Lurker > adjl

Snake posted...

What do you mean? Season 2 aired in 96 and season 3 aired in 97.

I could have sworn Season 2 finished in 93ish and season 3 aired in 98, but looking it up, you are indeed correct (season 3 didn't air in the US until 99, but I'm in Canada, so that doesn't matter). Wonder what I'm thinking of.

That season 4 cliffhanger will haunt me forever, though.

jkay posted...

Difference is Trucks or cars can be stopped at the border.

Consumer drone models typically have ranges on the order of a couple miles, maybe getting as high as 10-15 if you really splurge. Even if you do successfully fly a drone across a border, you're probably not going to get it far enough to cause serious problems.

That's not to say it's impossible to work something out (the big strike Ukraine did a few months back where they took out several Russian airfields was pulled off by smuggling containers full of drones in and striking from those containers once they were delivered), but it's certainly not as easy as "consumer drones could be used for war!" makes it seem.

Snake posted...

Season 3 is one of the greatest archs I've seen of an animated series where they pushed the series from the light hearted standalone kid friendly stories to a darker, large scope serialized narrative. Watching that unfold as a kid blew my mind and I love it to this day.

I count myself very lucky that I only got into the series when Season 3 was actually ready to air. Waiting 5 years for the resolution of that Season 2 cliffhanger would have been brutal.

Idiot_Savant posted...

Color "blind" is a bit of a misnomer, tho

"Contrast-blind" might be a better descriptor, given that the issue isn't that they can't see colours, it's that they can't differentiate between them.

Lokarin posted...

This thought experiment fails when it comes to colour though since there's other ways to cross-confirm HOW a person sees colour; For example, colour blindness tests wouldn't work if a person saw colour in a wholly different way.

Pretty much. Your "red" and my "red" might not be identical, but they're close enough that both of our "red"s contrast with the same other colours, and in cases where that contrast isn't there, it's possible to identify a physiological reason for that. At the very least, barring some kind of morbidity, we all see the same relationships between colours.

funkyfritter posted...

Mounting a functional gun onto one also sounds way harder than what a random unstable person can realistically do. There are far simpler and more reliable ways to hurt people.

Including just picking up that functional gun and using it themselves. That doesn't offer the same level of personal safety operating an armed drone remotely would, but it doesn't come with nearly the same drawbacks (much harder to aim, can't reload, adjustments for recoil have to happen manually instead of by reflex...).

This might be the only time I've ever seen Thief and the Cobbler referenced that I haven't specifically gone looking for it, aside from renting it a couple times from a local video rental place when I was a kid. I can't comment on how well it's aged, though, both because it's been decades since I've seen it and because I'm not actually sure which of the 3(?) versions it was that I saw and therefore would have to do some real digging to find the same one.

Supports will now be based on the number of poops each unit has shared with each other.

Snoregasm posted...

Nobody has actually watched all of one piece so this could be true, idk.

True. Pretty much anything to do with late One Piece is firmly in theoretical territory; I shouldn't have spoken so definitely.

At least story-wise, it appears to be related to 3H (not sure if prequel or sequel). I'd expect it to also be similar gameplay-wise.

Snoregasm posted...

"I skip the opening so I fast forward to 2 minutes" every single anime opening is 90 seconds long, this guy doesn't watch anime.

They can be at least a little variable. I'm pretty sure One Piece's OPs got to the point of being 2.5-3 minutes long as the series went on so they didn't have to come up with as much actual content for each episode.

Revelation34 posted...

It won't be good because Engage only came out two years ago.

2-3 years has been the gap between most FE games, and it'll be 3 years by the time Fortune's Weave comes along (Engage launched in January, so I'm guessing it's not very likely that FW will come in sooner than its anniversary if there's no date yet). Heck, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were only one year apart from each other, and 11 was only one year after 10 (though it was a remake). The 3.5-year gap between Three Houses and Engage was longer than between any other two games, unless you discount remakes (in which case it was ~4 years between Fates and 3H, ignoring Echoes releasing between them), and there's a fair chance Engage-FW will be comparable to that (the 3.5-year mark will be July 20 of next year).

