Lurker > StealThisSheen

Mac Arrowny posted...

Why not give everyone underscores and make them appear as spaces?

Likely because certain systems simply aren't coded to handle spaces at all , and it's probably more cost efficient to just do away with spaces than it is to update said code. Gamefaqs.com probably isn't something high up on the cost priority list.

And to be clear what I mean by "legacy" code, it usually means code that hasn't been updated in awhile, or has been written by somebody else entirely that is no longer there, and thus isn't entirely easy to even understand, let alone change/update. Could also mean code that there just isn't enough value in taking the time to update, plain and simple, and thus it's left to run as is.

TomNook posted...

I like how they call it a different username just because you have spaces. I don't think that word means that.

No, it literally is. It means some of the systems haven't been coded to be able to handle spaces, so instead of just Space Name Here, you also have Space_Name_Here in the other system/s. Thus, you technically have two usernames.

Now, why that even came to exist as an issue, who knows. Spaces shouldn't be difficult to code around. Inconvenient? Sure, but not difficult. My guess is there's a bunch of legacy code being dealt with.

Bulbasaur

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

I don't understand the disconnect so many people have with understanding the concept of annual income versus net worth. $2 million net worth for someone who is retired is a pension, a nice house and some investments. It's actually fairly modest, the average net worth of a 65+ American is around $1.2 million

You realize the problem with using the average, right

The median is only $228k.

$2 million is not "modest" for the vast majority.

TheRock1525 posted...

Did not your forget about the powerhouse that is Sonic Forces: Speed Battle?

Hey, he's technically not in that yet! He's "coming soon."

Like I'd ever forget Sonic Forces: Speed Battle.

swirIdude posted...

And yet he's in several spinoff games.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Omega? E-102 is only playable in Adventure 1 and Shuffle. Anything else he's a cameo at best.

Maniac64 posted...

Didn't Paul casually punch through a brick wall in his Tekken 1 ending? That seems above peak human.

Nah, that's a pretty common "peak human" thing in martial arts media. Obviously such thing is above what a normal human can do, but for fictional humans, it's nothing all that special. It's also pretty much the highest feat it ever shows him do.

EDIT: I should clarify. When I say "peak human," I mean that it's about the peak of what human characters in that universe and similar universes can achieve without seeming supernatural or anything, and thus it means there's also nothing to suggest they'd ever be able to go beyond such limits very far at all. There's a more quantifiable ceiling, there.

Yeah, Hillary herself said she's not running, so anybody trying to push it is just looking to cause strife.

EDIT: Which I see is being pushed by Red Sox. Have better control, please, everybody.

I think both "Ms. Marvel is getting review bombed because it stars brown people" and also "I don't really relate to Ms. Marvel" can exist.

DK for sure. Kuma is strong, but his best feats are against humans that are typically not much higher than peak human. Heihachi is much, much better than Kuma, for instance. Kuma's rival is Paul, who is about as peak human as it gets, but he's still human.

And I say this as a Tekken fanboy.

Yeah, while we don't know how they weigh them for the actual average score, they do show the raw numbers of scores, which is where you can tell when bombing is occurring. And whenever you see blatant bombing (thousands of 1s), you can also likely bet there are people purposely giving other low scores to try to circumvent the system, thus it's just not reliable.

Oh, you mean they don't disclose how their weighted system works. While that's true, it still all comes from user scores, and the charts show when obvious review bombing occurs. They don't seem to try to stop it, as it was happening to Lightyear before it was even released.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it's possible, though i don't think IMDb has ever fully explained how the scores are generated.

Yes it does, unless I'm looking somewhere else? It's user ratings.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10857164/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Lightyear was also review bombed.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10298810/ratings/

Mr Lasastryke posted...

in response to your comments on the TV shows (haven't seen MoM yet and i'm avoiding spoilers for it): aside from your view on wandavision (which i really liked), i pretty much agree with your non-positive opinions. falcon & winter soldier was meh and what if was so uneven that i'm still not sure if it was a good show overall (it probably wasn't, really).

haven't seen ms. marvel yet but the positive reception seems to just be a board 8 thing; it has a 6.2 on IMDb right now. that's... actually pretty terrible, considering how generous IMDb scores are. for comparison's sake, the phantom menace has a 6.5.

Aren't IMDb scores just user scores, susceptible to being review bombed like anything else? Which, given that 28.5% of the scores are 1s, is probably happening here.

xp1337 posted...

This was - somehow - actually a thing.

