Lurker > darkknight109

Mead posted...

So in theory you could probably cook soup in a freezer bag and be ok? I think those are made special cause Ive heard of people using them to sous vide

I mean, I personally wouldn't because of the potential for chemical leaching, but that's just my initial reaction without doing the research. It's possible it's safe, I don't know for certain.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Mead posted...

same I guess there is some scientific black magic fuckery going on where even while boiling the water is keeping the plastic cool enough from reaching its melting temperature

Water has a high specific heat capacity, so it will constantly be drawing heat away from the plastic. Plastic also has a higher melting point than most people think - most won't melt until roughly 170 degrees, so you could, in theory, have boiling water and still be cool enough to not melt the plastic.

I would be much more concerned about chemicals from the plastic leaching into the water at that point, though. Would not recommend this as a cooking method.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Of those listed, Samus.

The female lead that pops immediately to mind, however, is Estelle Bright from Trails in the Sky. Super well-written character that heads a colossal trilogy of games (though she's technically only MC for two of them).

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Money was originally invented by Mr. Robert S. Money, after whom it is named.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I remember marking that day when it happened and being disappointed nobody else got the reference at the time.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Why does GF continually do this? Just pick one interface and stick with it.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Depends if he's an asshole cop or not.

Which, really, would be the same proviso I would apply regardless of what his profession is.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Ogurisama posted...

Goons

Goons who?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Have your moment, but this isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is.

Is that why you deleted your account?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

That was an awesome show.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

JigsawTDC posted...

Are you talking about Dr. Seuss or Whiskey?

Yes.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Mead posted...

that isnt happening

what word has been banned by law?

Hah! Nice try, Mr. FBI agent! You can't trick me that easily!

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Unbridled9 posted...

But even in that situation children have yet to develop the capability to do such a thing. While they may not think anything of at least half the things said what they do understand holds no context or nuance for them to be able to understand.

Sure, and for that reason I don't have an issue with children's literature with "problematic" elements being removed from circulation. I do believe, however, that they should be kept accessible in some form for adults and researchers who want to seek them out (much as we can still view Seuss's more racist political cartoons today, which is an important element for contextualizing and discussing his work).

I do think the pop culture of the past - even that which is horribly discriminatory by today's standard - has an important spot in the history books, because it gives us a window into what social standards were like at the time and what was and wasn't considered acceptable (which, to finish closing the loop, helps us evaluate whether certain people were genuinely awful or simply products of their time). Hell, I'm old enough to have seen this in my lifetime. When I was a kid, several slurs and metaphors were very casually batted around the playground without the teachers batting an eye that would get kids today suspended or worse.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Unbridled9 posted...

He did but it was mainly WWII stuff. When we were fighting against Japan. I remember one poster which had a bunch of Japanese-americans getting bombs to suicide-bomb the Japanese. The dude was racist there's no doubt.

For what it's worth, Seuss repeatedly apologized for his anti-Japanese propaganda in the 1940s. He actually was quite passionate about anti-racism overall - take this cartoon, for instance:

https://twitter.com/brianjayjones/status/896545502245900288

...or the famous story of The Sneetches, which was pretty much an anti-racism message in kids packaging. Seuss was staunchly leftist, yet he considered the Japanese in America to be a mortal threat during WW2. With the benefit of hindsight, he did realize that he had been wrong and over the course of his life would come to regard those cartoons as his biggest mistake. He visited Japan in 1953 and Horton Hears a Who!, which was published the following year, was dedicated to a man he met in Kyoto during his visit.

Are there depictions in his other books that use racist stereotypes? By today's standards, absolutely - several of them have been posted in this thread already. But by the standards of the day? Those were considered clean as a whistle. Hell, you can see similar depictions in contemporaneous Disney movies from the "savage Indians" of Peter Pan (1953), the Siamese cats of Lady and the Tramp (1955), or Dumbo (1941) that literally features a character named "Jim Crow" who is a caricature of a black man.

