Lurker > Mackorov

It's ok.

Android still holds the global market share by an enormous amount compared to iPhone, mainly because the OS is more attractive in 3rd world countries where affordability is an issue

If you're the kind of person glued to the internet all day... I mean sure, you'll likley see this news.

But most people that only browse tiktok/instagram only get the brief headlines that intentionally omits this fact. I'd be rich if I were give a penny for every ignorant person coming up to comment over there on how this is the next damn pandemic or something

legendary_zell posted...

What? I've never seen the topic mentioned without LGBT people and the percentages being mentioned.

Most media aren't reporting it. They're just reporting the parts like 'WHO declares health emergency' and 'monkeypox surpasses ___ cases'

If it wasnt the case, we wouldn't have articles like these from angry journalists trying to spread more of the truth

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/25/monday-briefing-monkeypox-gay-bisexual-men-public-health-who

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/18/monkeypox-gay-men-deserve-unvarnished-truth/

I see people around me talking like this is some next pandemic like covid was. Like seriously. Nothing exemplifies more about liberal political correctness bias than this right here...

Oh yea I get it, the media wants to avoid stigmatizing gay people. I have nothing against the community either but it's ironic since by not reporting on this about monkeypox, they're simply doing the same community they're trying to protect more harm instead.

Most gays wont even know they're the ones 98% more susceptible to monkeypox than not

hmmmm maybe try installing more brain cells in your head

Blue_Popo posted...

when you leave the date, say "text me when you make it home safe", if you liked her. Hopefully she gives you something to work with in that text

I always thought this text would sound abit creepy.

Lvaneede posted...

I have never dated, so I have no idea

so you only f*** girls?

this is something that always blocks me in my online dating attempts. You know how a good text convo leads to a date but as soon as the date is over... then what?

It can even be a successful date with a girl, but right after all that, I'll struggle to restart a new convo with her on text.

If I just thank her for the date, she will just say likewise and the convo immediately ends. What else can I talk to her about then?

honestly I'd only give it 7/10. And I played it just recently.

Admittedly I havent sunk more than 15 hours into the game yet but my impressions are based on what I know...

1. Sneaking is waaay too easy and a little kind of dumb: like you can just grab people and continuously walk with them without issues lol?
2. Graphics aren't exactly the best. i think Witcher 3's graphics are actually better in comparison. Seems like they had to dumb down the visuals abit for the first person perspective
3. The whole game feels a little too...out of touch for me. I've seen NPCs walk on the street being clones of one another way too many times.

JuanCarlos1 posted...

I guess itll come down to cost vs usefulness. There were some samsung? serving robots announced on CES not long ago so maybe we''ll see them for retail in a not so far future.

But I dont think we'll be seeing any sophisticated humanoid robot any times soon. And if we do ..theyll probably be sex robots for the price of 200k.

Intelligent robots are actually impossible (as of now at least).
Because humans can't even discover the source of consciousness till this day. If we can't even figure out how the brain 100% works, how can we possibly make robots with the same brain function of consciousness?
The hard problem of consciousness remains a hugely controversial but unresolved philosophical dilemma for that matter.

The so-called 'intelligent robots' invented in today's age are merely robots running on code and learning algorithms but their cognition is still very limited to straight black and white answers. They're basically just internet chatbots baked in with voice recognition and speech and modelled as humans lol

robots will only ever remain as hogwash dumb sci-fi fiction. feel free call me out 50 years from now. I predict the world will still be mostly as stagnant as it is today

if there's one thing history has shown us, it's that humans can NEVER predict their own future. 100 years ago, people thought today, we'd be in flying cars while still wearing fedoras and black suits while implanting memories into our own brains. But look how damn wrong they were on nearly everything.

Also with the immense amount of fiction dramatising the abuse of robots to the end of humanity, honestly do you think we as humans would actually follow through with such nonsense in reality?

Remember Sophia, the famous female robot? Well, she's still as half-baked and dumb as ever. Also go look at tech news. Most businesses are rather investing into other more functional forms of technology like self-driving cars, flying taxis and space travel instead of some silly intelligent robot. Fictional works have already stoked investors' fears as well that robots will run about uncontrolled

Shadowplay posted...

There's next to no point in owning a console if you have a good gaming PC.

there are lots of console exclusives.

action52 posted...

I mean there are plenty of reasons you might want or need a PC that have nothing to do with gaming. A lot of people need it for work, even.

this. who the hell doesnt have a PC at home these days?

man, I miss Yahoo Answers...

welcome to modern dating, boy

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

I want a ps5 to run games better and faster.

then get a PC bruh

J03can posted...

Fortnite mostly
And cyberpunk
Still trying to find time to start RE3Remake

I laugh at people who list such games.

You know you dont even need a PS5 for those games right? Let's admit it. Games exclusivity (meaning a reason to even get a PS5) is completely null

there's no games for PS5 lol

meanwhile I shall wait for Starfield...that's on Xbox/PC, not PS5. lol

VeggetaX posted...

From what though?

guns. what else.

