Lurker > ThePieReborn

*vacant blinking*

a-c-a-b posted...

I love Dead Space. Both the original and remake.

Never played Alien Isolation. What's combat like in that game?

It's... serviceable? Combat is more about neutralizing/creating breathing room rather than the murderating.

That said, the death of Dead Space as a franchise makes me sad because I was invested in the story and the lore.

Peak performance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUamHEvVQy0

That is still quite the take.

That is certainly a take in post 5.

divot1338 posted...

After I discovered Counterstrike I realized there was a whole other level to being comfortable with your keyboard setup.

Let me tell you the wonders of rocketjumping, my friend.

I do. And I regret it immediately afterward.

Westernwolf4 posted...

I was also surprised by this. I dont know what your experience with jury service has been Pie, but my JD/legal career has always disqualified me. When I lived in Va., I was always dismissed before coming in (long time ago, so dont know if that still happens.). Where I live now, I always come in and am instantly dismissed when people realize what I do for a living. Last time it was a law school friend of mine working the case who laughed at me for having to come before kicking me out!

Everywhere I have been no one wants a lawyer on a jury. Or maybe just me? But in this case finding a panel is so hard that I guess beggars cant be choosers?

Oh no, I've also been tossed for (presumably) my JD. Funnily enough, at all three stages of my career: law student, judicial clerk, and practicing attorney. All my voir dire questionings have ended at the "and what do you do for a living?" stage. Funny enough, the attorney at my second voir dire was a classmate of my judge, so she asked me to tell my judge she said hi.

Unless if I was really confident in both my case and the JD juror, I sure as hell would never let anyone with a JD on a jury if I still had the peremptory challenges to spare. Too much of a risk for taking control of deliberations. That said, I don't know what the strike count was looking like, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was strategic by the state. New Yorker + JD may be a good combo in this situation.

We talkin bout practice, man.

Humble_Novice posted...

I'm censoring this to avoid triggering any potential moderations.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/5e16dfbd.png

Watched the video. Wouldn't recommend for the squeamish, but a woman cuts into the camera's view, sits down, and just casually watches the person burn. Fucking weird.

Zwijn posted...

Nothing at all like Destiny, but it often reminds me of Destiny for some reason.

It's the fashion.

Surprising that a juror who apparently has a JD got through, although I figure the state reasoned that works in its favor and Trump ran out of peremptory challenges.

I'm sorry. There are too many layers to the stupidity and maliciousness at play with this that I just don't even know where to start.

mystic_belmont posted...

I wonder if the prosecution will use the NY fraud trial to show that yes Trump has committed business fraud before.

That's the first bout of conduct on the Tweeted cover page.

mystic_belmont posted...

I guess they are using those to show a history of bad acts?

They'll be using these to impeach credibility and as a "Lol, this dude has done nothing but commit fraud at all times relevant to this case."

Beep boop

I do want to highlight for folks that jury selection goes much deeper than the questions posed during voir dire. Something this high profile, I would bet my bottom dollar that at least the state attorneys probably know more about the jury pool's backgrounds than they themselves know.

lilORANG posted...

The judge kept it out. Not the prosecutor. Probably bc it's cumulative, as in the Access Hollywood tape says the exact same thing

Cumulative, propensity evidence, more prejudicial than probative all come to mind.

Not so much a political shift rather than an expedited descent into insanity, but a large portion of my extended family is Q-adjacent despite my best efforts.

Shitty excuse for a human being even discounting the post 2015 insanity.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

We had some moments of very... sharp disagreements, but he was the one who encouraged me to sit down and finish my law school application back in 2016. Regardless of the scars I received throughout my three years of schooling, I do still remember and appreciate that.

Hard to believe it's been almost 8 years, though.

That was some fun drama.

Final Doom (Plutonia Experiment) > 2016 > Eternal > Doom 1 > Doom 2 >>> Doom 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Final Doom (TNT Evilution)

Can't speak for 64 or Doom 3 BFG.

