Lurker > foolm0r0n

Almost met the gfwob...
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

@SmartMuffin going to woosters now
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Minor fixes:
1. Smaller area like people have said
2. Far more cover in that smaller area... being forced through a field and sniped is so dumb
3. More frequent cars would help with 1 and 2 as well, but the cars need to not be totally shit death machines
4. More health packs so small early damage doesn't screw you so hard through the rest of the game

KEY FIX: Reduce randomness of circles. The circle nearly single-handedly decides the winners anytime after the early game. There are great and fair choices to make during the boring initial gearing phase, but after that it's all massive RNG due to the circle. Make it so you can place beacons or complete an objective or something to influence where the circle will end up, so there's some actual strategy in the mid-game and some investment you can make to protect yourself for the end-game. Fortnite's building is a great example of mid-game investment for late game, but it's way too complicated and is still mostly RNG (though I think they added a new mode that is less RNG). PUBG should be able to figure out an RNG-dampening thing like that but which maintains its simplicity vs Fortnite.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

The most intensely unique person I've met on the internet or in real life. He's part of what made me stay on b8, because he confirms that this place is truly strange and unique, and it's not just a biased perception based on my years of familiarity. I just wish he was able to attain more success in his life (not sure what he's been up to lately so maybe he has?)
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Women fingers aren't strong enough to pull a gun trigger
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

What do nazis have to do with jewish refugees?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

Honestly tho, I'm sure what he's really asking is not "What is the best policy for the nation?" but rather "What should I do (to make myself look good politically)?" He wants to know if there's some token gun control policy he can support that would placate the left while not enraging the right. There isn't, but that's almost certainly what he's hoping someone will tell him about...

How is this not super lame and criticizable though?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

I live in midtown, where are you going - if its really really close I might stop by briefly?

Forgot about this but it didn't work out too well anyways
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Going to stereo live tonight, pre-gaming with girls near midtown if you want to join
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Can't arrest someone for following orders!
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Ok so my argument is not statistical. My argument is that in any case, saying you love someone that early is inferior to the alternative choice of waiting a bit.

It worked out for you, but you still fucked up. It would've been better and safer if you didn't do that. You can't say that it was a good idea just because the end result was good for you.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

White nationalists have been trying to co opt Ron Paul since the 70s
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Punnyz posted...

he seems like a decent dude but since he started making web games for Taco Bell gift cards hes become pretty arrogant at times

So true actually
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

turbopuns2 posted...

foolmo I don't think that works as a blanket statement like that

It does. Your single data point doesn't discredit the general advice.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Ok so you told her you love her before you even started dating

That is definitely not a good way to do things
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Oh on like Wednesday I think
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I'm about to take off in the plane from Dallas
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

In like an hour
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

So where should we go? Also are you near Stereo Live?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

Car accidents kill far more people and nobody has a "solution" for that, really, aside from "it's worth it to have cars."

Self driving cars

It would reduce deaths to the level of airplanes today
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

oh apparently foolmo is coming to houston but NOT gonna hang out with me

whatevs!

I literally asked you what bars/clubs we should go out to
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SantaRPidgey posted...

Oh my God can you imagine how much obesity would skyrocket if the government actually decided on people's nutrition?

You mean like how it did actually skyrocket when the government decided people's nutrition?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

https://medium.com/michelle-chan/a-modest-proposal-concerning-how-best-to-combat-sexual-harassment-6f4acfdc7a34

better look at this one quick, as its almost certainly going to be removed soon...

This is like Time Cube level psychosis
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Vlado posted...

For some 14 years, I was part of a community obsessing over video game character polls on the internet. Kinda embarrassing.

Yeah that's way worse than gamergate
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

just according to keikaku

I totally wasn't just projecting or anything
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

foolm0r0n posted...

talk more

---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

KH2
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

nerd with a very large penis
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Then the obvious solution here is shooterless guns
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

INCEPTlON posted...

Haha, we finally have a differing opinion. I was hoping for a creepy game with terrifying finale. I appreciate what they were going for with the twist, but I was just hoping for some more scares.

The game was made exactly for someone like you...
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Is there actual evidence to suggest the danger of drunk people being more reckless to avoid DUI check points is significant compared to the amount of people the law is discouraging from driving drunk?

http://blog.driversed.com/driving-under-the-influence-do-strict-dui-laws-really-work/

Looks like DUI strictness can kinda be correlated with fewer drunk accidents, but also not really, and also there are other factors that play bigger roles in the analysis.

Anyways the point is that something so basic and obvious as a law against drunk driving isn't as clear cut as it might seem, when the goal is to actually prevent car accidents. The law is never and should never be the end goal.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Disarming the police and dismantling the active military is not a realistic solution lmfao

Sure but making steps in that direction is totally doable and it's already a reasonably popular idea
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Dark Young Link posted...

This kind of sounds like "Why have laws when criminals aren't going to follow them?"...

Yes, which is an important question you need to have an answer to or else you're just writing shit down on a paper (that the cops go out and point guns at people for using millions of your dollars) so you can sleep better at night
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

KamikazePotato posted...

From what I've personally researched, most of studies done that I've seen come to the conclusion that stricter gun regulations save lives

Most that I've seen say it goes either way. Data is fungible like that. I haven't researched it deeply enough myself to be confident in the truth.

But if we ARE talking about a serious, data-based, scientific solution to gun violence in the US, then cool. When I entered this topic, and every other topic the last few years after a shooting, that was absolutely not the case. It's always just impulsive anti-data nonsense that has no regard for the undeniable value of the 2nd amendment, which is not only unacceptable but can't even be implemented IRL, so it's literally just blowing hot air online.

Let's get to an actually effective scientific solution that is compatible with the 2nd amendment (yes it's possible, I described one possible solution earlier).
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

HashtagSEP posted...

