Lurker > wah_wah_wah

LinkPizza posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

It's not something I've seen much of. Citing Dean's List or similar accomplishments on your resume can be a boon, if you've got it, but specific GPA? Not so much. The fact that the listing your brother was looking at wanted his high school GPA is pretty ridiculous, given that after four years of college and 5+ years of experience, that was a decade ago and therefore far too old to be reflective of anything.

I have seen several employers ask for high school GPA but they obviously don't hire on it. It is more of a test of your documentation skill than anything - leaving it blank would be more of a mark against you than if you put down a low GPA. I mean, it is theoretically possible there's some employer out there gathering a "Peaked in High School" task force or something, but the idea is too absurd to think it is widespread.

The most Ive been asked for is the degree itself...

It depends on the field you're going into. If it is an entry level job that a high schooler could reasonably be hired into, then it's probably going to be asked. Or if it's one of those government positions where they ask you everything right down to what underwear you're wearing.

_AdjI_ posted...

It's not something I've seen much of. Citing Dean's List or similar accomplishments on your resume can be a boon, if you've got it, but specific GPA? Not so much. The fact that the listing your brother was looking at wanted his high school GPA is pretty ridiculous, given that after four years of college and 5+ years of experience, that was a decade ago and therefore far too old to be reflective of anything.

I have seen several employers ask for high school GPA but they obviously don't hire on it. It is more of a test of your documentation skill than anything - leaving it blank would be more of a mark against you than if you put down a low GPA. I mean, it is theoretically possible there's some employer out there gathering a "Peaked in High School" task force or something, but the idea is too absurd to think it is widespread.

I'm surprised they just don't make it unplayable until the first patch update or something.

I'm very confused

Employers can start caring about GPA if they wanted. It's not like they are required to accept anyone with a degree, and they can find out your college GPA. But I think everyone understands that certain classes are not worth an A effort, particularly if the professor sucks.

BB mofo posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

If it was a known policy to throw the food out, then there's nothing the kids can do.

It's this in theory. But remember that school policy is usually a way to cover the administration's ass. In this case, they want to prevent criticism about students not being fed at school by saying they did everything in their power.

Seems like it can't be that, since you clearly are poking holes in it anyway.

LinkPizza posted...

BB mofo posted...

My sister works as a 3rd grade teacher at an inner-city elementary school in the LAUSD. The school district requires their teachers to watch their students to make sure they do not take any food out of the cafeteria. If they have any leftovers, they must throw it away. In the past, students were attending school malnourished because their parents encouraged them to smuggle their lunches home so that the family could eat it. Some family members even threatened and abused them if they failed to do so. The policy was put into place to stop that.

But wouldnt the kids still get abused because they werent able to bring the food home?

If it was a known policy to throw the food out, then there's nothing the kids can do.

Asking for a me.

Hard for me to rate him at this point, since all of his songs are played so much they became audio wallpaper.

People talk about it as if the spending isn't there, but look at one program, Social Security Disability. You'd be hard pressed to find a program that spends more money every single year anywhere in the world, and yet they still demand more and more money. One underrated issue when you frame the debate as a "we need more/less social spending" binary is that sometimes the problem isn't the lack of money, it's that it comes far too late to make any difference. Or when it becomes way too expensive for someone who needs help to recover.

I mean it wasn't perfect, we had to do a lot of sidewalk cleaning, but it was better than these businessmen getting a massive government bailout, paid for by the workers who they're about to fire. Seems like encouraging your employees, who maintain and build your products, to jump out the window to avoid their taxes and debt, is not as sustainable of a system.