Doom 1 and 2 are placed lower due to my discounting their their roles as progenitors; if I added that into the equation, at least Doom 1 would outrank 2016, if not both. There are certainly highlights to both games, but the big thing they both struggle with is that the last half/third of each falls off in enjoyability for me. Doom 2 is especially not very fun in the latter half of the game.

Plutonia is king of the commercially sold WADs, and I will die on this hill.

The snippets I've seen from the Cass report give me the same vibes from Mark Regnerus's sterling (read: heavily discredited and eviscerated by both academics and jurists) study on the supposed terrible impact on children caused by being raised in a same-sex couple household.

Title's a bit of a clusterfuck, but short version is that the Eighth Circuit had oral arguments this week on Arkansas's ban on gender affirming care for minors. The text of the bill (Act 626, or as the ingrates decided to name it, the Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act) may be found here: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2021R%2FPublic%2FACT626.pdf

For folks who have not been paying attention, this bill went into effect back in 2021. A lawsuit was immediately filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and the judge found the bill to be unconstitutional on Equal Protection, Due Process, and First Amendment grounds. For anyone interested, here is the ACLU's website entry that contains basically the entire docket for both the trial court level and the appellate level: https://www.aclu.org/cases/brandt-et-al-v-rutledge-et-al

I just remembered that oral arguments were held at the 8th Circuit this week on Thursday, so I spent a good chunk of today catching up on briefs and listening to the oral arguments (the recording of which may be found here: https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/court-session , select the April 2024 session and ctrl+f for "Brandt"). Overall, not impressed with the Arkansas Attorney General's arguments or the 8th Circuit's questions.

It is likely that there is a hang-up on the Equal Protection issue due to US case law's different levels of scrutiny applicable to allegations of discrimination based on a suspect classifications. A brief summary on Equal Protection and scrutiny levels: (1) only racial classifications get strict scrutiny, the highest level; (2) classifications based on sex receive intermediate scrutiny; and (3) everything else is subject to rational basis review. Where Republican attorneys and jurists like to muddy the waters is what all falls under the umbrella of classifications based on "sex." Back in the Windsor and Obergefell days, Republicans vehemently argued that gay marriage bans were not based on sex classifications by virtue of claiming that LGBT folks were able to marry members of the opposite sex just as everyone else was. Kennedy, in his infinite, flowery language, elected to not make an affirmative statement as to what level of scrutiny the gay marriage prohibitions were subject to, but it's generally understood that classifications based on sexual orientations are subject to a scrutiny higher than rational basis review, if not intermediate scrutiny.

Turning back to the gender affirming care issue, we are in exactly the same place where Republican states are asserting that gender affirming care restrictions are subject to rational basis review. This is problematic for jurisprudence purposes because short of a finding that only animus fueled the legislation rather than any legitimate government purpose, legislation is presumed to satisfy rational basis review and therefore not violate Equal Protection. As expected, the legislation at issue here hides under the guise of "Won't someone please think of the children?!?!?!", nevermind the fact that these are the same people who routinely drive LGBT people to the edge and beyond.

It is notable, however, that the 8th Circuit affirmed the trial court's preliminary injunction of Arkansas's enforcement of the bill, so all is not necessarily lost despite the 8th Circuit being second only to the hacks in the 5th Circuit (although there's a wiiiiiide gap between the two courts). It is almost guaranteed that this will be appealed to SCOTUS regardless of the outcome.

All that said, I do want to highlight something from the trial court's order. The Alliance Defending Freedom previously recruited a whole cavalcade of halfwitted "experts" during the Windsor and Obergefell days to support states' enforcement of gay marriage bans, primarily on the back of saying that children raised in same-sex couple households were somehow worse off than children raised by opposite sex couples. These "experts" were routinely BTFO by both trial and appellate courts. Well, the ADF recruited many of the same people to be "experts" regarding gender affirming care, which they obviously have zero understanding of. The trial court judge in this case (an Obama appointee) basically took them out back and gave them the Old Yeller treatment. Even called out one directly in the order in Footnote 11, so if you see anyone citing a Mark Regnerus as an expert in LGBT matters, promptly laugh at them and/or hit them with something heavy.