Could you explain how those make things worse? I'm legit curious.

I remember a study a while ago about higher speed limits reducing crashes overall since it made people more cautious, and in general people drove whatever speed they felt safe with anyways. And then for lower speed limits, the deciding factor was stuff like consistency so if it's going from 35 to 45 to 35 etc (i.e. speed traps) that caused a lot more accidents than a plain higher limit.

For drunk driving stuff, it punishes being caught while drunk driving, which encourages reckless behavior to avoid being caught. The checkpoints are shoes-off-at-airport style security theater.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

"Sorry I killed you but I had good intentions so you should thank me!"
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Ashethan posted...

Ahh yes, the anachro-libertarian approach. "All laws are useless if they don't completely get rid of the problem!" The whole idea behind "We don't need laws!"

Ah yes, the statist approach. "This causes a measured increase in death and destruction but hey, it's better than doing nothing right???"
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Ashethan posted...

Are you saying seat belts and speed limits don't limit fatalities in automobile accidents?

No, seat belts help, statistically/scientifically. Speed limits, DUI checkpoints, drunk driving laws, taking shoes off your shoes and throwing away your shampoo bottles, getting xrayed - these do not and often they make the problem worse.

Notice how you didn't mention seat belts in your original post. You had to go and find an example of a regulation that DID actually help because you realized the ones you picked were worthless. (I could mention how seat belts were becoming more popular due to their safety far before any regulations but whatever.)

Imagine which other regulations you attribute to the betterment of society are actually useless and even doing more harm than good? Is it possible that your gun regulations might fall into this category, sounding nice but making the problem worse?

If you get your dream gun control in place, and more kids end up getting shot, what will you do? It's important, because it WILL happen. That's what my question in 389 is all about.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Back to this, what's your reasoning behind this?

There will still be shootings after the ban. Nowhere has been able to completely get rid of them. So what will you want to do about it then?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Ashethan posted...

I'd like to know how you became omniscient and suddenly know new regulations wouldn't help

I don't

But you literally listed 2 regulations that don't help at all for their problems, as examples of what we need to do with gun regulations. Explain how your gun regulations will be less useless (and in fact harmful) to the original problem than your examples, and then we can talk.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

VintageGin posted...

So is your solution just to maintain the status quo?

Not sure why you quoted my post and didn't answer anything in it.

But I posted a big topic about my solution a few months ago though: tl;dr disarm the cops and make the military reserve-only. Is that status quo?

Remember, you're not some radical brave activist for crying about gun regulations. You're just some stooge who thinks taking off our shoes at the airport actually stops terrorism.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Umbreon posted...

Though I feel foolmo is using the Perfect Solution fallacy.

There's a difference between an imperfect solution and something that literally has no effect at best and actually correlates with worse results at worse. Are you saying that you DO care about a solution that actually helps? Not just one that makes you feel better?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Ashethan posted...

Much like we do with cars to prevent drunk drivers, and reduce fatalities. Or how we increased airport security after 9/11 to prevent hijackings.

So you're okay with the fact that these regulations don't help at all?

You just want to sleep better at night?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Nelson_Mandela posted...

There is something to be said about superficial solutions that have a psychological benefit for a large number of people in society (as long as the solutions do not infringe on anyone's rights).

Of course, they are very valuable to people who just want to get on in their lives

But it's counterproductive to the actual problem of dead kids
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

The fundamental question is this: after we successfully ban all civilian gun ownership, when shootings still happen, what will you do?

Say "welp, we tried!" and just accept it? Add more regulations? Become Batman?

If you haven't even thought about this question, you are absolutely unqualified to say another word on this topic.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the least we can do is regulate guns at least as much as we regulate cars, and I don't think that's too ridiculous, unless you're one of the libertarian types who thinks driver's licenses are impugning our god-given rights somehow

Anyone can buy any car they want. You only need a license and plate number to drive it on public roads. Guns already have far stricter regulations on bringing them out in public, and even in private they ALL have serial numbers.

So good news, the gun problem is solved!!!

Except just like driver's licenses don't prevent 600+ kids killed per year who you don't give a shit about ( https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html ) neither do gun licenses.

BowserCuffs posted...

I mean, when a guy brought enough liquids onto a plane to create a bomb, what did we do? Did we oppose regulation because we should have the right to bring whatever liquids we want onto a plane? Nope! We regulated the shit out of it to prevent any more bombings!

We also made everyone take off their shoes after 1 person snuck a shoe bomb in once! And no one made a shoe bomb ever again! It's so obvious that these regulations work.

And yet after all that, 9/11 happened, the worst aviation attack in US history. This proves that banning shoes and shampoo CAUSES more terrorism! But don't worry, now we x-ray everyone who goes on a flight (unless you pay $80 to skip it, because obviously having $80 means you're not a terrorist). It won't everrrrrrrrr happen again!!!

I don't get why people get so powerfully braindead and chasing easy short cuts when solving a problem like this. It's god damn child murder and terrorism, why not spend 5 seconds thinking about what you're saying? Do you really care so little about the actual problem?

You will take literally the first superficial solution that makes you sleep better at night, and that's it. You don't care about actual solutions or statistics or logic. It's so stupid and directly destructive to society.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

trdl23 posted...

Can you explain this? I don't see it.

https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist

Modern stuff can be more subtle, like "stricter" background checks giving gun sellers subjective right to deny arms to anyone they want. Criminal checks allowing any cop to do the same. Mental health checks allowing any doctor to do the same. Fees and licenses preventing those without money or legal access from getting a gun. And so on.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

The anti-gun movement has been specifically designed to be anti-minority for that reason
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

GuessMyUserName posted...

as a white person this question baffles me to no end

makes sense
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4