TheAnimeLounge

xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:48 pm

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:04 am Also, this was fascinating

https://tomwoods.com/ep-1863-amazing-in ... egulators/

Warning: wall of text after listening to most of the show.
TL;DR: I agree there are genuine businesses being held back by regulation - but regulatory agencies do change quickly to address new technology if it's viable.

[SHOW]

His guest is a bit disingenuous - and that may not be his fault so much as the people he's talking to - in that a lot of it isn't necessarily regulation but that the invention itself isn't feasible. When your technology is sketchy of course regulation is going to hold you back, so if they say "we could have this wonderful thing if the regulation wasn't there" they're really just trying to make money off flawed technology. Even with regulation, shit products somehow get through - looking at you Theranos.

3D printing of organs has been around for decades. It hasn't taken off because they're still getting it to work, not because there's some regulator in the way (also lulz that the technology is going to somehow make healthcare overall cheaper, it's the opposite - though certainly organ donations will be cheaper). The CO2 removing plastic trees displace the CO2 which changes the ecosystem of what it's displacing (I was amused that you have to dip the trees in water to get them to work, and he proposed they be placed in the Sahara or central Australia). Ironically the CO2 plastic trees would actually kill off one of the other inventions - the ocean farms.

The reason the regulations exist though is because if the group went ahead and dropped a kelp farm in the middle of the ocean, in theory the kelp would clash with the phytoplankton currently there since it serves the same purpose. The ocean already regulates itself relative to the CO2 in the air. Even if we artificially replace the phytoplankton with a more efficient kelp farm, the fish in the ocean aren't adjusted to eating kelp - they evolved to eat phytoplankton. It imbalances the ecosystem. Without someone saying "hey, you can't do that until we can actually test what's going to happen" we just wreck things.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that regulation is always an initial roadblock to new technology, but we have two easy examples in the past few years where new technology has emerged and the regulations were simply changed (in plenty of time for the businesses to be successful, despite the claim otherwise) - drones and space exploration. The regulatory bodies generally have that ability to do so without Congress intervening. There's even been an example recently where two regulatory bodies thought the other should be the body to regulate the technology - it didn't stymie the business it meant the business was unregulated.

Regulations could use overhauls, sure - but they generally exist because someone, somewhere fucked something up and it had consequences bad enough that we needed a federal law to regulate it.

Amusing anecdote - there are a significant number of Americans who already think technology is evolving too fast.

Bruh, I'm just fascinated by the technology, regulation issues aside, I was just listening like, "Man...there is some Stark Trek-like shit out there! What a world we live in," but I get it unless it has to do with privacy (and maybe foreign wars) you have to fight me about everything I post that is remotely political.

I should have clarified that I was posting it for the cool tech that is out there not because of some regulation issues so my bad.

EDIT:

So I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Dlugh40Ig

This lead me to this guy's Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/newemergingking/

That led me to this:

https://thexforboys.org/

And America and especially Black America needs more people like this guy.

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:07 pm Unless they are white. Because Glenn from the Walking Dead voices Mark and Sandra Oh is his mom.

And Zazie Beetz is half black...therefore Amber should be half-black but she's closer to what I call midnight black. But if she's half black that just means black because you never acknowledge the side that is white.

umm...exactly?
the mom is asian...and is voiced by an asian actress -- check
it would make the son half asian -- and you ignore the white half -- so voiced by an asian actor -- check
and the character can be completely black -- and you ignore the actresses white half -- check, check

killacross wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:03 am

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:07 pm Unless they are white. Because Glenn from the Walking Dead voices Mark and Sandra Oh is his mom.

And Zazie Beetz is half black...therefore Amber should be half-black but she's closer to what I call midnight black. But if she's half black that just means black because you never acknowledge the side that is white.

umm...exactly?
the mom is asian...and is voiced by an asian actress -- check
it would make the son half asian -- and you ignore the white half -- so voiced by an asian actor -- check
and the character can be completely black -- and you ignore the actresses white half -- check, check

I'm pretty sure Debbie Grayson isn't Asian (Mark's mom). Unless they made her Asian in the show.

https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploa ... 6-144a.jpg

His mom is on the left.

Whereas it's clear as day that Dupli-Kate is clearly Asian.