It's been a while since I watched any anime, but no. I'm not so desperate for free time that I feel the need to optimize it like that.

It's Konami. They're going to be announcing that Master Collection Volume 2 will be released as a series of slot machines.

Steamed Hams but it's the ongoing battle for LGBTQ rights.

argonautweakend posted...

I kind of feel like the "most" "dangerous" people in US politics are the ones politically engaged enough to treat it like a team sport their team must win, but not engaged enough to actually know s*** about f*** beyond vibes or headlines.

And, honestly, I'm pretty sure that's exactly why political violence is becoming an issue. When politicians are doing harmful things, but people applaud them for it and continue to vote for them because they're the right team, while refusing to have their minds changed by facts, well-reasoned arguments, or any other form of non-violent advocacy, what other options exist to prevent that harm except violence? Is it surprising that increasingly desperate people are resorting to the only remaining option to make changes that they feel are necessary?

Stimpy posted...

Absolutely. That I promise we will. Weve already talked for about two hours and were going to this evening.

That's good. Whatever negative suggestions I might have made, I do really hope you can make it work out. Just make sure you take care of yourself. You're not wrong to be angry or upset that she put you through this, and she's not wrong to feel anxious about baring enough of herself to communicate properly (nor, for that matter, are you, since I get the vibe that that's a problem you're having as well). Whatever compromise you manage to arrive at to resolve those issues, make sure it works for both of you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDg9Gj0Uj4

Stimpy posted...

Were back together. All is well. She said she missed me.

A step in the right direction, but make sure you talk about this. "I missed you" does not mean there aren't still significant underlying issues.

Maybe you're under too much pressure?

Obviously Nintendo just ordered every other publisher to start selling games for $70 ahead of TotK to normalize it and trick the world into thinking they weren't the true masterminds behind the devious scheme.

willythemailboy posted...

In principle this is no different from firing teachers for calling their coworkers racial slurs.

I'd say that falls more under the umbrella of preventing personal harassment than policing their speech.

willythemailboy posted...

Religion is generally considered part of that intrinsic identity and is constitutionally protected as such. With that in mind, if one teacher believes gay marriage is an affront to God and another is posting "death to homophobes", which one is the school district legally obligated to fire?

Which of those is more likely to result in somebody dying, given equivalent exposure?

willythemailboy posted...

I think we may see that at some point. If you have the entire media class constantly calling Trump and various other Republican figures Hitler, then something happens to those figures, are they really talking about the actual Hitler or "literally Hitler"? Is the left even capable of seeing a difference?

Obvious deflection is obvious.

willythemailboy posted...

Violence requires nothing else to cause physical harm

Is it an act of violence to feed peanuts to somebody that you know is allergic to peanuts?

Is it an act of violence to secretly tamper with the seatbelt your passenger is using such that if you happen to get into an accident they're twice as likely to be killed?

Is it an act of violence to trick somebody you know is epileptic into viewing a seizure trigger?

Is it an act of violence to unleash an aggressive dog on somebody?

Is it an act of racial violence to make it illegal to suture the wounds of black people?

There are many examples of actions that have a clear causal link to harm but require an intermediary to inflict it, even without getting into overly-reductive pedantry like "it's not my fault he had enough blood pressure to bleed out after I shot him" or "I didn't kill him, the bullet did!" that are more jokes than legitimate logical exercises. To call those many of those actions "non-violent" is obviously nonsense, but when you accept that, the line becomes significantly blurrier.

Misgendering is comparable to triggering an allergy: it places the person's safety at risk due to a part of their body responding poorly to it. It's not a guarantee of harm, particularly if such exposure is relatively rare (which would technically make it more analogous to an intolerance than an allergy because that captures the dose-dependent nature, but that's beside the point), and it's the response of the victim's body that creates the harm rather than causing it directly, but there is still a clear causal link between the act and the harm. The intermediary does not change that.

