Lurker > Colegreen_c12

If you think peeing while you shower is gross clean your fucking drain more regularly

Only input I have is to realize that you will have to pay to have them reinstalled when you get a new roof.

If you are going to need to replace your roof in 2-3 years you should probably just wait

Joker (Persona 5)
Pikachu (Pokmon Red/Blue/Yellow)
Snorlax (Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow)
Estelle Bright (The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky)
Agent 47 (Hitman)
Herlock Sholmes (Phoenix Wright)

UF8 posted...

it is linear, albeit with bonus missions without plot attached to them. not sure if oncemore adds anything more to that or not (i mean i'm confident they have a bunch more bonus missions at least but not sure if there's anything notable beyond that). they redubbed the game in japanese so like, one might think that maybe they had more cutscenes but the english dub seems unchanged so idk. at the very least there is the whole skill tree stuff that makes it technically a lot more open in terms of progression

Ok cool, might pick it up eventually, although probably not for a while

Quick question for anyone who played GrimGrimoire.

I played the demo and it was enjoyable enough, but does the story ever open up. Ie do you get any agency outside the individual missions or is it entirely linear?

I recommend everyone watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BsiaOsCyuo

It shows proper way to cut the onion about halfway through

Someone else mentioned it but your very likely cutting the onion wrong. I can find an explanation tommorow but basically one part has most of the chemicals so you don't cut that part till very end

my favorite is when you go to a counter service place and it asks you for a tip on the tablets and the choices are 18%, 20%, and 25%.

Like for a sit down resturant sure, but i'm not tipping that much for you to maybe bring my food to the table (if that)

2d mario are generally boring and I don't really enjoy them

Local pizza places aren't significantly better than national chains. Just different (and sometimes worse even)

I have a second set of smaller mirrors on my mirror that eliminate the blind spot

Xiahou_Shake posted...

The responses to this topic really weirded me out so I paid extra attention during my drive this morning - can confirm I only actively check when preparing to change lanes or when I know I'm going to be braking. Seems like what's in front of you should be of far greater concern in every other scenario. Like, why does what's behind you matter with any regular frequency?

Maybe it's a California thing but at least here if you get hit from behind, it's 99.99% going to be the full responsibility of whoever hit you. By contrast you should be far, far more concerned with not hitting anyone in front of you, because if they slam their brakes in the tenth of a second you're looking behind you for some reason, you're probably looking at a doubled premium.

No offense but being rear ended sucks regardless if your at fault.

And if you hit someone in that tenth second that means you were following too close

The only accident I got into was a guy rear ended me while I was stopped at a red light. (And I had been stopped for 10 seconds or so, not like I slammed on the brakes)

Paratroopa1 posted...

And obviously when you're backing up but I hope nobody thinks I'm this stupid (although when you back up you should really turn to look through the back of the car, better view)

Or just have a car made in the last decade so you have a backup camera.

But it's really weird how people pick something contrary to expert advice and act like everyone else is idiots for not accepting this (this is about junk_funk).

For two lane roads you get by with checking the mirror less frequently sure, maybe every 10 seconds or so. On a four lane road+ (especially on an interstate) it is super important to have a vague idea of where all the cars around you are and what is happening behind you. I have had at least one incident where I prevented an accident by seeing a car in my rear view mirror going too fast and cutting people off and being prepared to slow down when he did the same to me.

I really don't understand the thought that peripheral vision is fine for rearview when its actually way more effective for the whole road ahead of you during the brief look into the mirrors. If something ahead of me surprises me to cause an accident it was because I was doing something wrong, likely following someone to close or not being aware of someone driving erratically but its way easier to miss stuff behind you.

Paratroopa1 posted...

And that's where I'd come back around and say that you're underestimating how much attention off the road 'a quick glance every 3 seconds' takes. Yeah, one quick glance every once in a while isn't a big deal, but if you're worrying about it every 2-3 seconds you're distracting yourself. What are you actually looking for? How many actionable dangers can there be behind you?

I don't think anyone worries about it every 2-3 seconds after learning for more than a few weeks. They just naturally do it. It's second nature.

skullbone posted...

What is going on in my rear view mirror that I need to be aware of? Maybe I'd check it more on the highway to see if someone is about to pass me or something but I feel like I'm only looking in the rear view mirror if I need to change lanes.

