Lurker > adjl

shadowsword87 posted...

Make sure to name the accounts ascii boobs and penises so you can show off your maturity.

The one time it's actually worthwhile to order a physical chequebook.

Count_Drachma posted...

although not north enough in Florida to be the US South

I find this way funnier than I probably should. Obviously "the south" describes a region that's based more on culture and history than on actual geography, but it's still really entertaining to see it actually said as "I wasn't north enough to be south."

This is indeed the Monado's power.

pionear posted...

Why when people already go to YouTube/Twitch etc.

Plus I don't think they have the Bandwidth to handle that.

Pretty much. Other sites are so well-established that it's virtually impossible to carve out a meaningful niche, and the technical infrastructure just isn't there to host videos. At best, GameFAQs could act like a catalogue of video guides and link to Youtube and the like (there is value in collecting and curating a bunch of different guides for a given game in one place and having a rating system to help people pick which one to watch), but I don't see them ever being able to succeed as an actual video host.

Zangrief posted...

Ive had times where I could afford it, but I dont see it being worth it. So Ive never tried.

Pretty much. If I'm spending $400 on food, I'd better be getting 3 weeks' groceries for it.

Depends on the star.

Muscles posted...

Until it's done, or costs too much to keep repairing

This.

Psythik posted...

Seriously this. Honestly; who cares? Like when people get all uppity about children going to drag shows. I don't understand the anger. It literally does not affect you.

Leave people be, FFS

Did you really just compare children going to drag shows (a great many of which are specifically designed to be appropriate for children) to underage sex tourism?

Metalsonic66 posted...

So Legendary

https://i.redd.it/t2ea1p7iynda1.jpg

HM's are gone in S/V (all traversal abilities are tied to the cover legendary, who joins you almost immediately and periodically gets new abilities as you feed it sandwiches). TM's are still there, but you can now create copies of any that you've already found at will in exchange for a few resources that are fairly easy to farm. There are still a whole lot of restrictions on who can learn what TM's that you really can't know without consulting external resources (unless you're a glutton for trial and error), but that's to be expected because letting anyone learn anything would be a mess, and I'd say it's generally a pretty good system now in that you're no longer dealing with a cripplingly finite resource and you don't have to worry as much about screwing Pokemon up by not taking the right abilities on levelling up.

LinkPizza posted...

The high front-end is what Im worried about. Chances are I wont get to see the savings on the back-end

As he mentions in that video, Amsterdam went from being as car-dependent as any modern North American city in the 70's to being the closest thing around to urban planning porn. On the flip side, another one of his videos talks about a $2.2 billion highway widening project in Houston that has resulted in travel times on that highway steadily increasing since it was completed in 2011 (because induced demand). You'll probably be around for at least another 30-40 years, so even if you don't see everything become perfected (really, it won't ever be truly perfected, because needs are constantly evolving), you could at least see some considerable improvements and opportunities to not piss away billions of dollars on a strategy that's been proven time and time again to not work.

Beyond that, "why should I want an improvement I won't see myself?" is generally a pretty terrible way to look at policies like this. Most policy changes aren't going to personally benefit you, but stand to benefit society as a whole. That's just the price you pay to not be a hermit.

LinkPizza posted...

That said, we dont have many parking spaces here. Barely enough as it is

You don't have many *empty* parking spaces. I can pretty much guarantee enormous amounts of real estate in your city's downtown core is dedicated to parking spots that are filled by regulars who use them for their everyday commutes (whether renting them monthly or just occupying them early enough that they aren't available for more sporadic parking). Most or all single-family residential lots will include enough driveway space for at least two cars (or driveway space for one and a garage), which increases how large they need to be, and multi-unit buildings almost invariably include their own parking (because street parking just isn't adequate for them, even if not every resident has a car). I may be mistaken in this assumption if you happen to live and work in a part of the US that's significantly less dependent on cars than is typical, but I think it's more likely that you just don't notice how much space parking takes up because you've been surrounded by it your whole life and never thought to consider how wasteful it is.

The reality of car ownership is that most private cars spend the vast majority of the time not being used. They have to go somewhere during that time, and that's space that could have been housing or something with commercial value.