Maybe I'm putting the wrong words into google because getting the raw polling data and not just articles alluding to it (without links!) is apparently an ordeal but polling absolutely showed that more people viewed Trump as moderate than Clinton in 2016. After about 10 minutes of looking around the best I got in terms of raw data was a May 2016 poll showing 27% thought Trump was moderate compared to 25% who thought Clinton was moderate and a ton of articles both 2016 postmortem and 2020 discussion talking about it (and how in 2020 Trump had lost this perception in a massive way especially against Biden)

After some quick Googling, I found one from October 2016 that saw 25% who saw Clinton as moderate vs. 22% for Trump, so they were close, fair enough.

Like, basically, there is no implication that Wanda doesn't know she's enslaving people. It's moreso basically... She has convinced herself that, since she has created this fantasy world that SHE is happy in, they are also happy in it, even if against their will. And then when it is made clear "No, you are literally enslaving these people and ignoring their feelings for your own," she starts to come to terms with it... Until she sees her family, and literally starts to put the hex back up because, again, she's thinking about herself over them. She's incredibly selfish throughout almost the entire series.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

I'll have to rewatch the last episode but I am pretty confident I remember her not realizing she was doing that and then struggled with deciding to let them go or not because it was basically a choice between her family and strangers

The last episode is less about her not realizing she's doing it, and more with facing the reality of just how bad what she's doing actually is, and yet she's still struggling with whether or not she should stop doing it because she's attached to her family. At the least, they intended to imply she knew she was doing it, since there was a big debate after the finale about whether she got let off easy over it or not, which the director weighed in on.

UltimaterializerX posted...

For the 58th time, Wanda is not a villain until she starts reading the Darkhold, aka the actual villain.

I mean no shade here but you guys sound similar to the folks who dont understand that the ring of power is the actual villain in LOTR. Its practically a direct comparison/homage.

Wanda was knowingly holding people against their will, and she expelled anybody that tried to come in and help them. That is pretty villainous, dude. The director even acknowledges she's pretty much a villain. There's not really any debate about this, that was their intention.

Yeah, I always felt that even at the end of WandaVision, she's still a villain. She never actually appeared to show any remorse for what she did in the series.

Yeah, I'm not sure "Trump is the moderate one" is the takeaway there at all. Clinton just kinda uniquely pushed leftist voters away, it's not indicative of any movement.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/noliewithbtc/status/1538217194659667968?s=21&t=Kuomjvo7SrBoQFFAQiWuCw

Related to the topic at hand, lol

This is hilarious for so many sad reasons.

FFDragon posted...

You mean all of that goes out the window in the post-credits scene of Wandavision. She was fine until she realized she could still get to her kids

Yeah, this. The post-credits scene makes it all make sense. And the post-credits scene needs the whole series to work. Hence why the series in general is important.

Actually, I guess I can answer this a little bit better.

When I'm aiming to shape my beard/stubble and have areas that ARE clean shaven, I use a foil to touch up those spots.

I think the thing with WandaVision is that it feels pretty important to know why she's so unhinged, what she's been doing, and why she's been doing it. The movie would "make sense" on the surface without it, but you're missing a lot of key details that will probably pop up later.

So I do agree it's not 100% required to understand MoM on a surface level, but you'd be missing a looot of context that will probably come up later.

It's like watching a sport with only the knowledge of "they're trying to score points." You can understand it and enjoy it as is, but you're not gonna know the rules, which may become super important at certain times.

Kenri posted...

I dunno, I feel like this isn't true at all? At least for the DNC, """"moderates"""" win constantly in all but the most progressive areas. And since when are GOP candidates elected based on their agenda? It's like the writer thinks nothing has changed since 2006.

Probably depends what their definition of "agenda" is. Is MAGA/America First considered an "agenda," even though it doesn't actually stand for anything tangible?

It's completely wrong when it comes to the DNC, atleast.

I don't really like going completely clean shaven/too near it, so I just use a beard trimmer, and, if I feel like it, go to the lowest setting so I still have a little stubble left.

Streets of Rage 4 was great. This is great.

I'd love to see an actual good Final Fight sequel or reboot.

Yeah, WandaVision seems pretty important. What If not at all.

Crescent-Moon posted...

Where can the story go from here?

The wording makes it sound like a reboot.

"Build back better" would have worked if they didn't give concessions literally every time it'd look like they'd get pushback. This idea that "We'll be saved by the responsible Republicans crossing over" is hilariously sad.

It basically turned into

"Build back better."
"no."
"...Build back adequate?"
"no."
"...Build back arguably decent?"
"maybe."

Democrats are bitches.