Even on a 2 lane road it is still good to know how close someone is behind you, if someone is on your bumper you better not slam on your brakes if you don't want to be rearended.

Sure if you are in a neigherbood going 30 it's not as a big a deal, but it's always useful.

You are greatly overstating how much looking into the rear view takes. It should be a quick glance, a tenth of a second or so. And it is 100% safer than relying on peripheral vision, which frankly you are grossly overestimating

I do mostly cardio, just don't post in here much lol.

I have currently picked up ring fit again but other than I pretty much just walk 5ish days a week

Pepsi and coke are equally good

Esuriat posted...

Honestly yeah, but only if you don't make it by the box instructions. The instructions create a cheese soup abomination so I always short it on milk and butter, plus I cook the noodles for less time so they don't turn into complete mush.

Also Cabot and Annie's boxed "mac" and cheese varieties are all superior to Kraft and barely cost much more.

yea you definitely have to change it to how you like it. I do normal or more butter but a lot less milk. Basically enough to get to mix

Homemade kraft macaroni and cheese is better than 2/3rds of resturant mac and cheese

Steak is overrated

Even really good steak just gets into good territory. I'd prefer a burger almost always

Coconut is pretty disgusting. It makes almost any dish it's in worst as well

ctesjbuvf posted...

Man I had that sandwich with chicken instead of bread years ago and it was very delicious in that too much kind of way. They haven't had it here since as far as I know but I'd buy it instantly with or without Diablo IV if I saw it lol.

https://global.kfc.com/press-releases/double-the-fried-chicken-double-the-cheese-double-the-bacon-double-the-chaos/
literally as of like a week ago

Doesn't GameSpot charge you to pre-order as well?

Speedrunners, heave ho

AriaOfBolo posted...

Food's fun, New Orleans is fun. Not sure I could safely go there anymore.

As someone who goes to new Orleans once or twice a year and has family up there.

It gets more and more dangerous every time I go there. Crime in the main city is really high

If the game reviews well I'll buy the game. I'll feel no guilt because my purchase will have essentially no impact on jk Rowling but will have an impact on the developers who out time in the game. And as far as I can tell they purchased the rights to use the ip and started development before the controversy so I won't blame them

King vs. Poe

Dels posted...

i think a lot of people view lazy as a bad thing? that's why we're talking about the connotation it has.

if you tell me "my friend greg is a lazy person" i'd be like "oh okay that doesn't sound good, i probably don't wanna rely on greg for stuff he's not gonna come through" and then you say "what no i mean he does his work perfectly fine its just he doesn't change his lightbulbs until they're all out" i'd be like "oh yeah idc about that"

I feel like you and conflating lazy = unreliable.

I have a super unreliable friend, late constantly but I wouldn't call him lazy. I have a super lazy friend about doing things important to his life but he's super reliable if we're ever going to hang out.

But at this point I think it's clear that its really just a matter of definition and whether something that can theoretically change can be considered a character trait

Lopen posted...

Keep in mind Pezz never said laziness doesn't exist (technically he did but I'm getting at meaning here)

He said when it does exist it's a symptom of something else deeper down affecting the individual and not just "something that is."

Lasa actually made a perfect analogy to illustrate this unwittingly. An obese person becomes obese due to some other problem. An obese person is not obese because that's a core part of their identity.

It's the same with laziness. I agree with you on the 40k person. I think eventually the 40k person would become discontent or would have something to resolve in therapy or something else as you said. I can't say this for sure, no, but there is enough merit to the possibility that every case of genuine laziness could trace back to an actual issue in the person somewhere that I am considering it cause it does potentially make some sense in every case I personally have experienced in my life.

Yea I would concede extremely lazy people that are actually causing significant self-harm are likely due to other issues. But I would argue you could be moderately lazy (at least from someone else perspective) just due to valuing being lazy (or taking it easy) more than others.

And I would also argue that most character traits could be traced back to something in the persons past.

Lopen posted...

I would say, as someone who unwillingly has experience with this kind of budget, if someone is content to live off foodstamps there is something wrong with them mentally somewhere and it still plays to what Pezz was saying.

Sure, but you could have someone who gets 40k a year from a trust fund that refuses to work because they can afford to play games and eat (and not much more). You'll find someone who 100% agrees with him and someone who 100% thinks he is a lazy bum. It's all relative to your own personal values. I would view this person as lazy, but not quite neglectful. Sure he has enough to live off now but he's choosing to not be forward thinking. This might (and probably would be) a sign of something therapy could help with but this is kind of an extreme example.