There's a very real possibility that he's going there to bang one or more teenagers, but unfortunately there isn't much you can do about that.

Jen0125 posted...

Idk if it's arrogance because the company HAS been around for 99 years already but it might be considering their choice in CEO and business decisions being made right now

I'd say it is. If the company's been around for 99 years, that's because it was managed well by those who ran and worked for it throughout those years. Most of those people, however, don't work there anymore because they've either retired or died. To assume another 99 years assumes not only that the current management will be able to keep it thriving for their entire tenure in a world and market that they can do very little to control, but also that whoever they bring in to replace them will also be able to do so, as well as whoever replaces them, and whoever replaces those replacements. At minimum, another 99 years is at least three new generations and most likely four, and you just can't plan for things you have so little control over.

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic and/or underestimating the options available to get out of trying to make decades of lease payments if the company goes under, but it seems like a really bad idea.

Of course, Guinness signed a 9000 year lease for their brewery in Dublin in 1759 at just 45 pounds a year, and that worked out pretty well for them, so who knows?

PK_Spam posted...

My company makes me go in office 1 day a week, which I still feel is stupid because all we do is chat with the ladies, but word on the street is that we arent going to keep our lease there much longer.

Most of the Canadian federal government is officially back to requiring everyone to be in the office 1 day a week, but they're going to be escalating that to either 2 or 3 days in the coming months. The messaging around it is particularly infuriating, since it's a lot of talk of "teambuilding" and "workplace culture" from folks at the top who will never know me as anything more than another name on a long list of employees they don't know, and even though the directive is that everyone has to come in regardless of whether or not their work requires it, everyone has been instructed to ensure that they make good use of their in-office time so it's not just a matter of making a token trip in. The whole thing is nothing more than a bloated executive suite trying to micromanage their way back into relevance after they spent two years being shown just how unnecessary they are.

DarkMinun posted...

Many hiring types will accomodate if you request an interview or other hiring-related thing outside of normal work hours. They understand that you have a job and want to hire the kind of person who shows up to work reliably.

Also this. Most companies aren't going to take offense to "I don't want to inconvenience my current employer by trying to advance my career" and may even see that as an asset. Those that do take umbrage might not be so great to work for anyway.

Request the time off (unpaid, if that's your only option), but tell nobody that you're doing so for an interview until you're certain you've got the other job (even the coworker that you trust). If you need an excuse, make one up, if you aren't likely to have the time approved, fake a sick day.

Splash

jsb0714 posted...

This company signed a 99-year lease. Don't expect them to be sensible.

That is indeed pretty questionable, unless they got an insanely good deal on it. I can't fault anyone too much for failing to predict the pandemic and the shift to WFH it would force, but it takes a pretty spectacular amount of arrogance to assume that your company will not only still be around in 99 years, but that the area will develop in a way that that will still be a reasonable location to have an office in 99 years. Unless there are numerous clauses in there that let them break the lease under any of the myriad circumstances that would make them unable to use the space, that's pretty dumb.

EclairReturns posted...

That sounds almost like irony.

Not really. Irony (specifically situational irony, which is what's relevant here) refers to an unexpected outcome. There's a lot of subjectivity in what is/isn't expected, which people trying to sound smart by being pedantic about irony's definition often ignore, but being exposed to Covid after the company forces everybody to ignore Covid precautions and come in is entirely the opposite of unexpected. The term you're looking for is "poetic justice," though even that's debatable because that concept relies on people "getting what they deserve" and not just things working out in a way that perfectly makes the point you want to make.

I enjoy socializing, but I'm quite shy and uncomfortable initiating social interactions. I used to think I was introverted, but since meeting some actual introverts and learning about their experiences in introversion, I've realize that's really not how I feel and I'm actually squarely in ambivert territory. I can be more or less just as happy with or without people.

Jen0125 posted...

it's even worse. it's just because the company invested in a huge office complex with a 99 year lease and don't want to lose money on that lease. it's just property driven!