Ulyanyx posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

The fact that they couldn't think of anything but male-driven gangster media to compare it to shows the limitations of the reviewer's mind.

no

what is important is the positive reaction when thinking about the displayed series

i.e. RDR2 is likened to (critically acclaimed, well received gangster media)
the people that have viewed the media will instinctively think of memories associated with it (e.g. "oh i totally saw that character doing it, but they did it in such a cool way!") and elicit a positive response. due to the nature of media, the quick transition from reading "RDR 2 is like art" (from a reputable media corporation, giving it more power) to reading names of series they enjoyed or are likely to have enjoyed, and the positive reaction, you associate that positivity with RDR 2

want an example at how easily words control people? go post on facebook or reddit or in your guild of whatever mmo you play about how you think it's a shitty game. watch how people will vehemently jump to defend it because they enjoy it; they do not care to see if you mean what you mean. hell, there are people in this world that might even unfriend you from the other 5000 people on facebook they dont ever talk to for saying such a thing.

as an added bonus, i think rdr2 is overhyped garbage and will never touch it.

gaurenteed replied of people defending it, even though the entire point of this post is how easily you can associate words with feelings and react on it. hylics will never understand LOL

Just that you had to filibuster that much about my quick statement shows I'm at least partially right.

Doom_Art posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

I don't even know why the right hates JK Rowling so much anyway.

She made Dumbledore gay so that ticked a lot of them off.

And Hermione was black in a stage play she didn't write or have a ton of involvement with. When people threw a fit about it tossed out the "changing a character's race" argument and in response she said something like "I never explicitly stated Hermione's race" which they then took to mean "Hermione was white but I suddenly decided she's black"

Also she tweets a fair amount and is pretty critical of Trump and the far right, and is supportive of the EU and Britain helping out refugees.

I think all of that combined just triggers them too much.

If they thought about it for a second, her story still puts a white male with big family pull at the center of the story, for all its apologies for racism. This is why I hate Harry Potter. Liberals pretend like it's this revolutionary fable purely because the right doesn't understand that it's secretly winking at them.

The fact that they couldn't think of anything but male-driven gangster media to compare it to shows the limitations of the reviewer's mind.

Phantom_Nook posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

I don't even know why the right hates JK Rowling so much anyway. She's not really a liberal at all. Her biggest story is about a privileged white boy who constantly obsesses about his lineage. Seems like that would relate to them quite a bit.

Rowling shit on their Orange Dementia Jesus, so they hate her.

She also shits on left wingers like Jeremy Corbyn. Deep down she's basically a pro-establishment hack. That's why she was even published in the first place. Some editor somewhere picked up on the privilege-reinforcing undercurrents of her work, despite all the fake show of liberal goofiness.

AlecSkorpio posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

I don't even know why the right hates JK Rowling so much anyway. She's not really a liberal at all. Her biggest story is about a privileged white boy who constantly obsesses about his lineage. Seems like that would relate to them quite a bit.

Everyone that hates her always tells me it's because she's an annoying fake SJW.

Which, I mean, it's a valid reason to dislike her or not care about her. But hate? Come on...

I rate a group by the behavior of its worst member, so by my criteria, they hate JK Rowling.

I don't even know why the right hates JK Rowling so much anyway. She's not really a liberal at all. Her biggest story is about a privileged white boy who constantly obsesses about his lineage. Seems like that would relate to them quite a bit.

They all hate the President and never wanted him, but as long as he tows the line for all their deregulatory crap, he's Real Estate Jesus. The second he does anything independent of them, they'll slit his throat. He's a figurehead, but his base thinks he's not a figurehead simply because he's terrible at the only thing a figurehead is needed for, decorum.

Tyranthraxus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

It is objective that critics hold a particular set of standards and tastes. That doesn't mean the standards and tastes are in themselves motivated by some objective truth. Some opinions have more detail and clarity than others, as well as more consensus, but they remain opinions and nothing objective.

No some games are just objectively bad, like Big Rigs and Custer's Revenge.

why they're bad may be left to opinion but to deny these are bad games is to deny truth.

Actually you have it backwards. The why might hold objective facts (Big Rigs has grammatical errors, Custer's Revenge gets the history wrong, etc.). The judgement of "bad" comes from your own beliefs that a game should have proper grammar in its text, or should attempt to approximate the history.

t_paynes_ghost posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Weird to see people so intent on thinking it's just going to straight up suck and be awful.

I mean, you may not like it, but it's definitely not going to be objectively bad .

CE is so damned weird when it comes to measuring value on things like this.