Lopen posted...

So to me, and imo society based on how the connotations typically are, laziness is only a problem if it's hindering you in some way. It doesn't have to go to outright "self sabotage" but if there's something you want to do or need to do and you choose to veg and watch YouTube or play video games for an extended period instead that's a problem. In the lightbulb example if you don't care about the lightbulbs it's not a problem until you actually care about the lightbulbs. (or your guests/co-habitators care) Not rushing to do things because they're there to be done doesn't make you lazy in the boogeyman stigma sense that society puts on it. Decompression time is good and healthy.

You can say that's me projecting a definition I think that's you failing to read between the lines of a definition. Either way it is semantics, yes.

By your own words you consider someone not getting a job if they don't need the money and can live off of food stamps is a cost-benefit analysis but to society it is 100% being lazy.

For the lightbulb example you can care slightly about the lightbulbs (because its less light) but not enough to change them that is 100% lazy. You would definitely prefer to have them changed them but would prefer more to not go to the effort to do it.

I feel like you have a very narrow view on what society thinks but fail to consider what individuals and actual people think. 99% I hear someone unironically calling someone else lazy its old people complaining about kids today. And it's never about people being self-neglectful or anything like that, its more like "nobody wants to work today". Which by your definition may not even be lazy.

pezzicle posted...

not making your bed just....isn't lazy to me. that isn't a word i would ever use to describe that kind of thing

That's the thing though, it's not lazy to you but it is to someone.

Another example might be washing your sheets every week. Sure its better to do it but usually I put it off and do it every other week because.

Another way to view it might be laziness could just be described as a difference in priorities. The lazier someone is the more they value lounging/not doing anything.

pezzicle posted...

in addition to that, the original idea was "do lazy people exist". I am engaging with this, and yes, semantically, as asking "are people INHERENTLY lazy" or "is lazy a character trait"

I mean if the question is are people born lazy, no they probably aren't. That doesn't mean they aren't lazy. People aren't necessarily born mean either but they can definitely become mean. It's a product of their experiences making up who they are. I would say this qualifies as a character trait because it makes up their character. Character traits can change though, most people are significantly different as an adult then they were as a kid.

And yes therapy can help with some character traits, for example if they are lazy because of some kind of trauma or something else, you can help unpack and understand those experiences that make up who they are and help them move past them.

But I would also argue that this isn't exclusive to being lazy or even negative traits in general. For instance I bet some people are seen as driven but that too is a product of their experiences. Maybe they couldn't get any love from their parents as a child without getting straight As and it led them to work really hard at everything just to get praise and it became a trait of theirs. If they went to therapy and understood this they might dial this back if they desire to. Just like someone might be less lazy after therapy if they desire to

pezzicle posted...

I'm also not talking about a person who just doesn't do the dishes tonight. That's not what I mean, and a lot of this conversation may be muddy simply due to semantics

The conversation is definitely muddy due to semantics.

If you mean lazy to the point of being neglectful I 100% buy that. If you mean more mild forms of laziness I would but most people don't even bring those up in therapy cause they don't matter that much.

Like to me:
-Too lazy to apply to jobs when you need money to live=neglectful
-Too lazy to apply to jobs when you could use some extra spending money in high school=lazy

Imo its a slider with how much you prioritize the absence of exertion against the benefits of what something gets you. For example I never make my bed cause I don't see a point but others see it as being lazy. Same with the lightbulb example.

Lopen posted...

This is actually you altering the definition from what society typically uses it as I hope you realize this while you're busy of accusing me of doing this

Raka_Putra posted...

Yes, I know him.

He is me.

jcgamer107 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/2/AARTUoAADV0Q.jpg

_PandaMaster_ posted...

Too lazy to answer.

I don't know where you have been but a lot of people have no problem admitting to being lazy, or even embracing it. Sure some people view it with a negative connotation but that really doesn't matter. Like a lot of things, the word has a gradient.

If someone is extremely lazy to the point of being neglectful thats a bad thing. But if someone is moderately lazy (like in the light bulb example) people are ok with it.l

Lopen posted...