The difference between violence and incitement to violence is that incitement requires somebody else to make a competent decision to cause harm, not simply that there is an intermediate between the action and the associated harm. In the vast majority of cases (at risk of appealing to authority, we'll say that refers to any case that wouldn't qualify for MAID because that's easier than spelling out exceptions), suicide is not a competent decision, and that means whatever triggered the suicide bears at least some culpability for it.

papercup posted...

Its not coming out until next year

Oh, my bad. I checked the e-shop and saw a release date of 10/16/25, which matches the release for the base game, but looking closer that's just for a couple cosmetic items that will be available at launch and the story content is planned for the end of February.

In that case, I don't really care. I'd say it's still a bit of a bad look to have something so concrete to show off pre-launch instead of just saying "story DLC will be coming later," but you're correct that that's not particularly unusual.

agesboy posted...

I just can't hate on xenoblade DLC when the finale of 2 and 3's season passes were almost whole-ass new games. they probably had that in the works before the game released but mostly because they'd have to

Torna actually was content that was cut from the base game of 2 and sold as DLC, but it's a case where I'm 100% in favour of that idea. It was supposed to slot in somewhere around Chapter 8 (Morytha), but they felt that it dragged the game out too long and killed the pacing of the story, so they repackaged it as something standalone. It kind of shows in that Torna has some very obvious padding to it (all the community business), but I think it was a good move. 2 struggled with story pacing enough already, and chapter 7 was when it finally started to take off. Interrupting that momentum with a flashback would have just been a mess, even if it wasn't as long as Torna was in its entirety.

But yeah, Torna and FR are both well worth the price of entry. No arguments there.

Eh, those were a little different. In those cases, they announced that an expansion pass was coming, but the actual contents didn't get pinned down until later (like for Xenoblade 3, Future Redeemed didn't get a trailer until like 7 months after the game came out if memory serves, then actually came out around the 9-month mark). I don't think anyone objects to releasing games with the plan to add more to them in the future, even if the pass to effective pre-order all of that content is available right out of the gate.

In ZA's case, it's content that is going to be ready and available right at launch. It's not "we're developing more to add to the game later," it's "we've already developed more that we just didn't feel like including in the base game." It may well work out that it's similar to the S/V DLC in that it does actually fit in as extra side content and not something that "should have been in the base game" (as people are fond of saying), but announcing it like this before people have had the opportunity to determine whether or not the base game feels like a complete product isn't a great look.

That said, there are some actual examples of day 1 DLC. FE13's first DLC pack went on sale on day 3 (not technically day 1, but I refuse to call that a meaningful distinction), and FE14 launched with the whole "you'll have to buy the other game as well and then also a third DLC campaign to get the whole story" thing right out of the gate.

dragon504 posted...

So, it will indeed cost $120 to get the full experience.

If you don't already have NSO, and an NSO subscription has uses beyond Pokemon. If Pokemon is the only game you're buying and you want everything, then yeah, you can spend up to $120 (though there are 1- and 3-month options for NSO that would probably be better than buying a whole year if Pokemon is going to be the only game you use it for, so $20 isn't necessarily realistic), but that's such an extreme that calling that the "cost" of the game is overtly misleading.

_Kaz posted...

You don't get engagement without hyperbole.

Pretty much. The backlash to the Switch 2's price has offered a bandwagon that gaming youtubers have to jump on to remain relevant, and that means lots of exaggerated clickbait.

bachewychomp posted...

There are so many other far more evil corporations out there

Yeah, that's really the thing. Yes, Nintendo's definitely too heavy-handed with their anti-piracy and patents and whatnot, but all of this boils down to "the big mean company is charging more money for the optional luxury than I want to pay!" That's... not a big deal, in the grand scheme of big mean companies. Even just within the video game industry, Nintendo doesn't make a habit of buying up studios and gutting them once their recognizable IPs have been milked dry, they're generally pretty good about DLC, they've avoided the worst of the predatory monetization that plagues the industry (at least in their paid games; the free ones are another story), they don't routinely generate stories about "stress casualties," nobody's getting raped on the job and having it covered up by senior management... They just sell games at prices some people don't want to pay. Oh no.

willythemailboy posted...

