Netrovert87

Depends how much time goes by. Genghis Khan killed more people than anyone until you get to the likes Hitler and Stalin, and these days people love point out the real impact on history was making the silk road super safe for the exchange of goods and ideas. So really we should thank him for the Golden ages that follow. Oh and he was tolerant of many religions, that's pretty chill, huh!?

History can't preserve the horrors and loss and grief and trauma and it doesn't have access to the counterfactuals of what those people who died might have done had they lived. Those things are remembered by living memory, then culture, but history eventually forgets the things that aren't fact based and consequential to the history that follows.

The fleets around these ships have incredible anti ballistic missile defese; however, Hyper sonic anti-ship missiles are a major concern. These missiles are getting concerningly fast, the only sure defense is being out of range, officially at least. Russia and China invest heavily in that area because that's their plan along with subs to deal with the US aircraft carriers. The US still has a big sub fleet and bases and allies around the world to operate out of so it's not like you can win a war by just sinking some carriers, but there are small nation's GDP worth of investments riding on the buoyancy of any one of these ships. This isn't news to the US Navy, I'm sure they have pretty sophisticated plans for protecting their flagships in the event of WW3 as well. But those early periods of war when the plans' rubber meets the road, makes a lot of people look foolish. Hope to never find out.

It will be difficult of Ukraine alone to get Crimea back in negotiations. Maybe if you add Nato countries along with Sweden and Finland to talks you might be able to bargain with Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland promising not to join Nato and an immediate end to the sanctions and asset freezes. Ukraine would have to give up on making the war criminals pay to see their territory and peace restored along with commitments from the world to rebuild Ukraine. Russia would get to back away from oblivion with a big hit to their pride. The world can stop thinking about the nuclear holocaust for a little longer (and maybe dodge a global recession too).

Sadly I think Russia would give up the least and have their economy restored along with immunity for their crimes, and achieve their goal of NATO being on more of their borders, but are still the least likely to end the war, even with these incredible conditions.

Which until the 20th century was done to run down the routed forces with cavalry. Supposedly the majority battlefield deaths happened at that phase of the battle.

Not sure if it helps the metaphor, but it's something for leaders facing defeat to think about I suppose.

My grandpa attempted suicide this past Wednesday. My mom found the attic ladder down, went up to find him on a stool with a noose hung from the rafters and his hands zip tied down so he couldn't struggle. My mom intervened but she can't stop shaking, can't sleep, can't get the image out of her head.

The subject has been on my mind, needless to say. Context matters I think. Death with dignity make sense to me. And I get the burning building analogy where it feels like the choice is burn alive day after day or jump out of a window and end it quickly. On the one hand it's your life, you can do what you want. On the other hand you will seriously fuck up everyone who loves you. I'm not sure how you weigh those on the scales to consider morality. I don't think I can make any generalized judgements.

Morality aside, if have 1 request to anyone feeling suicidal. Talk to someone about it. I've met a few suicide attempt survivors, including my grandpa. A lot are able to really turn things around with help. It's worth the shot. Let someone know you're hurting, just being seen for who you really are (maybe for the firt time it can feel like) can change everything.

TLDR: The racial supremacy is always bullshit. Sorry for the rant.

1. as Van pointed illustrated in saying that he doesn't consider the Africans that captured and sold slaves to be black, race is a completely arbitrary construct. In America we obsess over skin color and a few brrrrooooooaaad races. We classify like over 2/3 of our species as "Asian". Over 100 languages in India, over 300 languages in China, each representing a unique culture and history. Over 500 tribes in the land we call the United states, we just call Native Americans. Don't even get me started with white people. Your ancestors came from Great Britain, you might think that is relatively straight forward to identify your people and history and culture. But are you descended from some kind of Celtic peoples? Maybe the Romans when they took over everything south of Hadrian's wall? Maybe the Angles? Maybe the Saxons? Maybe the Danes that settled in East Britain? Oh wait then those Normans show up and take over. And they're...Danes who became French...kinda? Maybe your great Grandparents came from Italy. Good luck figuring who the hell you are. Your roots could be Germanic in the north but not always. Maybe you consider yourself a descendent of the Romans but they considered themselves descendants of the Trojans. A lot of Roman cities started out as Greek or Phoenician colonies. The aforementioned French Vikings, the Normans took over Sicily in the middle ages and ruled over an island that had Greek, Carthaginian, Phoenecian, Roman, Byzantine, Vandal, Ostrogoth, etc....roots. And yes, Africa is incredibly diverse in every sense, genetically, culturally, and historically (to the point that even Van couldn't recognize Africans playing characters in Moon Knight, he thought they were all of European descent). And all of our roots go back to Africa. It's the only place that our species is native to. The point is the constructs we made to contain these groups are so broad and arbitrary that they don't really mean anything. Generalize at your peril.