This doesn't change anything about what we're saying because it's fine for a minority to voice a white character but not the other way around.


Also, does anyone else think that the way that NFT tech is currently being used is a bit scammy? I mean kudos to the artist that can actually get people to pay for essentially nothing but the idea that this piece of "digital history" or whatever is actually going to be worth something is silly to me.

Especially when you don't actually have any real ownership over the piece. You owning Jack Dorsey's first tweet doesn't actually mean you own his tweet.

I mean the reason why say an original Rembrandt painting is worth insane amounts of money is because

-At the time of its creation it wasn't created with the idea of it being worth something in the future. It was just a respected artist getting commissioned to do a piece.

-Rembrandt unbeknownst to him or anyone around him would end up being one the greatest artist in human history. One that defined a particular style of art and lighting (in the case of photography)

-There is only one of them in existence

It's like old trading cards (in particular sports cards). They were created originally to just be collectables that you can trade with friends. If you happen to get a rookie card there was no way to know if it would become valuable because the guy is a rookie. Time is what made that card worth something because of that player's career.

Nowadays they are apparently created with the idea of "making them valuable" so a bunch get printed which drives down the worth.

But mainly with all these things, there is a physical item that people place value on and you literally own that piece yourself.


I think NFT tech could be used for let's say you pre-sell a car or something. You can sell the ownership rights to it as an NFT which the buyer would claim once the car is physically made available to them. The owner of the NFT could if they wanted to just sell that NFT to whomever they wanted to before the car was actually out.

I'm just spitballing.

weird...I've always thought Debbie was asian, neverr even questioned it when sandra oh was cast (random, it's funny that it's the walking dead cast doing so many voices)

NFT is just dumb....but then again, so is bitcoin...but then again, so is "finances" without a gold standard

*Pops in momentarily to say hi, see's nothing but a Wall to wall race discussion*

....

*Pops out*

OK then...changing subjects

Guys, what are your thoughts on Kevin Samuels [and his meteoric rise as of late - he went from like 30k subscribers 3 months ago to 600k+]?

I was not a fan...but never really took the time to listen to his shows until recently. NOW, huge fan and think he makes sense for a certain demographic (of which I'm a part...though never really thought about it in depth until recently)

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:23 pm
Bruh, I'm just fascinated by the technology, regulation issues aside, I was just listening like, "Man...there is some Stark Trek-like shit out there! What a world we live in," but I get it unless it has to do with privacy (and maybe foreign wars) you have to fight me about everything I post that is remotely political.

I should have clarified that I was posting it for the cool tech that is out there not because of some regulation issues so my bad.

My bad for the missread too, given the context I see what you were saying now. I wasn't trying to "fight you" per se, just misinformation. I got triggered

On the health front - there's also technology that's being researched for people to regenerate limbs. I believe it's had limited success as of a few years ago in regrowing digits, but a year ago or so there was also potential for regrowing teeth.

xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:38 pm My bad for the missread too, given the context I see what you were saying now. I wasn't trying to "fight you" per se, just misinformation. I got triggered

On the health front - there's also technology that's being researched for people to regenerate limbs. I believe it's had limited success as of a few years ago in regrowing digits, but a year ago or so there was also potential for regrowing teeth.

I remember seeing a reddit thread about this years ago...humans and sharks have the same "teeth growing" gene or gene combination....but in humans it is turned off. I remember the thread changing into something about 9 out of 10 dentists were gonna kill those scientists but it was a lot funnier. You know how reddit is...

killacross wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:08 pm OK then...changing subjects

Guys, what are your thoughts on Kevin Samuels [and his meteoric rise as of late - he went from like 30k subscribers 3 months ago to 600k+]?

I was not a fan...but never really took the time to listen to his shows until recently. NOW, huge fan and think he makes sense for a certain demographic (of which I'm a part...though never really thought about it in depth until recently)

This dude is one of the realist mofo on planet Earth, lol. I'm a fan and I'm glad that there are more men like him coming up through youtube because women (and men) have been sold a bunch of lies over the past 40-50 years that have destroyed male/female relationships and it has done a number of both.

The difference is that men have steadily realized this and unfortunately many are like, "Fuck this, I'm out! I will just hit it and quit it." or they just leave the game entirely.