Just wanted to give a little update with a slight ounce of optimism on something I've been paying attention to in connection with my work.

I'm a little curious if there were actually shenanigans done by folks via the described emancipation loophole. Wouldn't surprise me, but it's also those niche situations where you get the truly fucked up "well akschually..." people.

teep_ posted...

While I absolutely believe he should suffer consequences, I also worry about how that will affect/galvanise his fanbase

Not in a "don't throw him in jail" way, but in a "this is what will happen when we do and we need to protect the necessary institutions" way

Same boat.

And I hesitate to say "Do it, motherfucker," because (1) I recognize that my ass will almost certainly not be in the line of fire and (2) I find "ends justify the means" thinking to be reprehensible.

But disease can't be allowed to fester any more than it has already. And that's what this all boils down to: a bunch of sick, selfish individuals who would rather burn everything down and rule over the ashes before ever losing their unearned "status."

Not my favorite (prefer a little more crunchiness), but they're very versatile.

I'm an axe man tbh.

AuthenticZac posted...

Steve Blum

It will never not be funny to me that the dude occupies literally the entirety of Doom 3.

Kradek posted...

I sincerely doubt that he actually realizes that.

This is the dude who lost a defamation judgment for 5m and then immediately defamed her again, owing her another 91m.

I think Trump just does whatever he wants and consequences be damned cause that's how it's been for most of his life. Even as POTUS we had multiple reports about how he never wanted to hear intelligence briefings and had no desire to learn details for anything.

It's what happens when you have a brat born with a silver spoon in his mouth who grew up with a constant stream of yes men surrounding him because of daddy's money.

He never grew up. He never gained the notion that his words and actions have consequences because he has never experienced any, and thus disregards the consequences that he has either imposed or forced others to bear as a result. That supposed "salt of the earth" people like my extended family choose to champion trash like him just belies the reality that he embodies the inner child in them who desperately wishes that they, too, were never told "no."

Edit: Also, yeah. I have absolutely no idea what to make of that Trump post. I am honestly inclined to say that the alleged letter is manufactured, but I suppose weirder things have happened in this timeline. And even if real, it is literally evidence in support of the coverup shenanigans that are the heart of the prosecution, so the dude is a fucking idiot regardless.

Probably could have just led entirely with "The dude is a fucking idiot."

Something I found morbidly funny is that this law predates women's suffrage.

ReiRei89 posted...

Fat fuck is going to try and intimidate the jury, just watch.

Oh that's a guaranteed reality. I feel terrible for jurors that will almost inevitably be outed to the lunatic cult members.

name_unknown posted...

Prosecutors do this now getaway drivers get murder charges.

Different theories (felony murder and aiding/abetting) that aren't apposite here. This case is essentially one of criminal negligence, which is more appropriately described as recklessness/reckless indifference.

Edit: And yeah, post 22 completely missed the mark on the rationale of the indictments and verdicts.

I can imagine worse things.

Honestly the dad deserves it for being stupid enough to threaten the DA/county attorney over his recorded jailhouse calls.

Incoming WiTcHuNt screaming.

Phrasing

Touch posted...

So what's the verdict on the Dominator post buff? Almost got enough to buy it

I just picked it up and I dig it.

Good thing God's got nothing to do besides root for X shooty hoops or handegg team.

And the favorite teams change every season! Such a bandwagoner.

I am so confused by this timeline.

If your number one concern with exercise is how you look rather than the practical benefits conveyed thereby, then you need to reprioritize. Abs not being visible does not mean the underlying developed core strength isn't there.

Much as I struggle with depression and frequent suicidal ideation, at least I'm not these people. >_>