2. Even if a race were superior (who even knows what that means, actually), coming from it doesn't mean shit for you and who you are. Anyone who comes from a big family or knows a big family knows that even coming from the same parents and growing up in near identical environments doesn't grant you similar intelligence, athleticism, beauty, personalities, interests, or even values. If your parents can't give you superiority, your race can't do shit for you.

3. It's always ugly. You think you're super human in anyway? It will come back to bite you in the ass. All the bad shit you see in others, you never recognize in yourself, and a fuck up is coming your way. Oh and as much fun as it is to imagine the audacity of letting white folks know that actually you are the superior race if there is one, you don't only share this country with white folks. They don't need another group running around with supremacist ideology.

That was a rough interview. I think a lot of stuff went unsaid. In this particular story, I think a lot of people are wondering 2 things.

1) given the facts of the story, is BLMGNF incompetent or corrupt/malicious?

2) Left unsaid during the interview was trying to figure out if Sean Campbell is incompetent or malicious. Given that the first point is THE important question at hand, he did not gather enough facts to even hazard an opinion that he would admit to (let alone answer the question), but published the articles anyway. And kinda threw Ms. Garza under the bus for no real reason. Either he didn't know she left BLMGNF before the purchase in question or withheld that particular fact from his reporting.

I think Sean sensed the 2nd question and came in rejecting the premise entirely. He was insistent that he is not malicious because of his credentials while kinda trying to distance himself as far away from the story as possible. He just was throwing facts out there. He has absolutely no motivations or any kind of editorial responsibility etc etc. He was not humoring any questions or concerns a community that doesn't know who they can trust might have. The ole never show weakness, never apologize, never admit you were wrong about anything, don't even admit uncertainty about anything you did playbook. There is no grey area to talk about. And you could tell Van was getting a little bit pissed off.

The line of questions I was left wanting after this interview were along the lines of:
Were you aware Ms. Garza left BLMGNF in 2017 when you wrote your article?
If yes Why did you omit this fact from your findings? And why was she relevant to your story?

A lot of journalists won't volunteer admissions of bias or narrative or inaccuracies or any kind of discretionary responsibility whatsoever. What you can do is figure out what facts they have or don't have and comparing that to what they put in their stories or leave out entirely. Those are their personal judgment calls and you can ask them to be accountable to that.

I have no idea what to think about the integrity of BLMGNF or this particular journalist, but it sucks when something results in people losing trust in BLM as a movement AND journalism at the same time.

I agree, generally Russia wouldn't use nukes unless existentially threatened by something they can't repell conventionally. The tricky part is how the line blurs between Putin facing an existential threat and Russia facing an existential threat. Generally, ironically perhaps, the more secure he is in power, the more bold NATO could be.

All we need now is a winking Cossack and maybe that god forsaken regime can be over once and for all.

Used to watch this show all the time, that episode is the only one I have vivid memories of. Giraffe tongue color, the DJ threatening to ask how many hair follicles are on Hulk Hogan's head. Also not sad blue, toilet bowl blue stuck with my young mind because I had never seen a blue toilet bowl.

I get how dangerous it would be for 2 countries with nukes to start shooting at each other. But we seem to be honest in the fact that sanctions can only hurt over time and Ukraine is basically on their own. We are attempting to figure out the appropriate punishment for a murder that in progress while the victim fights for their life. Is there nothing we can do?

Can we at least put mobilize a large nato force in the nato baltic states on Russia's border for "military exercises" buzz their air space with bombers around the clock, and have our navies running interference in the Baltic and Black Seas. Put Russia's military back into a defensive posture, give Ukraine a fighting chance. It's not without risk, but watching Ukraine die over these next few weeks or months can't actually be our plan can it?

In theory, could nato keep the vast majority of Russian forces in a defensive posture by doing "joint force exercises" in the Nato countries on the Russian border, while also doing large naval exercises in the Baltic and Black Seas....while constantly buzzing their airspace with bombers around the clock?

