Lurker > Dragonblade01

Alpha218 posted...

https://www.reddit.com/r/videogamedunkey/comments/91u4ev/octopath_traveler_review_discussion/?st=JK1RTMS0&sh=ed698153

Dunkeys response

lmao it's not that big a deal

Got all the main job shrines. Gonna start their second chapters today.

KobeSystem posted...

Also communism only has a chance of working in either a hivemind society or when everything is automated and capitalism wont really work anymore but we are far from that imo

Communism can work with a steady supply of enough resources and a culture which encourages collectivism even down to the economic level (which is essentially the lack of private ownership).

Unfortunately, such a steady supply of resources is hard to come by. And such a culture becomes exponentially harder to maintain in an increasingly global capitalist society. Communist societies cannot effectively engage with capitalist societies. Furthermore, the history of governments prior to capitalism reinforced the idea of centralized authority figures, which bled into both forms of economic policy. Unfortunately again for communism, only one was able to meld with it very well during transition. Or perhaps you could say communism melded too well with classic authoritarian governments.

Honestly, I think that anything to replace capitalism will have to be something completely new. After all, the critical change will likely be a sharp decrease in human relevance to the system.

Everyone knows the sequel was lame

As an aside to those in favor of transitioning to a communist system: Even supposing that communism could work in a different environment (which I imagine it could), the very act of acknowledging that it can't work in the current environment is tantamount to acknowledging that it shouldn't be attempted in the current environment.

So why support its implementation?

Surprising decision. Hope the best for them.

frogman_295 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

frogman_295 posted...

smoke_break posted...

Dump her. It's not going to get any better. Find someone that makes you happy.

Or he could stay with her and HELP her. I mean obviously he needs to work on himself a bit..

As someone with depression, that's a horrible idea. People with depression don't need someone to fix them, and they sure as hell don't want someone that is going to resent them for it later.

Yeah ur probably right. As someone with depressulion I sure would like a sugar momma though. What do you mean they don't need someone to fix them? Are you against therapy?

I think he's more saying that you don't want to date you therapist. That is to say, it's not the partner's job to fix them. It'd be like staying with someone so you could fix their broken arm, despite having zero medical knowledge.

Thought I'd finally give it a try with the free expansion dropping.

Holy shit this game is cathartic.

Woah! You said good morning? In a text?!

How is she not all over your dick?!

Perascamin posted...

It's impressive how many people don't agree with what I've said, yet I've witnessed dozens of people my age be cheated on or chest with their opposite sex friends that were "just friends"

That doesn't mean the solution is to control your partner's circle of friends.

His movie still doesn't look that good though.

I trust the creator, but the trailer could have been better.

Game's great so far. Cleared everyone's first chapters and am trying to finish as many of the initial side quests as I can before proceeding.

Chose Ophilia as my protag and got the rest in the "correct" order.

Expectation, I would think

You know, I expected CE to defend the boyfriend pretty fast.

But within three posts? That goes beyond even my expectations.

I don't know if "press conference" is the right word.

More like "rap battle abortion gone wrong."

It looks whatever, tbh. The part where he was a kid had a lot of that grating self-reflective sophistry you see in other DC movies, but thankfully it was gone for the rest of the trailer.

Visually, I'm kind of mixed on it. Some of them look fine, but others parts (especially the super busy Atlantis shots) are definitely straying into Green Lantern territory.

DrizztLink posted...

Is that the kid from Modern Family

If it is:

Good for him.

Modern dubbing is a lot better than it used to be.

Also My Hero Academia's dub is fantastic even among current dub standards.

Taking a language that you know and translating it into another language you know, in a somewhat understandable way, is typically not that difficult.

Translating it in such a way that it reads as though it were originally written by a native speaker while also keeping as much of the nuance as possible? A bit more so.

LightningAce11 posted...

Is it exclusivity that makes it costly, or the materials, or what?

It's the status awarded the brand, which is built carefully through advertising and design. Which in turn brings high price, which brings exlusivity, which supports the brand's status.

MorbidFaithless posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

And remember, they can't produce too few, because that's an even bigger waste of money from the company's perspective.

But shouldn't that just allow them to raise the price because it's then more exclusive? Why not just make 1 of the item and sell it for a million dollars Jesus fucking Christ why are human beings like this

I mean, they probably would if an analysis of the product's price elasticity told them that was the best option.

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

St0rmFury posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Those are not the customers they are targeting though.

They want people who will buy them at full price.

then why overproduce your product and then just burn it? Produce enough to remain exclusive.

I don't imagine companies want to burn product. Rather, they make enough to reach projections. And those projections are probably a little on the high end to account for the potential growth of their customer base. But fashion is a fickle, cycle-based industry, and so companies end up with excess inventory.

But the company in the article burned three times as much last year as four years ago. That either suggests they're not learning or that the inflation rate of designer value is ridiculous.

Sounds like somebody somewhere made a pretty big production mistake or an ill-advised projection. Those things also happen.

And remember, they can't produce too few, because that's an even bigger waste of money from the company's perspective.

TheVipaGTS posted...

St0rmFury posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Those are not the customers they are targeting though.

They want people who will buy them at full price.

then why overproduce your product and then just burn it? Produce enough to remain exclusive.