There's no such thing as objectively bad anyway. But if you think it's going to be good simply because its loaded with content... that's kind of my problem with the last two Smash games. They equate bigger as being better, particularly Smash 4 where there's a clusterfuck of unsatisfying game modes to try to compensate for core gameplay tedium.

There is absolutely such a thing as objectively bad. All art forms have various ways to determine whether something is objectively good or not.

That's not to say someone can't enjoy something that is objectively bad. I enjoy lot's of objectively bad things.

Cheetahmen is an objectively bad game.
Super Mario Bros. 3 is an objectively good game.

It is objective that critics hold a particular set of standards and tastes. That doesn't mean the standards and tastes are in themselves motivated by some objective truth. Some opinions have more detail and clarity than others, as well as more consensus, but they remain opinions and nothing objective.

EdgeMaster posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

All we know is Sakurai regards Melee as a mistake, and then made two sequels that reflect this opinion.

If anything, I'd expect to see evidence the game has changed in its set ways to dumb everything down and try to make winners out of losers.

Sakurai needs to get his head out of his ass. He made an excellent game by mistake, got all pissy people liked playing it (enough that it achieved Starcraft status) and then decided to make brawl as a big fuck you to everyone who enjoyed the masterpiece that was Melee.

That said, Ive played a bit of smash 4. I like Melee better and smash 4 was very different but I cant honestly say it was bad. I tried so hard to like Brawl and it was awful with terrible mechanics and gameplay. Smash 4 was what brawl shouldve been. Melee was much different than 64, different isnt a crime but making a shitty game on purpose is.

I think if ultimate continues what smash 4 started I dont think itll turn out half bad.

I actually don't mind that Brawl tried changing things up to bridge the skill gap. It was a noble effort that didn't work in the end. I have more of a problem with Smash 4 showing all that Sakurai didn't learn at all from the failure. He still thinks that the person that succeeds in a fast paced game will not succeed in a slow paced game. Either way, it's a fighting game. The people that can figure out systems are going to kill the people who can't. Might as well make the system fun rather than boring.

Blue_Dream87 posted...

PleaseClap posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Weimar, with Nazi a close second.

Also lol @ people being pedantic af. He obviously asked about the nation of Germany. It's like if he posed the same question for the US and responding with when Natives first arrived

Because as we all know, Germany just kinda appeared one day and theres definitely no history that happened before then

Ofc people were there before, but there wasn't a nation called Germany. As said the TC specified Germany as a nation and it's own eras.

I'll concede the comparison to the US was inaccurate to my point, but I'd ask how far back you would consider it the US. There has to be a point where you'd begin to consider it the US, just like Germany. But without a stopping point I can just say my fav time in Germany was when they were all cavemen.

To make it so he can't debate the details not matching in what is openly analogous, it'd be like saying colonial America is the same as the United States.

t_paynes_ghost posted...

Weird to see people so intent on thinking it's just going to straight up suck and be awful.

I mean, you may not like it, but it's definitely not going to be objectively bad .

CE is so damned weird when it comes to measuring value on things like this.

There's no such thing as objectively bad anyway. But if you think it's going to be good simply because its loaded with content... that's kind of my problem with the last two Smash games. They equate bigger as being better, particularly Smash 4 where there's a clusterfuck of unsatisfying game modes to try to compensate for core gameplay tedium.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The Germans literally were the only ones to defeat the Romans. Why would you not list that? You only used 6/10 options, not like you reach out if space

It is iffy to call hundreds of tribes "the Germans"... particularly because that's a Roman term for the region, that they never had any perception of being.

No one knows how the game will play without playing it. All we know is Sakurai regards Melee as a mistake, and then made two sequels that reflect this opinion. If anything, I'd expect to see evidence the game has changed in its set ways to dumb everything down and try to make winners out of losers.

I sold my Switch because I doubt it'll be very good. The things they'd have to do to make Smash a great game again, fly against what the fans want.

Anyone can find an expired ID in the trash and then start using it. Likely your name, general appearance, height, and driving capability doesn't change either if your driver's license expires. That's not the point.

Going_Deep_08 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

guys I can't find any nudes on her profile D:

This is sad...