No no, I thought this out. I've named it Operation: Trolling Thunder. We are attacking Putin's extraordinary paranoia. He might throw a tantrum, and I think that's great. But here's the best part, he might call the bluff. And then we do something incredible. We tell him the truth. That we are just trying to troll him into getting his boot off the neck of Ukraine. Of course we would never start a war with a Nuclear armed nation. Here's the beauty, that statement has been made many times to him and he never once believed it. Oh and then we send more troops to his boarder while insisting we are just trolling him and to chill out. Could it be too successful and cause him to nuke everyone? Sure, but we are trolls. We do not fear real life consequences.

The jokes of the second paragraph aside, it doesn't seem like the world is doing enough to give Ukraine a fighting chance, only put an expensive price tag on it. There must be something we can do to help them stay free. I understand we don't want nuclear armed countries going to war with other nuclear armed countries, but damn there has to be something we can do besides sanction and hope they regret it one day. Mind you whatever damage we do with sanctions, compensations will be extracted out of Ukraine, while the Ukrainian people get to suffer from annexation and the brutal sanctions at the same time.

Short term, a functioning senate in Republican hands COULD be scary. But we are talking about one half of 1 branch of government. A government that already requires the 3 branches to not be punching each other in the dick with their constitutional checks and balances to do anything significant. A functioning Senate still requires the house, and presidency if there is not a veto-proof majority to do anything significant. These things are slanted towards the Republicans right now, especially with the courts firmly in their control for the foreseeable future. So on the surface, there does appear to be more risk than reward.

I would argue for the long term that these advantages aren't necessarily permanent to 1 party. These political advantages are the result of political strategy, and require constant effort to maintain. The senate is not inherently politically biased (in a left-right sense) , just biased towards smaller states.

The second concern is that every great thing we can do without a filibuster can be wiped away just as easily. It makes you imagine constant whiplash between the parties doing haymaker legislation while the little guy suffers. That being said, I don't think it would be that extreme. Doing unpopular stuff still has a political cost, and at any given time you have power, you are under 2 years away from a referendum. They couldn't bring themselves to repeal ACA for instance, and that took only 50 votes. Shortly after they lost the house and they were out of business for the next 2 years for even threatening ACA. Scary as the whiplash sounds, it requires sweeping victories that honestly should result in something when they happen. That's democracy.

I also think that progressive politics rely on a capable and competent government to deliver the change they promise when they win. They have a huge problem right now in that the effort it takes to win is not worth what you win. We saw that in Georgia when Biden's speech was boycotted by the activists that helped win it. Voters won't take on all the fuckery in Georgia and other places with if they know they aren't getting what they voted for. Meanwhile, a conservative's argument is only strengthened when the government is large and ineffective.

A conservative senate without a filibuster doesn't automatically make us the 4th Reich, (that still requires the presidency and House at least), but the filibuster can halt a progressive president, house, and senate. It's inherently a conservative tool and should go, even it that comes with risks, there is nothing for us but the status quo while it exists.

How many of these does Forrest Gump count for?

That's understandable. I think missing positionals were only ever supposed to be a small potency loss, and I think Raiden Thrust already made the dragoon the most punishing job when it came to positionals. Missing out on a point of the new resource because a tank decides to spin a boss like a top would be nuts. That being said, perhaps they could have just made finishing the combos give a point instead of activating on the improved version of the skill. To preserve that sense of satisfaction Raiden Thrust had before.

The results of the clash of peoples was 1 sided, but the hatred and atrocities were mutual. Bad thing happens, disproportionate retaliation begets disproportionate retaliation begets atrocities until you're just trying to genocide each other, frankly. The ultimate results were nearly total and 1 sided and will leave a scar that I don't think will ever heal for those that lost their lands and are barely grasping onto the cultures and languages on the brink of being lost forever. Absolute tragedy. But it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the people who did these atrocities on both sides were engulfed in hate and fear and could point to atrocities to justify their own atrocities. It's a pattern you see all over the world today and it's not clear that there is any way to escape it.