I don't imagine companies want to burn product. Rather, they make enough to reach projections. And those projections are probably a little on the high end to account for the potential growth of their customer base. But fashion is a fickle, cycle-based industry, and so companies end up with excess inventory.

thanosibe posted...

Antifar posted...

thanosibe posted...

Their product, their decision.

Is this what we reach to get controversy for clicks?

You aren't obligated to view everything from the business's side

Well no. But when you criticize a business for logical business practices it seems moot to bring in morals when a business is all about profit. Especially one that caters to the affluent.

It's moot from the standpoint of "why would businesses do this?" But it's important to recognize how the systems we encourage through participation bring about outcomes that we as members of our society might find morally questionable.

If a buff guy and a fat guy fight, and neither of them know how to, more mass always wins unless someone gets lucky.

Tropicalwood posted...

I think I've come up with a great idea for them, they could make a bunch of ebay accounts and sell them as Chinese knockoffs, really convincing Chinese knockoffs.

You kind of see this already with cereal and soda, but without the need to change countries. Companies sell the same product twice, just one for a little cheaper as an off brand. If you check the labels, you'll usually find that they come from the same company with virtually identical ingredients.

Of course, they can do that because the brand is tied to the product name, not the company name. I don't know if clothing brands have that same freedom.

The thing is, most people into fashion are completely aware that the material is not where the value lies.

They recognize that the brand itself is the entire value proposition. And so does the company. Hence stories like these.

catboy0_0 posted...

the fact of the matter is, when a male comes forward or talks about being abused, men and women alike shrug it off, dismiss it, deny it being abuse, or tell the male to just "man up" and "get over it"

Or the "bet you really enjoyed it/finally got some" comments.

Of course, when people say the same thing to women, we understand how disgusting that sentiment is.

Oh come now, how bad could the image b...

Oh. Oh wow.

they are merely becoming more enlightened

It's absolutely wasteful and highlights the ridiculousness of luxury brands in general.

But, we live in a world where luxury brands exist, and we willingly buy into them. So, silly as it is, it's a natural product of the system we live in.

Because chads bang uggos too

Duh

To be fair, any conversation involving moral sexual behavior and the distinctions therein is going to get very emotional, very fast.

Every now and then, it's nice to get a clear reminder of how weird CE is when it comes to sex.

The Devil went down ta Georgia, he was lookin for a soul to steal.

But he settled for that booty cuz he knew it'd be a tasty meal.

So when does the golf club enter the picture?

The best ones do

It's morally permissible.

of Smash!

Serious question, do we see natural discrepancies in certain abilities develop over time between genders, or is it impossible to isolate "intrinsic" discrepancies from those influenced heavily by environment?

My favorite was Nosk. The Deepnest was already creepy enough, and that guy just added a whole new layer to it.

Unfortunately I found out how to cheese the fight itself though, lol

When it comes to hard solipsism, it is absolutely true that I cannot say with absolute certainty that I am not something inside a computer simulation. I can't prove it, nor can I even really test for it. It's an answer that, as it stands, is completely beyond my grasp.

But, oh well. Because I seem to experience this universe (whatever it is). Likewise, literally everyone around me also appears to experience this same universe. So even if it all is just a huge simulation, it doesn't really matter. All we can do is work with what we have. And we all seem to have a shared understanding that this universe is real. In fact, we need it to be real in order for us to talk about it.

So we assume it's real. It's one of the few necessary and universal presuppositions.

WheezinEd posted...

nicklebro posted...

Basically this all comes down to people who think atheism requires the disbelief in all deities rather than just a lack of belief in all deities.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Idk how to make it any clearer.

Are you really suggesting that atheists.org is a more reliable source than Merriam-Webster?

Neither atheists.org nor Webster prescribe meaning to words. They only describe usage.

And the fact is that both usages of atheism are common.

Evolution does not address the origin of life.

And those who support creationism can't even create rational hypotheses, let alone demonstrate their claims.

nicklebro posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

nicklebro posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I understand the frustration. But ultimately, I'll tell you what I think, and if you would rather argue over the label, you clearly aren't interested in having the real conversation.

It's more than a label, it's literally our starting blocks in every debate. What you identify as (or better, what you are indentified as) is bigly important as it tells everyone what your beliefd are and how you view the world.

My starting block is what I believe, not the word given to categorize it.

Yeah and it's obviously helpful to label things when we understand them. It's we labels exist, not to mention no matter how anti social you might be, it's helpful to be able to describe your beliefs with a quick label when it comes up in discussion.

It can be helpful. But it can also be harmful. If someone misunderstands my position because of the label applied, I'd just as soon ignore it altogether.

Kineth posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

It's definitely atheism, but you definitely aren't saying the same thing. When I reject the claim that gods exist, that is categorically different from claiming that no god exists. And by the former, I'm an atheist.

As I said, you're right about the semantics, but it's pretty irrelevant compared to my first claim. If you're held up on the fact that I said believing that there's no God, change it up so that it means how an Atheist believes, and it will still flow the same.

But that's the entire crux of this question.

Two people are in a room. A standard deck of playing cards is on a table face down. The only things they know are that the deck has been shuffled and that it is indeed a standard deck.

Person A: The card on top is a red suit. Do you believe me?

Person B: No, I do not.

Does person B believe the top card is a black suit? And is he exercising faith?