It's quite remarkable how many companies have zero comprehension of the sunk cost fallacy as it pertains to remote work. That 99-year lease is going to cost them exactly the same amount regardless of how many people are sitting in the offices.

Was he actually doing work that required a physical presence, or was he just demanded in there by managers whose sense of self-worth depends on staring at their subordinates?

Alternatively, more in-class essays and oral presentations.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Do they not have online trading?

They do, but trade evolutions in particular lend themselves much better to trading with people you know. The biggest thing is that if a Pokemon you've been using for a while levels up to the point where evolving will require a trade (Gengar's a good example of this: Gastly turns into Haunter based on level, then Gengar requires a trade), it's pretty normal to want it back because you're invested in that specific Pokemon, rather than in whatever somebody else has done with their copy of it. That's harder to orchestrate through online trades. For trade evolutions that require a particular hold item, that introduces something that can go wrong pretty easily.

For the more recent games, it's particularly annoying because you need NSO to make online trades, so trade evolutions are effectively paywalled if you don't have anyone local. NSO isn't exactly a major paywall, by any means, but it's just another reason why I feel that trade evolutions take away from the game, rather than adding anything of value.

Metalsonic66 posted...

I still say Brave is underrated

I'm inclined to agree, but it still ranks pretty low among Pixar's movies, I'd say.

shadowsword87 posted...

Oh lame, they're just going off of what other people are saying.

That's the entire basis for how AI chatbots work.

SpaceBear_ posted...

Not sure if this is really relevant but I recently played a romhack that had all the newer moves and some of the Pokemon were learning moves every other level. I feel like the movesets are saturated enough as it is.

Yeah, if you add too much more to the possible moves each Pokemon can pick, levelling up starts to become a chore because you have to re-evaluate your move choices so frequently (less of an issue in more deliberate training, but if you're just casually working your way through the story and aren't already sure what you'll pick, every new move opportunity is a decision to consider, which gets really tedious if it happens too often).

Revelation34 posted...

Hopefully they get rid of the shitty trade only and walking Pokemon evolutions.

At least with S/V they included an NPC trade for a Haunter, but didn't give that Haunter an Everstone like previous generations did, so it evolves into a Gengar as soon as you get it. Trade evolutions are indeed a pain, though. As much as I recognize that they're just trying to provide an incentive to play with friends, it actively hurts the game for people that don't have friends playing it.

keyblader1985 posted...

I don't get the first one.

In terms of general feel, Brave felt more like a Disney Princess movie (despite being by Pixar) and Wreck-It Ralph felt more like a Pixar movie (despite being by Disney's main studio). Both came out in the same year, so a few people joked about the studios switching places for that year.

BigOlePappy posted...

Maybe, but every Bulbasaur only has access to the same moves.

The other 1007 Pokemon, however, have access to different moves. I get the notion of offering more build variety, but Pokemon really is not lacking in build variety when you look at it on a team-wide scale and not just your individual Pokemon. Even if you are just looking at Bulbasaur, you've got 20 natures, 15 level up moves (not counting what the evolutions can learn, which adds further options and also variation in terms of choosing when to evolve), a couple dozen TM options, 2 abilities, 5-10 plausible EV training options, dozens of hold items... In practice, only the 3-4 best configurations tend to get used, but that's going to be true no matter how much variety there is, since it's never going to be possible to balance everything perfectly. What you're proposing is just more of what's already there, gated behind an extra interface to pretend they didn't just choose to buff Bulbasaur with some stat boosts and new abilities/moves.

Plus, again, divergent evolutions already do this. You can choose which Eeveelution you want, or what your Snorunt or Kirlia becomes. That doesn't apply to every Pokemon, obviously, but I'm inclined to say that it's common enough to satisfy the basic idea of "I want to make a choice of what sort of Pokemon this ends up being when it's finished."

LinkPizza posted...

I think my main problem is probably the cost. It would cost a lot.

There's a front-end investment, but there are tons of savings and additional revenue opportunities to be had once it's implemented. Remember that roads and parking lots generate little to no tax revenue except what they indirectly enable by letting people get to stores and whatnot (and that benefit can be obtained without cars if things are designed properly). Replace parking space with pretty much anything else, and you'll see more money for the city. Fewer people driving means less road maintenance, fewer costs associated with the dangers of driving (both direct costs and costs in the form of lost tax revenue from those that are disabled/killed), and people that are generally more productive because they don't carry nearly as much commuting stress into their work.