Government employment is not a protected right, nor is being fired from a position of public trust a criminal sanction.

Largely a technicality. Whatever legal definitions you want to invoke, it remains a matter of a government entity choosing to harm somebody based on the things they said, which clearly is not in the spirit of mandating that the government permit free speech.

willythemailboy posted...

Teachers getting fired for being Klan members would fall under the same justification but somehow I doubt you'd be standing up for their right to not be fired for what they say.

Firing teachers for being Klan members would be a response to them advocating for violence against people based on who they intrinsically and unavoidably are. That's notably different from advocating for violence against people based on the voluntary decisions they made to hurt people. To invoke Godwin's law, I doubt you'd ever see a teacher fired for saying that they're glad Hitler is dead, so clearly there's some middle ground there. So where is it?

willythemailboy posted...

I saw it and ignored it as an unproductive, distractive side issue the topic doesn't need. A pronoun doesn't cause the unwilling recipient to immediately start bleeding explosively from the neck the way actual violence does.

So it doesn't count as actual violence if the explosive bleeding happens later? Or is it the neck that's the important criterion?

The answer, of course, is that you're dancing around the question of what actually constitutes an act of violence, clinging to an easy example to avoid genuinely confronting it. Why do you think that is?

willythemailboy posted...

You're still allowed to say whatever you want. What is the mantra that the cancel culture warriors of the past decade popularized? "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."

It is, however, freedom from government enforcement. I don't know about you, but I'd say "the government will fire you if you say this" is not freedom from government enforcement that you not say this.

Did you miss my question about misgendering, or are you ignoring it because you know it's going to go somewhere you can't refute?

It's also included multiple government employees, particularly teachers. That means it is in fact the government making decisions about what people are allowed to say.

willythemailboy posted...

One side calls misgendering someone an act of violence, and that first quote is the argument against that. Words do not cause physical harm, only violence does and it's foolish to conflate the two.

Are you aware of the impact misgendering has on the suicide rates of trans people?

MomSpringfield posted...

not to defend Randy Pitchford, but a lot of PC gamers with potato PCs seem to expect to run every new game flawlessly and get upset when they can't

Not really. Most performance complaints come up when a game is poorly optimized, not simply when it's demanding enough that you can't get away with 10-year-old hardware. Most PC gamers understand that they do need to upgrade to keep up with console generations.

HValle posted...

I bet you think that every time a mosquito flies to your ear

If a mosquito flies into my ear, I'm less concerned with the noise it makes and more concerned with the fact that it's seeking to cause me actual physical harm. The noise is a little annoying, certainly, but my initial reaction is overwhelmingly due to the unexpected invasion of my personal space, then subsequently to the idea of getting a mosquito bite in my ear.

willythemailboy posted...

I skipped most of it to find the actual tweet and it basically says "This is a premium game for premium gamers. If you don't like how the game runs on your PC, stop being poor."

Which is about what he said when people were getting uppity about the price tag (paraphrasing, "If you're a real fan, you'll find a way to afford it").

willythemailboy posted...

Publicly critical of Kirk, or publicly justifying his assassination? There's a hell of a lot of difference between the two.

I've seen examples that mostly amount to "he was a horrible person and I'm not mourning him" resulting in people getting fired. There's a substantial amount of middle ground between "I'm glad he's dead" and "I'm not upset he's dead," a distinction which certain officials' statements on the matter seem to ignore. For that matter, there's a substantial amount of middle ground between "this is what should have happened" and "I guess this works out well," and the death of a dangerous person whose danger proved impervious to non-violent interventions is pretty likely to fall into the latter category for people that were concerned about that danger.

If nothing else, there's substantial hypocrisy involved in calling for people to be fired for advocating for violence against Kirk while not calling for Kirk himself to be fired (or otherwise deplatformed) for advocating for violence.

willythemailboy posted...

The government is advocating for people to use their first amendment protected speech to counter other people's first amendment protected speech?