While women are living on a different planet entirely and are shocked to find out that life isn't like the Bridget Jones movies where you can be a frumpy, 40-something-year-old that is a 4-5 AT BEST and have 2 attractive, incredibly successful men fight over which one is the potential father of your baby.

Now, where Kevin Samuels is important is that this "Queen" bullshit is rampant in the black community. Black women have an arrogance that is beyond human comprehension and he's letting them know that they need to knock that shit off.

There is an expression that I think more people need to hear and it goes something like this,

"Women are born rich and die poor and men are born poor but die rich." This is in regards to sexual market value.

Now as men none of us know what it's like to have so much power so very young. I mean the world is giving you all the attention from the age of roughly 14-30-ish when you're a woman. Even for marginally attractive or unattractive women. I mean imagine having men wanting your attention literally all the time.

It's gotta be exhausting and a bit scary but to go from having all that power to basically losing all of it to younger women all the while watching the men around you start to rise up in terms of their SMV has really gotta mess with you. Especially for women now, who are told to act like men, fool around, and hold off on settling down and having kids. Look, you're free to do that but choices have consequences and you may end up 35 with no options. The idea that a 35-year-old man and a 35-year-old woman are of the same level in the dating game is just false.

For women, it's like getting millions of dollars from birth and they have to spend it over the course of their life but the money also drains over time without spending it so once that money is gone...it's gone. Back in the day they used it carefully and used it to "purchase" the right guy early enough to still have some cash leftover and so once that "money" dried up they were secured with a guy, and kids, and the "wealth" that came with family.

Nowadays they are taught to spend all of it upfront and by the time they want a good man they are now "broke". Whereas men have nothing when born and accumulate that money over time and because men's sexual market value isn't attached to their looks and fertility (as much as it is for women) that "money" has no limit because it's literal money. Men's SMV is based on resource acquisition.

Yes, people...ladies do ya' thing. Have the life you want but there are consequences and understand what that means.

3D printed organs will never catch on when there are plenty of healthy, poor people taking up resources around the world...and ghost heart technology exists

https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/ ... ed%20heart.

perhaps you've heard of this true little story called The Promised Neverland?

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:23 pm

xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:48 pm

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:04 am Also, this was fascinating

https://tomwoods.com/ep-1863-amazing-in ... egulators/

Warning: wall of text after listening to most of the show.
TL;DR: I agree there are genuine businesses being held back by regulation - but regulatory agencies do change quickly to address new technology if it's viable.

[SHOW]

His guest is a bit disingenuous - and that may not be his fault so much as the people he's talking to - in that a lot of it isn't necessarily regulation but that the invention itself isn't feasible. When your technology is sketchy of course regulation is going to hold you back, so if they say "we could have this wonderful thing if the regulation wasn't there" they're really just trying to make money off flawed technology. Even with regulation, shit products somehow get through - looking at you Theranos.

3D printing of organs has been around for decades. It hasn't taken off because they're still getting it to work, not because there's some regulator in the way (also lulz that the technology is going to somehow make healthcare overall cheaper, it's the opposite - though certainly organ donations will be cheaper). The CO2 removing plastic trees displace the CO2 which changes the ecosystem of what it's displacing (I was amused that you have to dip the trees in water to get them to work, and he proposed they be placed in the Sahara or central Australia). Ironically the CO2 plastic trees would actually kill off one of the other inventions - the ocean farms.

The reason the regulations exist though is because if the group went ahead and dropped a kelp farm in the middle of the ocean, in theory the kelp would clash with the phytoplankton currently there since it serves the same purpose. The ocean already regulates itself relative to the CO2 in the air. Even if we artificially replace the phytoplankton with a more efficient kelp farm, the fish in the ocean aren't adjusted to eating kelp - they evolved to eat phytoplankton. It imbalances the ecosystem. Without someone saying "hey, you can't do that until we can actually test what's going to happen" we just wreck things.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that regulation is always an initial roadblock to new technology, but we have two easy examples in the past few years where new technology has emerged and the regulations were simply changed (in plenty of time for the businesses to be successful, despite the claim otherwise) - drones and space exploration. The regulatory bodies generally have that ability to do so without Congress intervening. There's even been an example recently where two regulatory bodies thought the other should be the body to regulate the technology - it didn't stymie the business it meant the business was unregulated.