The fact of the matter is that suburban sprawl is expensive. Property taxes on large single-family lots don't come anywhere close to covering the cost of maintaining the infrastructure that's necessary for people to drive to/from them, which means suburbs end up subsidized by tax revenue generated by urban centres (who, in turn, have their potential tax revenue hamstrung by the need to devote huge tracts of land to transporting suburbanites in to spend their money). It's just not a sustainable model, so as much as switching gears is expensive, it stands a very high chance of saving quite a lot of money in the long run.

LinkPizza posted...

As for the bike garage, Id literally lose my bike every time. Haha. I can barely find my car in those parking garages, even knowing the section I was in

Not being Dutch, I can't speak for exactly how they work, but I imagine you'd either rent an assigned spot or be given some sort of ticket that told you where you were parked. Either way, you wouldn't simply be left to remember where you parked with no assistance, since obviously that's not a very practical idea.

Muscles posted...

My rpg experience is pretty much limited to Skyrim, so I was thinking something like that, as far as skill trees go, so I think a longer adventure would be better

Like, for example, in the fire tree you would have 1 that boosts fire moves, and another that boosts defenses of fire pokemon, and maybe the level 100 could be your fire pokemon get so hot it turns water attacks to steam and they take no damage

The issue with that (assuming you have limited skill points and can't eventually grind out every possible bonus) is that you'd end up gimping your ability to do parts of the game you didn't specialize in. For the most part, you don't end up playing Pokemon only to battle, or catch, or hunt for shinies, or any other one thing. You play it to do some of all of those things, and while you'll probably end up focusing on one over others depending on your personal preferences, if the bonuses from specialization are significant, specializing will make the other aspects less enjoyable.

This is why I thought that would work with an ARPG-style approach: You make different characters that specialize in different roles to contribute to the progress of an overall "account," eventually getting everything running optimally once you get all the specializations online. That said, as much as it's a cool idea, I don't think it would add all that much to the game except to pad postgame play with extra grinds to optimize everything, which isn't the best.

You also can't mess around with types too much. Specializing in one type is exactly the opposite of how teams should be built (you generally want to maximize type coverage so you can respond appropriately to whatever your opponent brings out), and if you tie too many type-specific bonuses to a specialization, that introduces too many extra variables to have to predict when battling (the vast majority of competitive Pokemon is a matter of predicting what your opponent will do and acting to mitigate that). Tweaking type relationships is a massive undertaking, balance-wise.

SpaceBear_ posted...

Everyone talks about how Pokemon hasn't changed and is stagnant or whatever and yet nobody ever comes up with a better idea.

Most of the time, even if every item on their wishlists were delivered, those people probably still wouldn't buy the game. Realistically, Pokemon already does about as much to innovate between generations as can be expected, which people would realize if they stopped to consider why they were ever interested in the games in the first place:

• Explore the world and catch fantasy creatures - Each generation has a new world to explore and new fantasy creatures to catch
• Customize the creatures you catch to personalize your team - Each generation adds new ways to customize your Pokemon, both in the form of new mechanics and by adding new options to or streamlining existing mechanics (new moves, new abilities, new hold items...)
• Use those creatures in turn-based battles against other teams - Each generation adds new battle mechanics to consider
• Battle and trade with friends - Major advances in this aspect have been more limited, but the shift to having online play was a huge step, and since then there have been things like raids that introduce a co-op aspect as well

That's not to say there isn't still ample room to improve some of those things (the battling in particular has a tendency to get bogged down by overexplaining everything, like telling you 3-4 times that your pokemon is confused before it hits itself), but "innovating" more than this would be a fundamental change in the sort of game that it is, and that's just not a reasonable expectation. Most of the people saying "Pokemon is stagnant" just don't actually like the kind of game Pokemon is and instead want to have their nostalgia fuel overhauled into the sorts of games they currently play.