The government's threatening to revoke government funding from universities that don't fire people who are at all publicly critical of Kirk. That's a little more than just advocating for protected speech, and also a little more than people getting fired over calling for additional assassinations.

I generally think of "tweets" as referring to text content. Why is there only a video in this topic?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

part of that too is probably because a bird or a reptile isn't in the same level as a pet dog or pet cat

That's a reason to not be keen on the idea of a bird/reptile, but it's probably not a consideration if they're breaking out the "they live too long" concern.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

if someone died and bequeathed to me their dog or cat, the chances of me getting rid of it is 0, whereas if someone gave me a f***ing bird, or a turtle i am going to find somewhere to get rid of it.

And that's why "they live too long" is a concern. It's not that easy to find somebody that you can guarantee will take over care of a parrot in 40-50 years' time, since they're not popular pets. You can probably manage to keep friends around for your whole life that will be willing to take in a dog or cat if you happen to die within the 10-20 years they're unlikely to exceed, and even if you can't there's at least interest from the general public in adopting dogs/cats that were left behind by a deceased owner (we adopted one of our cats at 15 after her owner died, and she almost made it to 22 before we had to put her down back in May). That's less true of more exotic pets.

pedro45 posted...

If cats lived longer, i think we'd have an even bigger feral problem.

Probably not. Average life expectancy for an outdoor cat is like 2-3 years, versus ~15ish for an indoor one. Now, a big part of that is that most of them die as kittens and bring the average down, but even so you don't get too many feral cats living the full potential life expectancy of a cat.

pedro45 posted...

Unfortunately, even people who "like" their pets, don't like them to live a long life. The amount of people who say they like birds or reptiles, but then don't like they live a long time is weird.

That's less a matter of "I don't want to have to deal with the pet for that long" and more "there's a significant chance that pet will outlive me and I don't want to commit to taking care of it when that includes gambling that somebody else will take over from me." Lifelong friends are great, but being responsible for them even after your death is a steep ask.

HValle posted...

Every day, at 4 am, because those bastards don't ever shut up

It's definitely very healthy to wish death on annoyingly noisy entities. Especially when the entities in question are most likely only noisy because the humans responsible for them failed to properly train them.

Imagine waking up in the morning and thinking "man, I wish dogs died more often."

Unless, of course, he's going for "people do too much to prolong the lives of old dogs that are clearly suffering instead of humanely letting them go at a more appropriate time," which isn't entirely without merit, but "dogs should have lower average lifespans" would be a really weird way to present that argument.

funkyfritter posted...

1.0 release for Hades 2 is coming near the end of the month. Probably worth waiting until then before starting it.

Having no other strong opinions between the two, I think this is the best answer.

As soon as you wake up on your 30th birthday you immediately die in horrible pain, but are brought back to life by a capricious and cruel god of senescence who forces you to relive this ritual every day for the rest of your life as he drains a little bit of your remaining vitality each time.

I still haven't even played 3, after getting it in a bundle a few years ago (and I think again as an Epic giveaway since then).

It's largely impossible to say. It's not something that lends itself to tracking with concrete statistics, and without concrete statistics, any opinion on the matter is utterly worthless.

"Cancel culture" is just voting with your wallet and advising other people to vote with you. It's not inherently bad or good, instead depending on the cause for which one is voting.

hockey7318 posted...

Still mad that minesweeper isn't included by default on my work computer.

We used to be a real country.

OhhhJa posted...

I think you're grossly misinterpreting what most of us are saying. I dont think any of us are "not on his side." We're just giving our input as to what it seems his situation is.

Yeah, that's a better way to frame it. It's not so much "this is actually all your fault" as it is "what you're saying suggests that the relationship is fundamentally pretty broken and this incident is a symptom of larger problems." It's nothing that can't be recovered, if you both want to recover it, but it's going to take quite a bit of work from both of you.

