of this protesting is taking place on Twitter... a website owned by a billionaire transphobe. Even if you don't "pay for twitter" Elon still uses the numbers and activity you bring to the website, to get more money from advertisers and shareholders.

Tbh, I think every Twitter user is costing Elon more money than they are making him at this point. And this point has been refuted numerous times already in this topic.

I'm not even boycotting the game (I wouldn't have bought it in the first place)! And I think that it's perfectly reasonable for people to say "I don't think this is actually causing harm so I'm going to still buy the game"! People are just being overly defensive about strangers on the internet accusing them of transphobia.

As long as the pet is being treated well who cares?

hockeybub89 posted...

But why isn't it already happening? Why isn't anyone getting attacked for being excited for the new Zelda? Why is the tactic inconsistent?

You've sort of narrowly focused the purpose of boycotts to just be financial in nature and are then accusing people of being hypocrites for not fitting that standard.

It's not inconsistent to boycott a product based on an IP by a person who is strongly transphobic and not turn around and boycott a product just because of who has bought shares of the company that produced it.

BDS gets more "leverage" out of getting the University of X to divest from pro-Israel countries than they do getting individuals to reduce their consumption by the same amount because entities have more social power than individuals.

Idk if someone told me I was enabling transphobia by supporting a creator who is transphobic and I disagreed that I was (for any number of morally coherent reasons), I would just ignore it and move on.

The people who are like "Listen I understand this purchase is supporting transphobia but you don't understand, I've been waiting for a Harry Potter game like this since my childhood!" are the ones who come off as "babby's first other side of boycott".

No, but I don't think he does either.

The only "good" reason I've ever heard for using a debit card over a credit card is "I can't control my spending" but the only thing debit card helps with there is that you can't literally spend over what you have.

Also generalization but you should just grow up if you're in that situation.

My work isn't being exploited so no probably not.

Cocytus posted...

and no one gives a s***.

Should they?

hockeybub89 posted...

idk man. Would you stay at a job to get something good on your resume if you believed those who told you that the project was literally helping kill a minority? I wouldn't. I've left a job for less. Clearly no one at Avalanche believes what some people are saying.

I think you don't have enough abstraction here. I think it's reasonable for Jewish people to not want to work for Mel Gibson after his anti-semetic tirades or for them to call for a boycott of his movies, but I also am not surprised that there were Jewish people who worked on Apocalypto stuff after his DUI incident where one of these happened. There's plenty of room between harmless and "literally killing people" and I don't think most people who are against Hogwarts Legacy are claiming that buying the game is killing people.

Also it's easy for me to say that I would leave, because I don't have children I have to support and am comfortable financially and have the skill set to find a comparable job in my area without having to move or anything. I also haven't had to make the decision.

I feel like there's far too much buy in from society for Twitch to not run ads for the game.

Zikten posted...

I heard some of the devs that made the game are trans. So people want to boycott something made by trans people....

This is the workplace equivalent of "I have black friends".

Like regardless of your thoughts on whether the game should be boycotted, etc. etc. etc. "someone didn't quit their job at a studio over a large game that hypothetically is a good resume item because of who created the IP" isn't that big of a counter argument as you're acting like it is.

There are plenty of minorities who work on things that aren't necessarily "friendly" to minorities because it's a job and it's not necessarily fair to ask them to shoulder the brunt of "striking".

Based on other chat gpt stuff, I imagine the answers have a lot of

"The precedent set by [case] allows [thing completely unrelated to that case]"

There's studying of e.g. the effects of concussions that can't fully be done without the person having died.

Not the same thing but you can imagine that whatever the "cure" is requires an inspection of her brain that won't be possible with her alive.

Now whether the Fireflies would be able to successfully make use of that is a separate issue.

As CovXY has been saying, the idea that "Hispanic people don't like a term that other LGBTQ Hispanic peoiple came up with, therefore it's a bad term" is akin to "Lots of white people don't like using they as a singular pronoun so we shouldn't do that either".

And maybe you think that and can make an argument for it, but it just shows that this is a question of feelings towards transgender people in general and not a specific argument about the mechanics of the Spanish language.

LordRazziel posted...

I would argue if you don't think you're susceptible, you're actually more susceptible because you won't be thinking criticality about your own perspective.

I voted yes, but I'm also not sure what counts as being "fooled".

Like when I was in middle school and Bush said that Iraq had WMDs, did I "fall" for the propaganda? I had no power to fact check that, most of the media I was exposed to wasn't really questioning it, etc. That feels a lot different to me than someone saying "omg here's a video of Trump admitting on camera that he loves sleeping with kids" and being like =O "It must be true" when people are like "this is fake".

So the weight limit of the small table is 55 lbs and the cabinet empty is 31 lbs.

I feel like size wise it can be fairly reasonably centered in the center of the table (~ 4 inches of clearance on all sides).

Go ahead

do you need some math help?

I said alcohol but it's hard to say. I feel like if I could trivially go a week without drinking alcohol but if I didn't have my computer/tv/etc. for a week I would be bored out of my mind.

I'm wondering at what point real videos are discounted as being deep fakes.

People keep framing deepfakes as a "consent" issue, but it feels closer to a libel/slander type issue. Or unauthorized use of name and likeness for situations where it is advertised as being a deepfake.