Muscles posted...

I thought you were talking about the character, maybe have different skill trees that specialize in all the types, or a catching skill tree that makes you better at catching pokemon or one to make you better at finding rare/shinies

That could be interesting, but would pretty much require Pokemon games to be restructured to resemble ARPG's (multiple characters, a shorter campaign, shared stash).

On that note, though, a Pokemon ARPG could be pretty awesome.

SinisterSlay posted...

I'm not entirely certain why more effort isn't put into nuclear power.

Because nukes are scary and people have difficulty differentiating between the two. Toss in a few high-profile, highly destructive disasters (pretty much all of which were the consequence of safety technology that's been obsolete for decades), and you've got a pretty hard sell for an uninformed public.

The waste processing angle remains a considerable challenge, but as you say, it's not like nuclear waste is the only product we create that hangs around for extended periods of time and causes environmental damage.

Muscles posted...

Even the best public transportation is inferior to a personal vehicle so not sure why people care so much about it

Because those people understand that there's a world outside of their personal best interests.

Muscles posted...

you still aren't getting the convenience and freedom that personal transportation brings and I would hate to see a world without personal vehicles at all

This always comes up whenever the notion of not designing cities around cars comes up, and it's always bullshit. Nobody is suggesting the complete abolition of personal vehicles. Everybody (that actually wants to improve the situation) is just suggesting redesigning cities so that a personal vehicle isn't mandatory. Heck, these redesigns generally actually make the experience of driving better (even without considering any of the broader benefits), by virtue of having more intuitive infrastructure, fewer points of conflict, and fewer cars on the road because people routinely choose viable alternatives when they actually exist.

There are quite a few city planning advocacy youtube channels out there, so you can delve into those if you want more details, but this video in particular does a pretty good job of explaining how focusing on alternative transportation infrastructure in the Netherlands has also resulted in fantastic driving infrastructure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k

Thinking about it as a zero-sum game is incorrect. Everybody stands to benefit from designing cities that make it easier to get around, even the people that just want to keep using their personal car for most purposes.

The concept of sub-classes is already there in the form of divergent evolutions (Eevee being the most dramatic example of this), and anything a skill tree would do (active abilities, passive abilities, stat boosts, from which you can only select a few options) is already covered by other customization mechanics already in the games (move choices, abilities, held items, EV training). As a concept, adding more specialization options won't necessarily make more Pokemon viable, unless those options are unique buffs to currently-nonviable Pokemon (in which case, buffing them directly would do the job).

papercup posted...

I wish they would do more things like Dhelmise where it effectively has 3 STABs.

Tera types basically present the option to do this for everyone, though with a lot of caveats. There are also quite a few moves in Gen 9 that mix up type relationships, like Freeze Dry being SE against water types despite being an Ice move.

The suit probably won't win. "All natural" is never an absolute claim for anything humans have done anything to, by definition (the only truly "all natural" orange juice is what leaks out of a rotting orange that has fallen from the tree on its own), and while I don't doubt a few chemicals that probably shouldn't be there have made their way in through the production process (or possibly even just from storage, since plastic bottle leach stuff into their contents all the time), it doesn't sound like they actually exceed established safe limits and the guy filing the suit is just freaking out that they're there at all.

Conner4REAL posted...

Isnt that name a euphemism for fat people?

what is the obesity rate there?

I believe you're thinking of a family of marine cetaceans.

GastroFan posted...

Don't know now if I'd touch M&Ms with a person's face on them.

Not like it's the first deeply unsettling ad for candy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPp9JQy7UvQ

FatalAccident posted...

wtf is two spirit lol

adjl posted...

A variant of being non-binary/gender fluid that has historical roots in a number of indigenous American cultures. I'm not 100% clear on the details, and I would advise educating yourself if you ever plan to discuss the matter in any depth, but for colloquial understanding "NB, but natives" is probably good enough.

Among other answers that have already been given in this topic.

Judgmenl posted...

Also the whole fact that many people don't want it.