This calls to mind the age-old question of whether or not its fair to judge someone by modern day social standards who never lived to see them? Shakespeare was a playwright of almost unparalleled skill... and a virulent anti-semite. Abraham Lincoln ended slavery... while also claiming that black people could never be equal to white people and would never be considered such. Do we judge those people by actions that would be considered horrifically racist today or do we view them through the lens of social mores at the time?

Seuss was very progressive for his day, so it's not hard to imagine that if he'd lived to see 2021, he'd probably have reformed his work even further. He might even agree with ceasing publications on these specific works as a result. I'm not sure it's fair to call him a racist when, by the standards of the era he lived and wrote his books in, he was anything but.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

Offhand, I can't recall if Seuss did any real political cartooning.

You can't recall if one of the most famous political cartoonists in history did any real political cartooning? Man, if only you had access to some sort of tool or engine that would allow you to search through a vast repository of human knowledge - then you might find a near-complete collection of his actual political cartoons to peruse, along with many articles describing his history of political cartooning and how it carried forward and influenced his work on children's books.

Actually, I think I can understand why you wouldn't do that; you might come across cartoons like this:

https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1346606007997370371

Or this:

https://twitter.com/nickkristof/status/989286766912950272

Or this:

https://twitter.com/artsy/status/845751149579964418

Or these:

https://twitter.com/BrentAllpress/status/1276993713563037696

...and you might realize how ahead of his time Seuss really was.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

adjl posted...

Evolutionary psychology is a pretty vague, inconclusive field, but speaking very broadly and without any definite examples, there's an argument to be made in some cases that desiring monogamy (and, more saliently, tending toward biparental care) is a behaviour that provides a selective advantage. It also provides individual advantages, certainly (and some degree of selfishness is also a behaviour that provides a selective advantage), but the benefit doesn't entirely stop there.

Of course, none of this changes that Muscles has committed the incredibly common fallacy of believing that evolution is performed for the "good of the species." That's an entirely backwards interpretation of the causality: It's not a matter of fitter individuals having more reproductive success, it's a matter of defining more successful individuals as fitter, which in turn increases the frequency of their heritable traits.

That's more or less what I was getting at - hence the qualifier "purely from a sexual perspective" on the statement that promiscuity is advantageous. There are other, non-sexual reasons why monogamy can be beneficial, such as offspring raised by two parents being more likely to survive to breeding age than those raised by one or simply left to fend for themselves after birth, but that gets into a whole host of new conversations on social structure, competition for resources, and so on.

The point is, individuals won't go against their own interests for the good of the species under natural selection; the idea is that evolution will favour those traits that benefit both the individual and the species.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Seems like a pretty reasonable approach to me.

I've never understood the emphasis society tries to put on virginity. Like, losing your v-card is built up as this huge, important thing that totally changes your life, then it happens and it's just kind of a ".....wait, that's it?" moment.

Muscles posted...

Discriminate breeding on the females part is important because it let's the species get better instead of letting every bum water down the gene pool

This is a horrible mangling of evolutionary science.

Biologically speaking, no one cares about whether a certain action is advantageous or disadvantageous to the species as a whole; they care about whether a specific action is more likely to get their genetics passed on. Purely from a sexual perspective, promiscuity is generally evolutionary advantageous, because the more children you have, the more likely one or more of them will survive to breeding age themselves.

There are other reasons why monogamy or selective breeding can be advantageous to an individual, but "it's for the good of the species" does not generally factor into evolutionary breeding patterns.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Mead posted...

It seems silly, but I dont really see any harm in it either

This, basically.

Granted, I'm not really the target audience for Mr. Potato Head these days...

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The generation that goes digital only will be the generation I stop buying new consoles.

Digital-only consoles are terrible for archivability. There's a reason why we can still read books from thousands of years ago or watch TV shows and movies from dozens of years ago and that's because they made sure that their stuff was released physically (not a single online market place from the pre-1900s era is still around today).

I still like playing old games; I'm not going to support a business model that tacitly refuses to let me do that by guaranteeing that my means to buy and play games is dependent on the whims of a multinational conglomerate.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

MartianManchild posted...