Regulations could use overhauls, sure - but they generally exist because someone, somewhere fucked something up and it had consequences bad enough that we needed a federal law to regulate it.

Amusing anecdote - there are a significant number of Americans who already think technology is evolving too fast.

Bruh, I'm just fascinated by the technology, regulation issues aside, I was just listening like, "Man...there is some Stark Trek-like shit out there! What a world we live in," but I get it unless it has to do with privacy (and maybe foreign wars) you have to fight me about everything I post that is remotely political.

I should have clarified that I was posting it for the cool tech that is out there not because of some regulation issues so my bad.

EDIT:

So I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Dlugh40Ig

This lead me to this guy's Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/newemergingking/

That led me to this:

https://thexforboys.org/

And America and especially Black America needs more people like this guy.

I'm impressed with this young man. I couldn't comprehend trying to open my own school. Ronald is disgusting.

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:50 pm

killacross wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:08 pm OK then...changing subjects

Guys, what are your thoughts on Kevin Samuels [and his meteoric rise as of late - he went from like 30k subscribers 3 months ago to 600k+]?

I was not a fan...but never really took the time to listen to his shows until recently. NOW, huge fan and think he makes sense for a certain demographic (of which I'm a part...though never really thought about it in depth until recently)

This dude is one of the realist mofo on planet Earth, lol. I'm a fan and I'm glad that there are more men like him coming up through youtube because women (and men) have been sold a bunch of lies over the past 40-50 years that have destroyed male/female relationships and it has done a number of both.

The difference is that men have steadily realized this and unfortunately many are like, "Fuck this, I'm out! I will just hit it and quit it." or they just leave the game entirely.

While women are living on a different planet entirely and are shocked to find out that life isn't like the Bridget Jones movies where you can be a frumpy, 40-something-year-old that is a 4-5 AT BEST and have 2 attractive, incredibly successful men fight over which one is the potential father of your baby.

Now, where Kevin Samuels is important is that this "Queen" bullshit is rampant in the black community. Black women have an arrogance that is beyond human comprehension and he's letting them know that they need to knock that shit off.

There is an expression that I think more people need to hear and it goes something like this,

"Women are born rich and die poor and men are born poor but die rich." This is in regards to sexual market value.

Now as men none of us know what it's like to have so much power so very young. I mean the world is giving you all the attention from the age of roughly 14-30-ish when you're a woman. Even for marginally attractive or unattractive women. I mean imagine having men wanting your attention literally all the time.

It's gotta be exhausting and a bit scary but to go from having all that power to basically losing all of it to younger women all the while watching the men around you start to rise up in terms of their SMV has really gotta mess with you. Especially for women now, who are told to act like men, fool around, and hold off on settling down and having kids. Look, you're free to do that but choices have consequences and you may end up 35 with no options. The idea that a 35-year-old man and a 35-year-old woman are of the same level in the dating game is just false.

For women, it's like getting millions of dollars from birth and they have to spend it over the course of their life but the money also drains over time without spending it so once that money is gone...it's gone. Back in the day they used it carefully and used it to "purchase" the right guy early enough to still have some cash leftover and so once that "money" dried up they were secured with a guy, and kids, and the "wealth" that came with family.

Nowadays they are taught to spend all of it upfront and by the time they want a good man they are now "broke". Whereas men have nothing when born and accumulate that money over time and because men's sexual market value isn't attached to their looks and fertility (as much as it is for women) that "money" has no limit because it's literal money. Men's SMV is based on resource acquisition.

Yes, people...ladies do ya' thing. Have the life you want but there are consequences and understand what that means.

Lol oh man. I seen some clips of Kevin Samuels, this guy does not play around. I haven't seen enough of him yet but I'm a fan.

Anyone watching The Falcon and The Winter Solider?

Is a sorcerer and wizard the same thing?

San Goku wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:00 pm

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:23 pm

xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:48 pm

Warning: wall of text after listening to most of the show.
TL;DR: I agree there are genuine businesses being held back by regulation - but regulatory agencies do change quickly to address new technology if it's viable.