Thus my previous topic...CE's obsession with her. And she hasn't even taken her seat yet. It's only going to get worse.

It's not like she's not also raising her profile by making appearances on mainstream media.

It rarely ever enters the rotation, but it has its place. Even if you hate it, it is certainly unique among the cereal selection.

Weimar is super interesting, but gets little study by the "history repeats itself" types.

I'm not a big fan of Pipe World. I like many of the levels, because they are so different than everything else. But the map is pretty annoying, where you're jumping in and out of pipes all the time just to get to where you want. I could see if there was some sort of challenge to going through these little screens, but there's no challenge. It's just busywork. Then again, the music is awesome. See, I can always talk myself out of criticism.

I'm also surprised Dark Land doesn't have a single vote. Well... surprised and not surprised. Honestly, I talk shit about Super Mario World a lot, but the final world in that game is awesome (as well as the final boss). It's the one thing World has over this game, is that awesome ending (which is probably the best ending of any Mario game period). But I do like how Mario 3 is legit creepy at the end, with Dark World and its molester hands and military industrial kooplex.

Chewster posted...

Giant Land is such a fucking pleb choice. I liked that one most as a kid, but there kinda isn't much to the gimmick. Pipe is the best. Full (uncertain) ranking:

Pipe > Sky > Water > Dark > Ice > Giant > Desert > Grass

I feel pretty solid on that top four, and Grass is at the bottom (not that it's bad as far as first worlds go), but I think I could put the remaining three in any order

It's hard for me to put them in any order because I love Mario 3 so much. Every time I think of one that's weak, I am reminded of a few things I really like about it. I'd actually rank Giant World near the bottom though, even though it is currently winning the poll. The huge shell, tiny head Koopa is funny. But again, the levels are not really that interesting.

Even Grass World, the blandest world, has that ghost ship that appears every so often to make things interesting.

Seeing the big enemies is funny but other than that, there's not too much to the levels of Giant Land. I remember the one that starts out where you have to fight through two sumos with no platforms, that's the hardest start to a level in the game (unless you have a fire flower or a star, then it's the easiest).

I can't decide

Entity13 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

MirMiros posted...

None of them. I am against making live action versions of animated movies.

what if there was a live action before the animated? like the jungle book

Beauty and the Beast too. But it's not really the same thing. Taking a Disney version of a story and making live action is like colorizing black-and-white films.

It's kinda of worse than that. At least colorization techniques try to match what's there. Live action remakes of cartoons will often add or change elements of scenes to the point where the characters are altered, or the point of a scene or overall plot are lost.

The recent live action of Beauty and the Beast? It was heavy-handed in such alterations.

Filming in black-and-white is a specific craft. When you colorize a black-and-white film, you often ruin the cinematography of the movie. For example, It's a Wonderful Life in color is atrocious - replacing the shadows and shadings of Capra's work with garish pink color.

But I get what you're saying about live-action Disney. It's not so much they change things, but they try to be both new and old. I haven't and won't see the new Beauty and the Beast live action cosplay, but The Jungle Book was pretty awful. Depressing as hell, dark... yet it still had the same carefree songs. It just sucked. You can't do both.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

MirMiros posted...

None of them. I am against making live action versions of animated movies.

what if there was a live action before the animated? like the jungle book

Beauty and the Beast too. But it's not really the same thing. Taking a Disney version of a story and making live action is like colorizing black-and-white films.

Chewster posted...

I thought Returns was better. TF was a bunch of overlong levels that are constantly collapsing behind you

I liked Returns enough. I don't hate TF, but it's so praised as an all-time great platformer, yet the jumping is not very fluid. The constant collapsing also means that a lot of the levels are frustrating trial-and-error (I just got killed by a background object that suddenly flew onto the screen and destroyed a platform I was standing on).

SilentSeph posted...

I thought the jumping was fine, especially with partners.

I think that's the whole reason why jumping is so stiff without the partner. To justify the partner's existence. But the partner doesn't make you move much better. It just gives you a slight lift or pause to an otherwise stiff jumping ability.

SilentSeph posted...

soundtrack are amazing.