I think America, I think guns

Another really underrated movie is The Eye (the original HK one, not the shitty American remake).

Such a simple but original premise that allowed for tons of creative scares. The way they did the ghosts made them look so human, which made it hard to tell who was really a ghost and who wasnt

TC, if you loved the Grudge, you'll love Gonjiam Haunted Asylum.

Grudge scared me as a kid but not anymore. And then I watched Gonjiam as an adult and got scared shitless all over again

Questionmarktarius posted...

Idiocracy

that's not a movie. that's a documentary

you'd think the developer for the best-selling video game of all time in the RPG genre should be at least using all that huge wealth to invest into more manpower.

Nope. They didnt expand one bit.

Blo posted...

None, because I respect women and wouldn't demean them by turning them into sex objects to be bought and sold.

https://instagram.com/amyyy.xo__?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

I said 'person', not 'women'. You can post men if you swing that way bruh

@alicasmd

My kind of girl...

Xethuminra posted...

Fantastic Four has a bad rep

Introducing Reed like that in MoM was interesting. They'd made great X-Men characters. If the MCU kicks out a good FFour film, I will be impressed.

The MoM movie was just cameos done utterly wrong. They could afford to kill off those characters because they're just multi-verse versions of the superheroes. They could easily recast different or even the same actors in the next movie playing as yet another alive versions of their multiverse counterparts

HornyLevel posted...

This happens because they get big names for villains and the actors are apprehensive about signing any long contracts with recurring roles, and also cost a shit ton. So it's better to just kill them off in a single movie.

Thats BS
Any actor would KILL to have a long-term contract with Marvel movies. It'd mean a guaranteed succession of cashcow movies they can rely on.

CyricZ posted...

Dude if all you want is for the villain to win, just tune into real life.

not win. a villain is spposed to pose a threat. learn the diff.

The only MCU movie that got close to that was the Incredible Hulk movie. That was before Disney swooped in and turned every Marvel movie thereafter into their trademark happy-ending predictable family nonsense

meralonne posted...

If your assertion is that the Riddler ending up in Arkham and having a chat with Joker wasnt predictable as fuck, then Im not sure what to tell you.

no, my assertion is on the Joker's whole story being played out very unlike what anyone imagined. No one would have expected the flood checkmate plan and even better, I bet almost NO ONE expected Batman would actually fail to save the city in time.

When I got to the flood scene, the only thought going through my head was, "How is ONE guy, completely powerless, like Batman... supposed to save everyone?" It's just so f***ing brilliant. He failed but still emerged with a shining beacon in hand.

People are too used to stupid Marvel poop-tier writing where superheroes always magically get deus ex machina victories. What the hell is so fun about that? Probably the same people watching Sword Art Online and thinking it's some quality writing right there

Nemu posted...

Only real way to have recurring villains is to put them in the background like Thanos, make them incompetent, or make them into anti-heroes like Loki. I guess with Multiverse shenanigans, they can now make more copies of the same character if needed.

Yknow what makes the Batman movies like Nolan's so great? Even though Nolan's villains do get defeated in the end, they pose such a menacing threat, you cant help but second-guess what the ending will truly be like, or more like to say... the dire consequences.

With MCU movies, we never freaking see that at all. Villains are just squabbled down into comedic caricatures of their comic versions while only serving as stepping stones to further overpower the heroes themselves. Now toss in some new celebrity to be cameo feature to promote the next sequel and boom, that's all they need to draw in people .What a joke to cinema MCU movies are.

The only reason to watch their films is when your girlfriend or family members drag you to see them.

like holy hell. Apart from Thanos, every single MCU villain dies or gets defeated immediately in the very same movie they are first introduced. And during the so-called 'climax' battle, well, there's never any damn climax to begin with.

MCU heroes are always just too overpowered or have 2-3 allies with them to jump in ever so conveniently to help them save the day. I kid you not. Every single MCU movie I watched has me wanting to exit the cinema or go to sleep at the final moments of the movie. EVERY single movie follows the exact same stupid predictable plot structure.

The most recent two movies I watched were Batman and Doctor Strange MoM. Needless to say, the difference is so stark. One movie actually had a completely unpredictable ending and actually, a villain win. The other... was merely yet another stupid cashgrab by Marvel relying once more on their celebrity stardom power and branding more than any kind of quality writing.

How do people continue to keep watching Disney's rubbish shit-tier movies?

NoxObscuras posted...

Oh yeah man, it's so dead. Only One AAA game this whole year

AAA games this year:
Dying Light 2
Horizon Forbidden West
Elden Ring
Gran Turismo 7
Ghostwire: Tokyo

out of which, only 1 turned out OK.
and we dont know how many of the rest upcoming will be delayed further

Hayame Zero posted...

Apparently, Dead = "games I don't like" for a lot of people.

It just comes off as general pessimism.

it does because it determines the slate of games to come in the future. If a slew of AAA games keep getting thrashed in sales, then the whole point of big budget investments will die. Investors would rather invest in small indie titles then

I also listen to Japanese songs and the contrast is real.