[SHOW]

His guest is a bit disingenuous - and that may not be his fault so much as the people he's talking to - in that a lot of it isn't necessarily regulation but that the invention itself isn't feasible. When your technology is sketchy of course regulation is going to hold you back, so if they say "we could have this wonderful thing if the regulation wasn't there" they're really just trying to make money off flawed technology. Even with regulation, shit products somehow get through - looking at you Theranos.

3D printing of organs has been around for decades. It hasn't taken off because they're still getting it to work, not because there's some regulator in the way (also lulz that the technology is going to somehow make healthcare overall cheaper, it's the opposite - though certainly organ donations will be cheaper). The CO2 removing plastic trees displace the CO2 which changes the ecosystem of what it's displacing (I was amused that you have to dip the trees in water to get them to work, and he proposed they be placed in the Sahara or central Australia). Ironically the CO2 plastic trees would actually kill off one of the other inventions - the ocean farms.

The reason the regulations exist though is because if the group went ahead and dropped a kelp farm in the middle of the ocean, in theory the kelp would clash with the phytoplankton currently there since it serves the same purpose. The ocean already regulates itself relative to the CO2 in the air. Even if we artificially replace the phytoplankton with a more efficient kelp farm, the fish in the ocean aren't adjusted to eating kelp - they evolved to eat phytoplankton. It imbalances the ecosystem. Without someone saying "hey, you can't do that until we can actually test what's going to happen" we just wreck things.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that regulation is always an initial roadblock to new technology, but we have two easy examples in the past few years where new technology has emerged and the regulations were simply changed (in plenty of time for the businesses to be successful, despite the claim otherwise) - drones and space exploration. The regulatory bodies generally have that ability to do so without Congress intervening. There's even been an example recently where two regulatory bodies thought the other should be the body to regulate the technology - it didn't stymie the business it meant the business was unregulated.

Regulations could use overhauls, sure - but they generally exist because someone, somewhere fucked something up and it had consequences bad enough that we needed a federal law to regulate it.

Amusing anecdote - there are a significant number of Americans who already think technology is evolving too fast.

Bruh, I'm just fascinated by the technology, regulation issues aside, I was just listening like, "Man...there is some Stark Trek-like shit out there! What a world we live in," but I get it unless it has to do with privacy (and maybe foreign wars) you have to fight me about everything I post that is remotely political.

I should have clarified that I was posting it for the cool tech that is out there not because of some regulation issues so my bad.

EDIT:

So I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Dlugh40Ig

This lead me to this guy's Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/newemergingking/

That led me to this:

https://thexforboys.org/

And America and especially Black America needs more people like this guy.

I'm impressed with this young man. I couldn't comprehend trying to open my own school. Ronald is disgusting.

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:50 pm

killacross wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:08 pm OK then...changing subjects

Guys, what are your thoughts on Kevin Samuels [and his meteoric rise as of late - he went from like 30k subscribers 3 months ago to 600k+]?

I was not a fan...but never really took the time to listen to his shows until recently. NOW, huge fan and think he makes sense for a certain demographic (of which I'm a part...though never really thought about it in depth until recently)

This dude is one of the realist mofo on planet Earth, lol. I'm a fan and I'm glad that there are more men like him coming up through youtube because women (and men) have been sold a bunch of lies over the past 40-50 years that have destroyed male/female relationships and it has done a number of both.

The difference is that men have steadily realized this and unfortunately many are like, "Fuck this, I'm out! I will just hit it and quit it." or they just leave the game entirely.

While women are living on a different planet entirely and are shocked to find out that life isn't like the Bridget Jones movies where you can be a frumpy, 40-something-year-old that is a 4-5 AT BEST and have 2 attractive, incredibly successful men fight over which one is the potential father of your baby.

Now, where Kevin Samuels is important is that this "Queen" bullshit is rampant in the black community. Black women have an arrogance that is beyond human comprehension and he's letting them know that they need to knock that shit off.

There is an expression that I think more people need to hear and it goes something like this,

"Women are born rich and die poor and men are born poor but die rich." This is in regards to sexual market value.

