Rad. I had crushed through the first two seasons when Amazon removed the show, and I’ve not yet gone back and finish it out. This might spur me a ways.

Idle speculation: I wonder if the fact that this poll was conducted by PBS/NPR has anything to do with the results. Someone who is cheering MAGA on probably won’t speak with those organizations for fear of catching the lib.

Nothing to be done for it.

I have not yet seen the sequel, but I might if I can find a good matinee deal or something. This makes me feel ancient, but I remember when a ticket was like $5 if the showtime was before 5 pm. Sadly, that seems to have gone the way of the $5 footling.

Beekeeper is one of the best surprises I’ve had in a long time. I was looking for something new, but sorta familiar, to watch and gave it a shot on streaming, pretty much sight unseen. I thought it was just Statham.trying to cut in on that John Wick money. Which, it sorta was, but man, that script just kept out doing itself with every expansion in scope / stakes. By the time they “reveal” who the kid’s mom is, I was so on board their ride.

I wish Statham had brought something to the role other than stoic badass. Maybe it would have been too much at that point, but I kinda wanted an actor who could match the script in brazen buffoonery. Maybe then they could have cut the FBI agents’ scenes and focused more on him. I practically snoozed through that whole B plot.

It’s a mixed bag tbh. I think the first one is overlong and less clever than it thinks it is. The action is competent, but not substantively better than a good direct to video shoot em up, and there’s just so much dead space between these sequences it’s almost not worth it.

That being said, i’d rank it above Jason Statham’s A Working Man, but below Jason Statham’s The Beekeeper. Idk if that helps you at all, but I think it’s indicative of the mode this movie is trying to operate in.

Post your shit, don’t be excessive. If it gets deleted for self promo in one community, there’s several alternatives. If it gets deleted in every community, reassess your messaging lol.

This platform requires OC to survive, or else we’re just a mirror for other sites. Deleting OC because it comes from the Creator seems short-sighted, but I’m also not a mod. So, ymmv.

I feel like, if you are categorically incapable of coming up with something nice to say about someone’s hat with a degree of sincerity necessary to make it through that one-off interaction, then one of two things is true: either you’re the wrong person to be involving themselves, or the hat is so horrendous, the kind thing to do would actually be insulting them so they never wear it again. My money is on the former tho lol

Okay? Again, who are you serving by choosing this specific forum to shout that messaging? I know you aren’t OP, so consider that the royal “you”.

It’s just tiresome is all, and I’m on the “boo, capitalism” side of things. It’s like the folks who turn every thread tangentially related to Microsoft into a Linux advertisement. Or the involuntary ejaculation of a vegetarian when the subject of diet comes up. Like, yes, these folks are probably correct about the things they are saying; you’re never going to be wrong to consider the angle being worked by a corp. However, it’s infantilizing to suggest that people are unaware that a corporation wants their money. That’s a given, and without additional commentary, it’s a positively useless statement that only serves to make people tune out the messaging, even in contexts where it IS desirable to bring it up (such as when a company is doing shady shit in pursuit of your money). Releasing a mediocre graphical remaster of a title that people have nostalgia for hardly qualifies as “shady shit” in my book. Lazy, sure, but not shady.

Meanwhile, I loathe in-article links to the store page which are disguised as links to other, earlier coverage on the subject the article is discussing. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Yeah I played a lot of vanilla and lightly modded RW, but had moved on to other things by the time the expansions were coming out. I do need to get back into it, but, alas, the backlog. She grows.

Brb reinstalling Rimworld to do a quick experiment and find out if this is actually accurate to the mechanics.

Agreed. It’s why I have all of Kobold Press’s supplemental monster books. Variety is the spice of life, and I’m constantly trying to find ways to make combat more engaging than just slugging it out with my players. Quirky stat blocks help me come up with scenarios.

Yes, however, to appease the pedants out there, saying Gygax and Arneson and the rest of the Geneva Lake crew “grew up on” DnD is a bit of a misnomer. They didn’t grow up on it, they invented it, and they were well into adulthood at the time.

Man, the before and after shading is such a stark difference! This looks great!

Interesting! Based on the headline I thought this was maybe like a 2d version of The Guild games, but this appears to learn closer to something like Recettear, maybe?

Boy, I knew Alan Moore has some strong opinions, but this seems beyond the pale.

There’s less of a difference than you believe there to be. In principle, you’ve said the biker that rides without a helmet has proven themselves too dumb to live. You state that you believe we should allow more stupid people die, because our society has A) limited resources and B) removed or lessened the natural filter (risk of death) that accompanies stupid activity. You state that this has led to a situation where stupid people are procreating and the stupid offspring of stupid people are showing up in ERs, demonstrating new and heretofore unseen misunderstandings of physics. If we let more stupid people die, hopefully some of them will not have bred yet, and we, as society, can course correct back to nature, where stupid critters tend to die more frequently than intelligent critters (which is a huge assumption in and of itself).

To be clear, despite my facetious comment earlier, I don’t actually think you’re a Nazi, or a racist, or any of the other things that proponents of this pseudoscience were back in the day. The tricky thing about eugenics is that, devoid of context, it sounds pretty fucking good. And, despite no one using the term anymore (thanks, Hitler), there are absolutely eugenics advocates out there today, and many of them aren’t even necessarily bad people! A few years back, FDA approved gene therapy treatments for folks afflicted by sickle cell anemia. This is, essentially, eugenics in action, and, other than the most die-hard slippery slopers, you’ve not got folks distributing torches and pitchforks because of some light genetic editing, especially when the tech has allowed eugenicists to bypass the most ornery methods of gene manipulation that previous advocates used: namely sterilization of certain populations.

So, I get it. You’re not advocating preemptive death camps for idiots, or a sterilization device on motorcycle fuel tanks if you start moving without a helmet on. Therefore, you don’t feel like your argument is based on eugenics. However, it is, and you can either become comfortable with that notion, or you can reexamine your line of thought and come up with a different hypothesis. Neither option is any better or worse than the other.

As an aside, to continue using your asshole biker example, there are tertiary benefits to attempting to save their life to best of our society’s ability, if you’re looking for silver linings. Skills practice in a “live-fire” environment for the folks trying to save him, for one. Sure, maybe, in your estimation, this biker didn’t deserve all the effort to save him, but maybe the sweet old lady with a TBI the week following does deserve to live, and the surgical team noted some process improvements during their work on the asshole earlier.

Congratulations, you’ve just talked yourself into being a proponent of eugenics. Speak with Goebbels for your welcome packet and fashionable armband.

I mean, we can only go off of what is presented in the story, while acknowledging it’s 4chan and therefore both fake and gay. Within that frame, the new guy has been tagged with a nickname, he has mentioned to his colleagues that he’d prefer they not call him the nickname, and they are continuing to call him the name he’s expressly said he’d prefer they didn’t use. That’s a textbook hostile work environment, at a minimum.

He’s upset enough that he voiced his preference. Choosing to ignore that stated preference might be fine in this context, or it might not be. But, assuming that someone is not actually upset about a behavior that they’ve requsted change seems like an unnecessary leap of faith.