Most Japanese pop songs I listen to aren't even about romance at all. So it's obviously not hard.

doomcrusader posted...

TC is right. Gaming is in a bad state right now. Stop supporting games with micro transactions.

most AAA games no longer have microtransacitons ever since the fiasco that was Battlefront 2. But still, almost all AAA games we've seen in the past 2-3 years have not been well received by critics and sold poorly (dying light 2, cyberpunk etc...) just to name a few off the top of my head; well not like theres even that many games to begin with

unless the movie song is made for a movie or something, honestly i cant name even a single one song at all that isnt about romance.

multiply that likelihood by 100x if it's sung by a female singer

Is romance the only thing they can ever write about?

How the hell are there still people on GameFAQs of all places that still dont know what triple-A means?

Seriously??

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


they all are triple-A.

Dakimakura posted...

What does AAA stand for

Seriously??

high budget games. equivalent of Hollywood blockbusters

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Maybe we can have Online Player driven Colonization for Towns / Cities?

Instead of depending on Betheseda to do everything, let the player base colonize the game world and make natural Towns / Cities.

Ever heard of the disaster called FO76?

You should realize by now something is very wrong with the AAA game industry when literally the only big game we had this year was Elden Ring and next year, it's only Starfield.

EA seems to have pulled out of AAA games ever since their multiple failures of Battlefield titles. And Ubisoft has probably run out of ideas milking their same old AC titles. Meanwhile their other milked titles like Watch Dogs Legion and Far Cry 6 just went completely under the radar.

At this point game companies are having a hard look at their priorities here. They cant put microtransactions in their games anymore to breakeven on increasingly high expenses, but the same time they cant bank enough to sell big titles on their own.

TheGoldenEel posted...

It was a bummer to me how bland and generic the environments they showed in the trailer looked, for sure

space as a setting, you could literally do anything and most of what they showed was gray rock

i was hoping something more akin to a big budget outer worlds

well you have to keep in mind Starfield's setting is more primitive. It takes place just a while after humans have discovered space. Also it's a lot more realistic given planets out there IRL really are that barren and lifeless

Nemu posted...

Its probably all just mod bait. More planets means more spaces to mod means more longevity means more long term sales like Skyrim. Whether it will work is another question. I feel like any good will towards the Bethesda launch jank is dwindling as years and releases go by.

But why do they even need the planets for? Modders can just add their own planets entirely to make. This whole procedural generation thing is f***ing stupid and sounds like another stupid idea from Todd Howard so he can boast about it in his presentations. Like when he said, 'oh you can go to that mountain' during the Skyrim presentaiton but failed to say the mountain has been shrunk 100x in size compared to a real mountain

Zikten posted...

I was initially intrigued by Starfield when we knew barely anything about it. Now that details are coming out, im losing interest. It will probably suck

I'm only interested in the game because well, it's Bethesda and I have high hopes they will make a substantial city this time. Not cluster some 10-15 houses together and call it a 'city' like they did in Skyrim.

Seeing the gameplay trailer, I dont really have high hopes. Just look at the environment. It's such a far cry from Bethesda's Fallout and Elder Scrolls.

Planets are naturally going to be very very empty and deserted planes, but this also means the game simply wont be fun when we get to traversed these planets. Who cares if there's 1000 planets if the biomes are all just going to be same over entire stretches of each planet?

I really really dont want this game to suck, but it does indeed give me No Man's Sky vibes. There's a reason why sci-fi space games always tend to focus on interior settings or big building locations on planets, not the planet's environment itself. Because most planets in space are really just boring deserts.

Like just look at Mars. Who wanna walk miles and miles across completely empty barren wastelands?

Best Bethesda can do is focus most of the game take place in the major cities instead. I really can't give two s***ts about travelling to another random planet in the galaxy with no life where I spend hours burning down minerals.

party_animal07 posted...

There's a show about this actually. I believe she had some kind of disorder that caused her to stop growing and she didn't age past 5 or 6.

She had problems dating and said she only got approached or matched on dating sites with creepy guys. Like no shit. It sucks, but any guy wanting to date her is probably a pedo.

wait are you talking about this Korean gal or the one posted right below yours?

party_animal07 posted...

https://nypost.com/2021/12/17/im-22-stuck-in-the-body-of-an-8-year-old-only-creeps-want-to-date-me/amp/

The Rogue Cobra posted...

She's gotta be like 5' even, if not shorter like 4'8" or something. No way in hell she can pull off being a convincing preschooler. Then again maybe that's not the point.

If you take a look at her photos, she's REALLY REALLY short. An avg asian girl is only like 160cm or so. She stands among her peers like she's 20cm shorter

Chadwick69 posted...

Dating a girl like that would pretty much tell the world you're a pedo

I'm pretty sure she's every pedo's wet dream.

Now they can be with an underaged-looking girl that isnt actually underaged!

Guide posted...

Makeup can make you look younger. Shocking.

edit: I forgot plastic surgery.

Bruh. She's hardly wearing makeup. And makeup doesnt change your very facial structure

DoctorPiranha3 posted...

And you know this why?

cos I read it in the news duh?