Yeah, I'm not sure I get the hate against Legal Eagle. He's "biased," but only in the way any commentator is when they're doing it for entertainment value moreso than legal critique. This is an area I've gotta agree with Tony on.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

There are two more posts going Well it IS suspicious. Motherfucker if no one was open to the possibility they would have said so, we had 5 wishy-washy posters literally entertaining the idea, no one was willing to commit because it IS a fucking insane thing, but more people considered it than not. (Ironically you WERE the most against it, which is probably why youre misremembering, you pointed out she seems to just blows her nose weird.)

The only reason people even remotely "entertained" the idea was because she had been doing crazy shit all trial. She was literally caught on camera pretending to take notes with her pen not even touching the paper, then turning to show and discuss her non-existent notes with her team.

Nobody actually thought there was any chance in hell she actually did it. Those posts were nothing more than amused "Look, obviously not, but she's been acting like a lunatic all trial, so this just looks hilarious." But then you became absolutely obsessed with people for even being amused by the idea.

What a weird hill to die on, especially when paired with "Celebrity gossip Youtuber making money off videos about Heard SOOOO WEEEEEEEIRD!"

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yes because its weird as hell

It's celebrity gossip. That has existed forever. Is it really weird as hell when the earnings to effort ratio for such videos is probably insane? The videos are literally just him talking over a few screenshots. It's not like the dude's selling his own farts. He's making low effort celebrity gossip videos. This seems pretty normal, all things considered.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This is why this topic is so wild.

Dude made like 600 videos about this case and has the nerve to call someone else obsessed. Its a genuinely funny dunk, you guys dont have to defend him because you think Amber Heard is the devil lol.

One is burying herself in a deeper and deeper hole with her obsession, and one is making easy money off of clickbait videos because of the former. Not sure we agree on which direction this dunk goes, is all.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/mutantfate/status/1537504564102021121?s=21&t=-H0zTojTWZNspO7SnWGBYQ

Doesn't that just make the Youtube guy look smart since he's probably making bank off of low effort clickbait videos that he's only able to make because of how Amber Heard herself is acting?

I think my argument would have been better stated if, instead of arguing that he, himself, doesn't have charisma, which I accept is incorrect, I should have said that the "charisma" of the Trumpism movement in general has outgrown and surpassed him, and is now its own beast regardless of what charisma he currently has or does not have, and can very much live on without him/with somebody else as the figurehead. I was basically trying to say that the message existed before him, and will live on without him, even though he gave it new life and audience. I shouldn't have said he doesn't have charisma, because he obviously helped feed said message.

Jakyl25 posted...

Heres how you know Trump has charisma:

Even people who hate everything he says continue to talk about him. He drives record numbers of anti-votes at the same time that he draws record numbers of supportive votes.

I also dont understand his charisma, because the circular structure of the way he speaks gives me aneurisms, but clearly to a lot of people it captivates.

Trumpism surviving beyond Trump will be due to the machine they built around him to prop up the message he glommed onto which was never really his in the first place

I can agree with all of this, actually, since I can admit he probably does have a charisma that just doesn't make logical sense to me and I'd honestly rather just stop trying to figure it out, but also touches on my point that I don't think "Trumpism" is actually dependent on Trump himself.

KamikazePotato posted...

Under this logic, any leader of a movement whose movement continues after they die/leave was replaceable. That's not how it works. Some people are so charismatic, so influential, that the mark they made continues after they're gone. Would you say that Martin Luther King Jr wasn't charismatic because the Civil Rights Movement continued after he died?

(If that comparison offends you, well, a lot of the right basically sees Trump as a civil rights leader of sorts)

I don't believe that comparison works because I don't believe Trump will be revered when he's done. I literally think they're going to move on to the next one.

Basically, I think MAGA/America First is bigger than Trump. He was the right person at the right time, but I think they'll be more than willing to move on without a second thought when it's time, and he's not going to become some MLK-esque figure at all. I think he lives in the moment and the moment alone, honestly. Trump gets credit for kicking it off, sure, but I think he pretty much gets forgotten as soon as the next "Chosen One" is chosen. I think Trump thinks this, too, which is why he's so terrified to lose.

KamikazePotato posted...

and if you don't understand the how and why, you're going to be blindsided the next time it happens.

What? My entire argument is that it's going to happen again. And again. And again. Because it's not just about Trump. If Trump is such a unique, charismatic individual, then it'd be more likely the movement would die with him. I don't think that at all. I think it continues with or without him, which is my entire point in thinking he's not as special as people seem to think he is. When Trump's one, I fully believe he will be replaced with the next "chosen one," and the MAGA/AF movement won't die out at all.

Paratroopa1 posted...