Now as men none of us know what it's like to have so much power so very young. I mean the world is giving you all the attention from the age of roughly 14-30-ish when you're a woman. Even for marginally attractive or unattractive women. I mean imagine having men wanting your attention literally all the time.

It's gotta be exhausting and a bit scary but to go from having all that power to basically losing all of it to younger women all the while watching the men around you start to rise up in terms of their SMV has really gotta mess with you. Especially for women now, who are told to act like men, fool around, and hold off on settling down and having kids. Look, you're free to do that but choices have consequences and you may end up 35 with no options. The idea that a 35-year-old man and a 35-year-old woman are of the same level in the dating game is just false.

For women, it's like getting millions of dollars from birth and they have to spend it over the course of their life but the money also drains over time without spending it so once that money is gone...it's gone. Back in the day they used it carefully and used it to "purchase" the right guy early enough to still have some cash leftover and so once that "money" dried up they were secured with a guy, and kids, and the "wealth" that came with family.

Nowadays they are taught to spend all of it upfront and by the time they want a good man they are now "broke". Whereas men have nothing when born and accumulate that money over time and because men's sexual market value isn't attached to their looks and fertility (as much as it is for women) that "money" has no limit because it's literal money. Men's SMV is based on resource acquisition.

Yes, people...ladies do ya' thing. Have the life you want but there are consequences and understand what that means.

Lol oh man. I seen some clips of Kevin Samuels, this guy does not play around. I haven't seen enough of him yet but I'm a fan.

Anybody ever read Record of Ragnarok? Since there is a Netflix adaptation coming I thought I'd check out the manga. Cool art.

Guys, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with me? My best friend and his wife are expecting their first in June. We are excited for them. Months ago, I asked if they had a registry [whenever they first told us]. Fast forward to now...they finally got a registry up and shared the link. We bought about $1500 worth of stuff on the registry.

After looking at it...I asked him if they forgot a baby monitor or camera? A few days later, I looked on the registry again [to see how much of our stuff was shipped/delivered] -- and they have a $200 camera and a $250 monitor listed. The part that "bothers" [maybe annoys] me is that the things that I bought were a crib, a changing table, a diaper pail, a car seat/stroller combo, playpen, and baby swing. It "feels" like they haven't bought the essentials, they have boxes of diapers [up to age 3] listed, bottles, pacifiers, clothes up to age 3, TONS of baby toys, and then some designer mother/baby gear. But it really looks like that haven't bought a thing for this baby...and don't want to spend THEIR OWN money on her until she's 3.

We didn't have a registry at all, but did receive a handful of things from family/friends/coworkers. I told you all how offended I was that my in-laws repeatedly sent stuff (because I KNOW it had strings attached, but my wife seemed to forget/ignore it until months and months later when they made some comment about we "owe" their kids something nice for Christmas). But just looking at the costs of the things they selected - ugh! ...And knowing that our income is 5x theirs...and our net worth is magnitudes higher -- ugh!! The baby camera/monitor we bought was $15. Not exactly the best on the market...but I'm certain theirs will not be 10x better.

Essentially, I'm overjoyed for them -- but -- how do I stop being so fucking judgmental?

.

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:07 am Anybody ever read Record of Ragnarok? Since there is a Netflix adaptation coming I thought I'd check out the manga. Cool art.

I'm not entirely sure where they got the list of characters from, but I'm up to the 4th fight and it feels like the choice for humanity is... odd. It's a plot format that doesn't require a lot of narrative and is easily repeatable once it's over, so it's got a good thing going. The art is hit or miss for me, but I think once it settles in I'll like it. Entertained so far.

killacross wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:40 am Essentially, I'm overjoyed for them -- but -- how do I stop being so fucking judgmental?

I didn't even realize they had registries for babies. Do people expect to get everything on their registry? I just assume they threw everything they could think of on there and they'd just buy the rest with their own money. Don't judge them based on their registry though, they could be perfectly fine with a $15 baby monitor and are only throwing the expensive on on there because why not. Maybe they'll buy the $15 one if they don't get the $250 one.

In terms of overall judgmental-ness, I just always remind myself of Dunning-Kruger. Odds are if I stay judgmental I'm likely to judge someone smarter than I am in any given area. Also keep in mind that our entire modern society is built on consumerism. Millions are spent in research on how to manipulate people to buy more things they don't need. If they can't break away from that it's more because of how effective advertising can be instead of any silliness on their part.