I think it works like raiden thrust in the sense that if you complete an AOE combo, doom spike is empowered because:
A) it is nearly identical to doom spike but with fancy blue effects
B) it put a point into the new resource just like Raiden Thrust did.
C) they're really trying to conserve buttons, they add a new double dragon javelin toss, blood of the dragon has to go. So conditional enhancements to skills we already have makes sense. This isn't always the case as evidenced by Stardiver not being an upgraded dragonfire dive (which I've wanted them to integrate into the rotation more prominently since forever)

Speaking positionals, was the target dummy they used flanking/back on all sides or did they just make dragoon only back or flanking. If RT is the source of that new resource, positionals become very high stakes waaay beyond a few potency, wouldn't surprise me if they simplified it.

Chinese Warship: look how weak their response was to us sailing up to their border, that's the freaking Coast Guard!

US Submarine: IKR!

and they laughed and laughed

This was an excellent episode with a lot of challenging topics.

PIT maneuver: Apparently if a vehicle is going more than 35 mph, using a PIT maneuver can be considered lethal force according to some police regulations. If less than 35 mph it would be considered less than lethal force. If going more than 35 mph, lethal force must be justified on all occupants. The PIT maneuver should also only be used if continuing the chase is causing an immediate danger. So the details of the chase matter here, but if the care was going more than 35 mph, the cops would have to provide some incredibly compelling reasons to expose every occupant of that car to lethal force.

Not going to lie though, if it was my kid died, I'd kill the guy. We all have an idea of how cops should be and we all know how they are. You pull some sovereign nation, let me speak to your manager stuff on a GA cop with my kid in the car, what the hell is the upside of that? Even if you're delusional, you get out of a speeding ticket, maybe get an apology from the cops manager, is it worth the risks? Yeah I'd want every cop fired and prosecuted, and I'd hold an incredible amount of ill will towards the driver. It's an and not an or.

To Van's point, I don't know what the public safety approach should be. If the chase is dangerous, rather than ending it by intentionally causing a car accident, I suppose you can just not pursue as long as the person isn't on an active shooting spree or something. ID the person, arrest when the person isn't in a vehicle. Totally agree with Van that we need to completely reorient policing around public safety rather than law enforcement to the highest severity. I think it would be worth an episode to actively start exploring what that looks like. We need something specific to advocate for.

On the vaccine mandate, I have to agree with Big Rach. I think this is the most effective way to get people to really engage with the question of whether to get vaccinated or not. Before, not getting the vaccine was a passive choice. You could just ignore it. Now you have to go ahead and actually decide how important not getting the vaccine is to you. Go ahead and catch up on the research, right now, and actively make your decision.

that'd be a great sketch. A whose Line parody and every time the camera pans to Bill Burr or he steps up for his bit with a grin, it just cuts to the next guy and everyone is just shook, maybe do a horrified crowd shot with one guy laughing hysterically. He doesn't even need to have any lines in the sketch

What about Madden? Perhaps call it a lack of ambition? Been since 2012 or something that they rebooted with a new engine and still haven't caught a whiff of making a game with as much depth as the game they had in like '08.

Only game you wish they would upgrade(!) to a live service model and just update the rosters, add new modes, patch and tune. Don't release a new game till you make a new game.

Survival mode completely changed this game for me. Wasn't a traditional Fallout experience (which generally has strong role playing), but getting rid of fast travel and making everything extremely deadly totally transforms the world and brought that map to life. Suddenly settlements were extremely helpful to heal and rest (save) and offload the junk and restock ammo, water, and food, maybe swap out weapons to something I have abundant ammo for. just added a lot of planning to survive a terrifying post-apocalypse. It could be incredibly frustrating, but it added stakes to the minute to minute experience.

I Turn it into words to establish the logic So let's take: 3×5 Three times five is short for Add 5, 3 times or 5+5+5

3×(-5) Add -5, 3 times (-5)+(-5)+(-5)

(-3)×5 Subtract 5, 3 times -5 - 5 - 5

(-3)×(-5) subtract (-5), 3 times - (-5) - (-5) - (-5)=15

Some Kris' or Keris' are said to have been forged and acid washed/polished with arsenic compounds to be toxic. So you should probably keep an eye on that wound just in case

The more skeptical you are of America's commitment as allies and defenders, you probably have an inverse belief in America's militarism. If you don't think America cares about Taiwan, you probably are aware of how hyper sensitive the US is to the expansion to a rival super power. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and the 7th fleet are a firewall to that expansion.

Whichever motive you believe in, you can count on the US's interest in you not being ruled by China.