I seriously cannot believe you actually think that Donald Trump is just a random replacement-level guy

Do you really think, if Trump was out of the picture, whether because he croaked tomorrow, or got another four years and was done, that the MAGA/America First people would just go "Welp, guess we'll return to our hobbies now," instead of just coalescing around the next one?

Man, I hope so.

I'll just agree to disagree overall.

I think it's especially why we're so fucked, because even after Trump is out of the picture, the same people will just rally around the next "Trump" in the exact same way. It's why "MAGA" and "America First" is so popular, anybody will be able to pick it up afterwards and get the same treatment, and we'll be fucked for years because Democrats suck at combating it.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Youre gonna argue that its Joe fucking Biden because he got more votes?

I mean, that was the metric KP used in what Kenri quoted when he first asked the question, so that's what I responded to.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Youve got your order of operations completely out of whack.

The reason they occasionally boo Trump when hes riffing is literally because the thing they want to hear is something he already told them.

The message IS Trump. There are a million other things he riffed into existence that they will literally, say, storm a Capitol over.

Maybe you view people more positively than me, but I don't think most of the people that like Trump had to be convinced on what they want to hear by him at all. He was just the first to openly be willing to say it, which, to be fair, is a form of charisma. I'm not saying he's utterly devoid of the stuff, just not special.

KamikazePotato posted...

Trump has swayed a TON of middle-ground folk to the GOP. Mostly people that usually voted Republican regardless, but their previously...I'll say 30% of voting Democratic is now 0.

And yet Hillary and Biden swayed more, apparently, because they won the popular vote. I think Kenri's question was a good one: Do you think Hillary and Biden are more charismatic than Trump, if such a big part of it is getting people to vote for you?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Your entire case that Trump isnt charismatic is that when hes riffing he tells the crowd exactly what they want to hear?

If you're at the mercy of the crowd as blatantly as he is, then I don't think you're very charismatic, no. Somebody truly charismatic would keep a crowd even if they said and continued to say something they didn't like, they wouldn't immediately go "oh my bad you guys right." If you can only keep them by saying the right things, I feel they're devoted to the message, not you.

Paratroopa1 posted...

He's already done these things and it never happened.

No he hasn't. He's said it, they booed him, and he immediately went back on it.

"2+2=5"
"WHOO! DAMN RIGHT IT'S 5!"
"But it might be 4."
"BOOOOO, BOO THIS MAN."
"It's up to you. Many people say it's 5. Good people. I personally believe it's 5."

This is what he does every single time.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

But youre wrong, they literally havent turned on Trump ever.

Them booing for 5 seconds while he opines about the vaccine is not turning on him, because immediately after saying something antithetical to the core of their being he can just say a halfhearted well its your choice and boom, theyre back in the palm of his hand cheering and clapping.

...Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying? I think it's the messaging, not the man. They boo the man if he speaks the wrong message, and he has to backtrack to the correct one. We've literally never seen what would happen if he DIDN'T backpedal to the correct messaging, because he always does at the mercy of the crowd.

Paratroopa1 posted...

Getting a room of people to cheer for you is definitely not what I mean because literally anyone can do that. Getting people obsessed with you to the point of seeking you out and wanting to attend events where they can cheer for you? That's charisma, and believe me, there is a marked difference between peoples' feelings for someone like Trump and someone like Cruz

See, I think this is where we disagree. I don't feel the loyalty/devotion to Trump is all that special or unique at all, partly because they've shown such a willingness to turn on him already as soon as he steps out of line with what they expect of him, and partly because we've seen many others like him get similar reactions. Trump's is "special" in that he was the President, and he's clearly been chosen to run again. Were it Cruz that became President and did the exact same thing, I'd bet money Cruz would be in the exact same place Trump is right now. Basically, I think Trump is 100% replaceable. It's the messaging, not Trump. Maybe I'm wrong.

Like, if Trump did start pushing vaccines, and touting common sense gun reform, and even the like, I think they dump his ass cold turkey and move on to Cruz, DeSantis, or whoever takes the mantle.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I honestly cant believe people are arguing this.

He is objectively charismatic lol. Just because youre immune to his charms doesnt make it untrue.

...I mean, if so many people are "immune to his charm," wouldn't that suggest he's not as charming as you think? I'm totally lost by this argument.

It's like walking into a room of football fans and saying "Go football!" You're not charismatic if they cheer. You'd be charismatic if you walked into a room of soccer fans and got them to chant "Go American football!" with you.

By all means, by the definition you guys appear to be using, I guess he is charismatic. I just absolutely don't agree with the definition.