Which is mostly a product of the aforementioned investment by pro-car lobbyists. Auto industry propaganda and lobbying has shaped American culture and city design to an absolutely absurd degree, hence you get so many people believing that it's impossible to be independent without a car (and city designs that reinforce that). It's also a product of poor existing transit infrastructure: People won't take the bus if taking the bus sucks. Induced demand is a major part of bringing any transit initiative online, and that requires municipalities to seriously invest in it before that demand appears.

Judgmenl posted...

Public transportation is also a huge issue outside of what? 3 metro areas?

Pretty much every urban or suburban area could benefit from having better public transit and city planning that works around that instead of personal cars. Personal cars are hideously inefficient in cities, given how much space they take up and how little actual use they see. Design cities around transit, and you get less space wasted as parking lots (which means more commercial space and more housing space), small businesses thriving because they don't need to worry about people's ability to park, and better traffic for those that do drive. It's more environmentally friendly, it's healthier for everyone (both because they get more exercise and because there's less air/noise pollution), it's safer for everyone (not only are fewer people driving, but those who can't/won't drive safely can have the privilege taken away from them without crippling them, raising average competence)...

But people are too married to cars as status symbols and the myth they've been fed from birth that having one is the only way to be independent, so all of that gets pushed aside in the hopes that this time adding an extra lane will totally fix the traffic problems and not just make traffic worse because of induced demand.

Judgmenl posted...

The issue that I see is that companies see healthcare as a cost center and will get the cheapest garbage plans (the plan I now have from work is terrible) available and promote s*** like HSAs because they are cheaper on the company. I don't think my company offers non-HSA plans anymore (like an HMO or PPO). My knowledge on healthcare is just generally awful so I could be wrong. Also the deductables for these new plans are terrible.

It's more that the lack of a cohesive health care system leaves the medical and pharmaceutical industries free to charge prices that are all but impossible for most people to afford, which insurance companies then exploit by being the only hope anyone has (while also exploiting their greater leverage to negotiate service prices lower than an individual could). Having for-profit middlemen defining the entire health care system is an insanely broken idea through and through.

Wine makes a bigger difference than many people realize.

What if they use the tools to scoop the cocaines into a pile and then shove their face in them hands-free?

Count_Drachma posted...

You can either support the far-left policies that led to the destruction of American labor or you can complain about the far-left policies that led to the destruction of American labor.

Remember kids: "You actually have to pay your workers and try not to kill them and also they can't be literal children" are "fer-left policies that led to the destruction of American labour," and absolutely zero blame for that can be placed at the feet of greedy billionaires who decided that they'd rather employ children they were allowed to kill instead of becoming slightly less billionaire.

Count_Drachma posted...

And for all of your grandstanding, I doubt you'd be willing to take a time machine and live as just an ordinary person 60 years ago.

Why do you think this is a zero-sum game? Can you not think of a way that we could have video games and polio vaccines and a sustainable housing market? Do you not realize that "sure, you'll need to make double your regional median income to feel any semblance of housing security, but at least your mom won't serve jelly salads!" isn't actually a particularly insightful remark?

BlackScythe0 posted...

How is being upset about the politicians that were elected and the policies that were implemented "generalizations"?

This is really the thing to focus on. Did every single person born between 1945 and 1965 contribute to modern social problems? No. Obviously not. But the prevailing culture among that generation and the political climate and decisions that generated have very obviously had disastrous effects on wealth inequality, cost of living, and many other everyday problems the current generation has to contend with. That also hasn't stopped. Many from that generation continue to cling to that culture and let it guide their voting decisions (even in the face of abundant reason to change), making everything worse in the process.

Does that mean celebrating the death of millions of people is a good thing? Not so much. Does it mean that there's room to recognize that said generation's inevitable demise will change the political landscape in a way that ameliorates some of those issues? Yeah. It's a fine line, one which is prone to being exaggerated for Internet comedy, but I can understand where it's coming from.

Judgmenl posted...

HSR: Does not mix with America's unique combination of Conservative Rurals, NIMBY Liberals and very low population density / zoning laws.

Which is what prevents them from making any meaningful advances in the field. Also active investment from the petrochem and other car-dependent industries to stifle public transportation improvements.

Judgmenl posted...