A $250 monitor though sounds like it's probably a smart monitor/camera, and those are notoriously bad for getting hacked. Hope they don't mind having randos watch and possibly talk to their baby (all things that have happened before).

Still appreciate the gift you got my little one to this day @killa

You guys keeping up with the George Flyod trial? Looks pretty straightforward so far with all the evidence and witnesses statements.

I don't think people expect everything on the list to be brought. the registry is just the things the family would love to have and prefer to have if people want to gift them something. One of the nurses I work with, I think she was due in a month and she was going to buy whatever that was not brought at the end of the month. It is the thought that counts. You have brought so much for them and the rest is up to them. Congrats to your friend.

killacross wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:40 am Guys, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with me? My best friend and his wife are expecting their first in June. We are excited for them. Months ago, I asked if they had a registry [whenever they first told us]. Fast forward to now...they finally got a registry up and shared the link. We bought about $1500 worth of stuff on the registry.

After looking at it...I asked him if they forgot a baby monitor or camera? A few days later, I looked on the registry again [to see how much of our stuff was shipped/delivered] -- and they have a $200 camera and a $250 monitor listed. The part that "bothers" [maybe annoys] me is that the things that I bought were a crib, a changing table, a diaper pail, a car seat/stroller combo, playpen, and baby swing. It "feels" like they haven't bought the essentials, they have boxes of diapers [up to age 3] listed, bottles, pacifiers, clothes up to age 3, TONS of baby toys, and then some designer mother/baby gear. But it really looks like that haven't bought a thing for this baby...and don't want to spend THEIR OWN money on her until she's 3.

We didn't have a registry at all, but did receive a handful of things from family/friends/coworkers. I told you all how offended I was that my in-laws repeatedly sent stuff (because I KNOW it had strings attached, but my wife seemed to forget/ignore it until months and months later when they made some comment about we "owe" their kids something nice for Christmas). But just looking at the costs of the things they selected - ugh! ...And knowing that our income is 5x theirs...and our net worth is magnitudes higher -- ugh!! The baby camera/monitor we bought was $15. Not exactly the best on the market...but I'm certain theirs will not be 10x better.

Essentially, I'm overjoyed for them -- but -- how do I stop being so fucking judgmental?

San Goku wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:22 pm Still appreciate the gift you got my little one to this day @killa

You guys keeping up with the George Flyod trial? Looks pretty straightforward so far with all the evidence and witnesses statements.

It was straightforward from the start, the prosecution has an uphill battle. You may get the manslaughter charges but anything related to murder isn't gonna stick. The man didn't knowingly try to kill this man nor was he knowingly committing a felony when Floyd died (2nd-degree murder) and trying to prove "evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life"(involved with 3rd-degree murder) is another stretch. He was using a legal hold (at the time) and had no idea that the man had a heart condition and was loaded up on enough drugs to kill a blue whale. Even the autopsy showed that Chauvin's hold didn't cause his death as there was no damage to his neck.

What killed Floyd was his heart condition combined with the drugs, perhaps the hold he was put in may have elevated his blood pressure to the point where he died faster than he would've (assuming he was gonna die later that day from drugs+heart issues) but that's entirely unknown.

xandorxerxes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:14 pm

Digital Masta wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:07 am Anybody ever read Record of Ragnarok? Since there is a Netflix adaptation coming I thought I'd check out the manga. Cool art.

I'm not entirely sure where they got the list of characters from, but I'm up to the 4th fight and it feels like the choice for humanity is... odd. It's a plot format that doesn't require a lot of narrative and is easily repeatable once it's over, so it's got a good thing going. The art is hit or miss for me, but I think once it settles in I'll like it. Entertained so far.

Oh yeah, it's a totally basic story but it's fun. I can't remember which is the 4th fight Jack the Ripper vs Hercules? That's good one. I do like the backstories on the gods and humans when they're fighting.

Also, do you think that Odin is the real head of the gods? Or at least the real big bad. He hasn't said a damn thing the whole time, only his crows talk. And they talk too damn much.

And Adam was a badass.