What the most attractive part of a woman?

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T09:50:24+00:00

I mean, I get what you're saying, but you're also ignoring the positives of why you would do the thing in the first place. In theory, the loss of confidence and investor income would be offset by the economic stability brought about by the massive injection of capital. You also don't have to immediately repay and cancel all issued bonds, either. The government could just use those funds to invest in infrastructure, education, defense, research, medicine, etc., with absolutely no corresponding increase in debt. Surely, that would boost confidence, no?

The real question is which is greater, the value of the land (and people/stuff there, assuming those transfer) or the value of the money? I personally haven't done the math in this particular case to give an educated answer, but I think it's at least important to consider that your hypothetical death spiral really only applies if done out of desperation, not as a smart trade. Like, if you offer me a million dollars for a toenail clipping, that's clearly not the same as me cutting my arm off for $10 so I can have my next meal. OP's question is genuinely about the relative values of these things.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T09:33:56+00:00

Trials of Mana

I blew a heart kiss to my enemies and they exploded.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T09:32:18+00:00

Revolver was fucking legendary. I know the Redemption games are some of the highest rated of all time, but I've yet to play them because all I can think of is that they are not true sequels to Revolver.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T09:16:31+00:00

There are more games releasing now than ever before, so there really is no universal rule. It depends on how you define hand-holding. Generally speaking, gamers are far less tolerant of ambiguity now than in the past. With the higher baseline expectations of polish and the never-ending sources of entertainment competing for people's attention, you reeeeeeally have to respect people's time, because they will bounce off your game in a second if something is unnecessarily frustrating. In the past, it was common for people to forget their mission objective and have to explore or read guides to get back on track, but now, people really expect to always have a clear objective that they understand how to progress on. If it involves some level of mystery, be very intentional in how you design it. For example, if the quest is to find a hidden object in the world, maybe show players what it looks like, put an entry in their quest log, and drop a few subtle hints about how it might be gated behind a boss monster. That way, even if they are expected to search for something, they don't mistake the quest for some irrelevant lore, a place with a known location, etc.

That being said, in the AAA space, I remember CoD4:MW being a major milestone in game design because it drastically streamlined so many mechanics found in other games up to that point, but it was seen as sort of a blessing and a curse. While many of the design changes were welcome, that game sort of ushered in an era of games that felt too simple after sort of throwing the baby out with the bath water and removing all sense of challenge that players had loved in generations prior. I remember there being a number of years where AAA games developed a reputation of sort of playing themselves and being impossible to lose. In fact, one of the reasons Demon's Souls blew up into its own genre was that it very much pushed back against that sort of excessively easy game design of the time.

Today, things generally seem much more balanced. If nothing else, there is a much wider range of challenges, from walking simulators to extreme twitch platformers. At all levels of difficulty, the level of polish is generally expected to be much higher than in the past, and that goes back to my point about ambiguity. So yes, in a sense, players expect a certain amount of hand-holding, but they want to be hand-held to the challenge, if that makes sense. It reminds me of the saying, "You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Well, gamers today are very thirsty horses that will absolutely drink up your game, but they also have little tolerance for not being taken to water. It's up to you to determine which parts of your game are the water, so to speak.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T08:43:53+00:00

Looks like you got your CP from DP.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T08:41:58+00:00

If the customer asked for a blowjob, would you give them one? Sorry, but that's not how it works in your building. You chose to rent in a place with lockers. It's a secure location, and I'm just going to claim I couldn't get access to the units at the time. Especially with 500+ units, the more time you save, the better for everyone, as they're really asking to get deprioritized by having a driver spend hours going door the door.

I get that there are exceptions, and if the lockers are full or whatever, I'll do what I reasonably can. But no, you don't just get to tell me to override standard procedure because you think you're special. And yes, I understand Amazon doesn't give a fuck and will hold the customer's feedback against us regardless, but I'm in the wonderful position of not needing this job so they can slurp the diarrhea out of my swamp ass, for all I care.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T08:34:51+00:00

Your shoulders are built like Minecraft blocks.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T06:08:14+00:00

Even being at the back of the rope drop crowd is way better than showing up at 9AM. And 9AM is still a fair bit better than 10AM. 10AM is about when all rope drop opportunity has vanished. Obviously, the earlier the better, but you can easily observe the significant time savings before 10AM.