I know what the definition says

But there are subtleties in how we use it in speech that implies that being a lazy person is a bad thing. In that sense I don't think I'm distorting as much as you're not reading into the nuance of the use of the word when used to describe a person as "lazy"

Is it necessarily a bad thing to wait for 3/4 light bulbs to go out to change any? If it doesn't bug you why would it be. You save money and energy (electricity and your own) doing so.

you literally just described a lazy person. Justifying spending less energy. All laziness is someone who is more apt to not do something.

Also you may view a lazy person as a bad thing but I don't.

Basically your not molding your argument with the definition of laziness. you are trying to mold the definiton of laziness to fit your argument

Lopen posted...

Is that a distortion though? I disagree. Lazy has negative connotations inherently. If you're oversimplifying it to avoiding using energy on anything, why does that have negative connotations.

Definition: disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous

Being lazy doesn't mean you are self-neglefctful, just means you prefer not to do stuff. And a lazy person doesn't have to be lazy 100% of the time.

I would consider someone who waits until 3/4 light bulbs go out to change any of them lazy, but not self-neglectful if it's not impacting them. Procrastination is a form of laziness

Lopen posted...

I like how we've distorted the definition of lazy to content or non-ambitious

Overcorrecting much

I mean you also distorted it to self-neglectful multiple times as well.

driven people don't exist.

they are just compensating for something. Without those issues they would be content

So you don't like having areas you aren't appropriately leveled for and instead you want areas that you aren't appropriately geared for

Angela isn't great anymore imo. She was better prenerf

Tinykin I'm guessing

Coupons are area specific and even store specific i believe

MariaTaylor posted...

36. My Time At Portia: I was pretty excited for this game and wanted to love it but I really did not. Did not like any of the villagers, and got tired of the day to day gameplay loop really fast. And this is coming from someone who loves farming/life sim games.

This is basically how i felt when i played this a few years ago. The gameplay loop is just too much and too tedious from what i remember

barreldragon88 posted...

Ah, I use that exact same card lol, but I don't use Merill Edge, so I just get an additional preferred rewards bonus, but it falls short of the 5% you are getting

I'm actually only getting 4.5 atm since i bought a house last year, just didn't feel like being that specific. You get 5.25% if you have 100k with them. But yea I was at the lowest level until I found out merill edge counted towards your balance so I transferred all my stocks to them to bump my tier up

MacArrowny posted...

Next game hint: gamers only want one thing and it's disgusting (2022)

Gamers only want cats so must be stray

barreldragon88 posted...

Can I ask which card you are using for this? Any annual fees?

I use the Bank of America Cash Rewards card ( https://www.bankofamerica.com/credit-cards/products/cash-back-credit-card/ )

My 3% choice is dining. 2% on grocery/wholesale. No annual fees. But since I use BoA for my bank account and Merill Edge as my stock/ira account I also qualify for their preferred rewards thing ( https://promotions.bankofamerica.com/preferredrewards/en ) which ups the percentage.

If you don't use BoA as your primary bank it won't be as good, but it's what i've always used and never really had any issues with it.

masterplum posted...

At some point is it causation or correlation. Poor people pay more interest, but at what point do we contribute some of this to financial decisions that caused them to be poor because they are paying more in interest?

There are a lot of areas where we need to make sure poor people get equal opportunities. Im not sure credit cards is one of them

Honestly the biggest and easiest first step is a lot of this basic financial stuff needs to be taught in school. A lot of it comes from ignorance.

Past that its a lot trickier

Peace___Frog posted...

I fully understand the point of credit scores. My biggest issue with them is how fickle they are and how they're designed and used.
I love financial risk theory more than most people here, I'd argue. But that doesn't mean I have to approve of the realities of the practices.

As it stands, older people with more wealth tend to benefit. Higher interest rates penalize people for the sole reason that they don't have decades of proving their wealth or worth.

I mean proven trustworthy people get better rates because they have a history of being trustworthy. What is the alternative? How trustworthy they look? I'm sure that would end well.

I can understand the annoyance but in practicality it is necessary. Sure it could be improved but I have seen no argument of how it could be improved in a meaningful way.

Peace___Frog posted...

should my house be more expensive if i had a lower credit score?

I guess they need to start teaching people more about basic finance.

A house isn't more expensive if you have a lower credit score. You have a higher interest rate because your loan is seen as more risky. A credit score is based on a combination of things but it's basically meant to show how trustworthy you are with taking out credit.

The alternative to higher rates would just be that people without credit scores don't get loans period