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/chicago-lawmaker-wants-to-ban-violent-video-games-completely-amid-rise-in-carjackings/1100-6487966

Who keeps voting for these people who just want to take our freedoms away because of their feelings?

Whoever elected this assclown president, apparently: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/08/05/trump-blames-video-games-for-shootings-but-research-doesnt-support-that/?sh=716ab34a11dc

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

adjl posted...

In the days before the quote feature (which was added in like 2013 or so, iirc),

Has it actually been that long?

Damn...

Anyways, yes, this was the default method used for quoting people for yonks years before GF actually modernized.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Nunyobidness posted...

Then you would get a ding to the relationship score for declining the offer too.

You could get around this by accepting the offer, then immediately calling and cancelling.

Still dumb that you had to do that, but there was a workaround at least...

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Your resume should pretty much never be longer than two pages (and even then, I would recommend trimming it to one if you can without making it visually crowded). I'm an engineer, I've been on hiring teams before, and longer resumes almost never get looked at. When we might have to sift through hundreds of resumes for a position, we're looking for anything we can to narrow the field - "This person's resume is taking too much of my time," is just as valid a criterion as any at the initial stage to dumpster it.

If you need more than two pages to tell me why I should hire you, you've already probably lost me.

At the resume review stage, we're not looking for your life's story, we're looking for a quick summary of your skills and experience. Anything else we want to know initially will be in the application. If there is something in your resume that piques our interest or that we want to know more about, we'll ask you about it in the interview.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

GTA4 took itself far too seriously. The previous games, as well as GTA5, understood that people don't play GTA for realism, they play it so you can run around, steal a variety of vehicles, get into epic chases and shootouts, and generally cause mayhem.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Theoretically? Yes. Practically? No.

Zeus posted...

Because it's pretty common fucking sense that founding documents need some permanency.

The original US constitution allowed slavery and restricted the vote to white men.

That the sort of permanency you're looking for?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Mitch McConnell and the word brains do not belong in the same sentence together.

Moscow Mitch is many things; stupid is not one of them.

He is, in essence, the "smart Trump" everyone worries about. He has the same utter lack of morals and complete incapacity for shame (albeit his megalomania is not quite as pronounced as Trump's), but actually has the smarts and political cunning to make him dangerous.

His only major misstep was not burying Trump when he had the chance (twice). Now he's handed Trump a path back to power and loyalty to Trump is a one-way street - Trump won't hesitate to crush him if he can and sees no reason to play nice with him.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Japan doesn't even have its own word for PINK. it's literally Red plus White.

This is incorrect.

Momoiro (literally "peach-coloured", as Japanese peaches are bright pink) is the Japanese word for pink. You'll also hear a lot of people say "pinku", the English loanword.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

The word they actually lack is green. Midori is a foreign loanword from what I remember.

No, midori is still Japanese. It's more modern Japanese, showing up for the first time roughly 1000 years ago, but it's not a loanword. That said, it's considered a shade of blue (ao) and you'll still hear people refer to green things as ao or aoi (most readily seen in the name of Aomori prefecture, which literally translates to "blue forest").

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Naruto_fan_42 posted...

If youre considered untalented it can discourage you from engaging in the things you like because you think youll never be good at it.

So don't do that.

I had a natural talent for math and academics. I rode that all the way to a good, well-paying career and all is well.

But one of my hobbies is model-painting and let me tell you, not only do I not have a talent for that I am extremely untalented at it. Non-written art has never been a forte of mine and despite several decades of practice with modelling now, I am, at best, middling in my talents.

Do I let that bother me? No. I enjoy what I do without comparing myself to others. When some of my friends show off stuff that is better painted than anything I can manage, I congratulate them and am genuinely happy for them. And I consider my attempts at building up a skill that I have no natural talent for to be a good personal development exercise, as it helps build patience and perseverance.

What you're describing in your post has a name: jealousy. Don't let it rule your life unless you want to spend a far greater chunk of it than you should being unhappy.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!