I am on your side, in that I want you to have a healthy relationship in which you feel loved, respected, and can trust that your partner accepts you for who you are (and, in turn, that you can be that person for her). I'm just not sure this is it, and I'm quite sure that putting off the conversation you need to have with your GF because you're afraid of losing face if you go back on your suggestion isn't going to help the situation. If you want a break, it should be because you need time to yourself to figure out how you feel, not because you think it's what's best for her or because your ego is keeping you from walking back the idea.

Stimpy posted...

Relationships are far more nuanced than a message board post can convey.

Not nuanced enough for "looking weak" by acknowledging that you made a mistake to ever be a meaningful consideration. A relationship where you're afraid to correct your mistakes because of how you'll look to your partner is not a healthy adult relationship, at least not past the initial stages of trying to impress each other. That fear means you don't trust them to accept your flaws, and that trust is crucial for a long-term relationship given that you aren't going to be able to hide those flaws forever (or if you do, it's going to be taxing enough on you to be unhealthy).

Stimpy posted...

Letting her cool her heals for a few weeks was how I got her in the first place. In her own words it made me want you more. Giving her some breathing room for two wks aint gonna kill her.

Trying out not having a prospective partner around to test the waters of a new relationship is pretty reasonable. Starting a relationship is a commitment, and having a more immediate comparison to "prospective partner not here" can help evaluate it. Playing such games when you've been together long enough for marriage to be an option, though? If she doesn't know she wants you already, a few weeks isn't going to change that (or if it does, you're looking at a long-term cycle of having to keep playing this game to keep her interest up).

Salrite posted...

And even if it were valid and she was feeling like he was moving too fast, she should be communicating this properly, not shutting down and playing games.

Absolutely, but I'm still getting the vibe that things aren't necessarily the healthiest from TC's end either. That's not necessarily contributing to the issue immediately at hand, but it does raise broader concerns.

Salrite posted...

And no, sticking to your convictions is not something to be ashamed of. It's what anyone should be obligated to do.

Sticking to your convictions when you have good reason to believe those convictions are mistaken is absolutely something to be ashamed of. That's axiomatically a terrible idea in every possible context and nobody should ever do it.

Yeah, as much as people get butthurt over competitive bans and tier restrictions and whatnot, at the end of the day, they really are just a matter of addressing the games' balance concerns so the playing field is more level. Banning a Pokemon that's so powerful that every team needs to run a counter to it increases the variety of people's teams within that tier. Being mad about such bans decreasing variety fundamentally misunderstands the issue.

man101 posted...

Oh how I wish I had never developed a critical perspective on games and I could still just enjoy almost everything as simple entertainment. I envy the people who can buy the yearly installment of whatever derivative AAA franchise and genuinely feel in their hearts that it's a 10/10 game. :/

It kind of just comes with experience. As much as it was (and still is, in some ways) fun to brainlessly exploit poor balance, experiencing games with better balance (or at least that offer the imbalance in a better-designed way, like something like Binding of Isaac where you can break the game wide open and have your way with it and that's what makes it fun) has led us to realize that they're actually more fun.

Personally, at least, I don't think it's limited my ability to enjoy games. Yes, I'm very guilty of optimizing the fun out from time to time (my efforts to get through SMT Devil Survivor are being stymied by this as I get bogged down trying to min-max but don't actually know the game well enough to do so effectively), but I have no shortage of games to play and the vast majority of the things I've chosen to buy for myself have ended up being fun enough that I don't regret the purchase. I also just enjoy the act of critiquing media. Thinking about and discussing what I do/don't like is itself an enjoyable enough process that even a game I wasn't big on can offer me something of value.

There is something to be said for being a stupid little kid who just loves picking the best thing and beating everything else up with it, with no concern for how balanced or well-designed that is.

$30 DLC can be fine, if there's enough content to justify. $30 DLC before the game even launches is a pretty bad look, though. At least with the DK Bananza DLC, the game's been out for two months and the DLC is very clearly just an extra mode to stick on top of it. ZA's DLC may also fit that mold, much like S/V's did, but announcing it before anyone's experienced the game to be able to understand how it fits in or how complete the game is without it really makes it look like "we just cut this content out to be sold later."