I keep hearing this too. I haven't found a track that matches the music in Country, despite being made by the same guy. It doesn't have much character, it just sounds like something that'd be playing in the lobby of Disney Land or something.

They need to stop with the live action remakes, it adds nothing to what's there

It's not very good. Jumping is so stiff, and you have to press a button in order to hold onto a vine. Why.

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

darkknight109 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

I wonder how many of the same people that mocked Romney for saying Russia was our greatest geopolitical threat when he ran against Obama are the same ones shouting "REEEEEEEE TRUMP RUSSIA" now.

I'll cop to it. And I freely admit that Romney was correct in his assertions.

To be fair, though, back then - invasion of Georgia aside - Putin had yet to reveal the full extent of his authoritarian colours. He was seen as a running joke for his topless photoshoots; he had yet to launch his invasion of Ukraine, or prop up a murderous dictator in Syria, or make any serious attempts to sway democratic elections in free countries. At worst he was corrupt, but that corruption seldom extended beyond Russia's borders.

A lot has happened since 2012.

What he said.

It makes you all feel better about dismissing the threats, but it is fundamentally bullshit nonetheless. Putin's been trying to break NATO for years, up to possibly poisoning a Ukrainian politician. But Romney really wasn't standing that hard against Putin either. The real threat of Putin comes from the fact that democracy is collapsing in this country, with everything for sale. Inevitably this is going to lead to foreign oligarchs entering the arena as well as our own. "Corporations are people" Business McHairwings wasn't going to do anything to shore up Lady Liberty.

McSame_as_Bush posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

I wonder how many of the same people that mocked Romney for saying Russia was our greatest geopolitical threat when he ran against Obama are the same ones shouting "REEEEEEEE TRUMP RUSSIA" now.

Few could have envisioned Putin having kompromat on a US President.

It's really just a game of "choose your oligarch"... do you want a Russian one or an American one? I guess I can't be bothered to give a shit, if those are the stakes.

BeerOnTap posted...

BADoglick posted...

For the most part, yes. My department at work has people with anything between a hs diploma to a master's degree, and we all get paid virtually the same. The only difference is that those with degrees are paying hundreds a month in student loan bills. I have an associate's from a community college and was originally planning on furthering my education before getting my job at the bank. Thank God I did get the job and quit school, it has saved me a ton of money

Except working in banking is absolutely awful. Its just retail, except with peoples finances.
Source: used to work in banking.

My aunt worked many years at a bank and then got fired before retirement.

If you're framing everything in terms of how much money you're going to make, then you're likely obsessed with status and so a college degree is just one more status that's required to be respectable.

As far as specific degrees, if you look at everything in averages and chances, not only is that a very mediocre way to see the world, but you miss that you might be exceptional in a field that you can win an intense competition in. I have a liberal arts major friend who runs a very successful business, for example.

I also notice the people without degrees who are always talking about how worthless they are either have some insecurity about not having one themselves, or are prone to saying shit like "you don't need a degree to get the knowledge" yet then never doing anything to further their own self-education. If you're young and you're not doing anything better, then you might as well go to college, particularly if you qualify for grants and can get the thing for basically nothing.

NinjaBreakfast posted...

these generic internet insults are really good

Why waste creativity on someone who can't interpret words? I generally don't do wicked yo mama slams on my dog either

NinjaBreakfast posted...

I agree with this but also here's some reasons why it's a terrible idea that I disagree with

You have shockingly bad reading comprehension.

NinjaBreakfast posted...

LostForest posted...

Honestly, I don't care if they get rid of Columbus Day, I'm fine with that, but replacing it as a federal holiday with Election Day isn't a fair trade since you're obligated to go out and do stuff on it.

I want a real fucking holiday where I sit on my ass and enjoy my day off, not one where I need to go drive out to the polls and listen to political bullshit all day. Having Election Day off from work is basically like staying home from school, but your teacher sends all the work for the day home with you.

Crazy the effort you've made to disagree with this

He's right though. It frames Election Day off as coming in the context of taking another day away. Cortez needlessly building up her opposition yet again... but that's what the left wants now, hard confrontation, regardless if it is necessary.