Nuclear energy: Everyone is for Nuclear. I don't know what you are talking about.

A very large number of people are not for nuclear, usually due to misconceptions and fearmongering (flames which have again been happily fanned by petrochem-adjacent lobbyists). You don't know what you're talking about.

Judgmenl posted...

Healthcare: You do not know what you are talking about.

US healthcare research is in a very good place, but the fundamental system hamstrings the usefulness of that research because so few people can actually benefit from it. Technology is only useful if people can use it.

Count_Drachma posted...

The US has about as free of a market as you can find in the developed world.

A statement which, again, references goalposts that are in a very different position from where you initially said they were.

Moreover, you're missing the actual point, which is that a whole lot more than government intervention gets factored into how free a market is. Monopolies, oligopolies, and corporate collusion also infringe upon market freedom, and all of those things are quite inevitable in a finite (read: real) market without some sort of regulatory oversight to prevent them (which itself also restricts the market).

There's no such thing as an "actual free market," so if that's your criterion for calling a country "capitalist," then by your definition, there's no such thing as a capitalist country. Markets are only ever as free as those in power want them to be, and that remains true no matter what those in power call themselves.

Xenoblade and its Welsh catgirls remain a pretty substantial part of my day-to-day life, so I can't say I have that problem.

Quite a few builds come online long before the end of the game. You might want to consider trying one of those if you find that you're consistently having to wait until there's very little game left to enjoy the builds you're currently choosing.

That, or NG+ and onward.

AltOmega2 posted...

Fine then, four. Now its several

Personally, I tend to use "a few" to refer to 3-4, without context to suggest other interpretations, but he didn't say "a few." He said "the few," which does not refer to any particular quantitative range, but rather indicates a collection that comprises a small minority of whatever general population is being discussed.

As such, to refute his claim that few AAA games feature a woman of colour as a protagonist, you will need to demonstrate that women of colour make up more than a small minority of AAA game protagonists. Finding four examples (one of which you haven't shared) among the hundreds upon hundreds of AAA games out there (especially going back far enough to count BG&E, since that means you're looking at at least 20 years' worth of games) does not achieve that. Finding 5-10 examples also will not, just to save you the effort of coming back here after finding 1-6 more to see if I'll validate you.

AltOmega2 posted...

At least 3

Sounds like "few" is a pretty sensible way to describe that quantity, then.

AltOmega2 posted...

I still think he's wrong. The protagonist from Beyond Good and Evil is another example, among plenty of others.
But for what he specifically asked me, I answered adequately.

Okay.

AltOmega2 posted...

Blatant lie but okay, keep grifting or whatever

How many AAA games can you name with a woman of colour as the main character?

ReturnOfFa posted...

a former friend of mine literally claimed that his 10 year old niece should be forced to carry a child to term in these...circumstances. his wife is still with him. they're both idiots.

Give how frequently the one responsible for a 10-year-old being pregnant is her father or uncle, that almost sounds like your former friend should be getting a visit from various child protection agencies.

faramir77 posted...

They'll have to recast Rick. I can't see the show lasting much longer.

It won't be that hard to at least find somebody that sounds similar. Voice actors can be pretty versatile and there are plenty of talented ones out there. The concern is going to be less about not being able to find a suitable replacement and more about butthurt incels getting uppity about AS "going woke" by choosing not to associate with a documented serial sexual harasser (though, realistically, there's zero chance they didn't already know about his... procilivities, and they're only choosing to do something now because they've gone public enough to make standing by him a bad look).

Gaawa_chan posted...

It's very common for people to step forward once one person does for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to lend credibility to the initial allegations. But oftentimes people who are victims often don't consider the fact that victimizers rarely have just one victim. It's only when one steps forward that the others are often like "oh shit, fuck, I should have said something" and so they do.

Eeyup. Coming forward with allegations when you believe you're alone is pretty scary. Coming forward with allegations when somebody else has already blazed that trail and your allegations now stand a higher chance of making something happen is a lot easier. Sure, you get people bandwagoning with false allegations from time to time, and that's bad, but to dismiss all such allegations under that umbrella is very much a mistake.