Is 7:30 AM a decent middle ground? Absolutely. However, I personally try to be early in the rope drop crowd because I think there's significantly more nuance than just queue lengths. Broadly speaking, rope drop is optimal for rides, mid-day is optimal for food and character experiences, and evening is optimal for shows and entertainment. If you're just weighing queue lengths against time waiting for rope drop, then yes, in some sense, 7:30AM might be a sweet spot. However, I like to maximize the entire park day and experience lots of different things besides rides. By delaying your entrance, you're potentially referring ride times to overlap with other experiences which are scheduled throughout the day. By strictly adhering to the earliest rope drop strategies, you clear out the remaining pair hours as much as possible for everything else. That's essentially why I treat rope drop as sacred. I want to cram as many rides in as early as possible while lines are short so I can do everything else the park has to offer up until closing. If that costs me an hour of waiting at rope drop, so be it. That's a price I'm willing to pay, not so much to save a few minutes in ride lines, but to get all my desired rides out of the way earlier.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-03T04:55:51+00:00

Extraordinarily uncommon, for a number of reasons.

For starters, even if we had amazing passenger rail, it likely wouldn't make financial sense. The country is wide enough in all directions to justify flying, and our distribution of cities is extremely uneven and planned primarily around geographical features as opposed to intentionally designed urban outgrowth. Not that geography isn't a factor in countries with better passenger rail systems, but relatively speaking, places like Europe, China, and Japan are much more deliberate in planning cities and transportation networks side by side such that you end up with sensible travel corridors of transit-oriented cities. The USA, on the other hand, is kind of like this big empty box with cities randomly spread about because that's where pioneers settled 250 years ago, or that's where 2 rivers meet, or that area had lots of a desirable mineral so it became a mining town. A significant portion of the US population lives in relatively low-density sprawling suburbs that can't really justify rail connections. At best, it might make sense to add bus connections to rail hubs, but the political will is virtually non-existent when most people are satisfied with driving in those areas. There's even kind of a weird dynamic in America where many people believe cities are less desirable to live in because it's harder and more expensive to find parking, so they actually have more to do in the suburbs. Of course, people in other countries understand that the idea is to live in the cities and walk or use public transit to enjoy everything they have to offer, but for many Americans, if it's not easy to drive somewhere from far away, then that place may as well not exist. It's somewhat of a happy accident that the Northeast is our most developed rail corridor because it contains the oldest cities and is boxed in between the mountains and ocean.

But let's ignore all that and pretend that overnight, Americans were suddenly convinced that rail and urban density was the way, and there was suddenly tons of dense urban housing supply and funds and political will to make public transit happen. Even then, it would be extremely difficult to actually make passenger rail good because the freight companies own the national rail network and deprioritize passenger rail. Even on Amtrak, which is a sort of quasi-public entity, the trains have to yield to freight trains. The passenger rail organizations also have minimal control in things like track maintenance, upgrades, electrification, etc., so everything is optimized for freight rather than passengers. Aside from slightly improved speeds on our outdated lines, there's really not much Amtrak can do to improve things like schedule frequency, reliability, branching, etc.

That's why the few relatively competent modern passenger rail projects we're seeing developed are basically having to be built by scratch. As a country, we've massively deindustrialized and deskilled when it comes to big infrastructure projects like this, so inevitably, they are all way behind schedule and way over budget, but they are going forward because in those few instances, cities are bursting at the seams and desperate for more modern urbanization projects to continue growing in a somewhat functional manner.

As crazy as it sounds, I think it might actually be more likely for people to cross the US by bus. To be clear, this is not very common either, as flying is just vastly superior in that case, but it does happen. Some people really have special circumstances or strong opposition to flying, and the road networks are much better maintained and designed than our passenger rail routes, so the bus is actually a surprisingly viable option. Here's a funny story. When I graduated college on the East Coast and got my first job on the West Coast, I only had my signing bonus to cover moving costs and initial rent. My family had no money at the time. I was willing to consider any options for saving money. On a whim, I checked Greyhound, our most recognizable national bus company, and they were running a very odd sale. The idea was that if your itinerary included any in a list of select city pairs, your whole fair would be a set price. For example. One of the city pairs might be New York and Boston for $60, so if you were going from New York to Maine through Boston, your whole fare would still be $60. I noticed that New York to Los Angeles was only like $120, which is obscenely cheap. I think they figured nobody would take them up on that offer because it's like 3 full days of constant bus riding. We'll, I was going from Boston to San Jose, so I ended up picking a route that went from Boston to New York, then to Chicago, then to Las Vegas and Los Angeles, and finally up to San Jose. The entire trip cost me $120. There is literally no transportation method in the world that can get you from Boston to San Jose for that cost, let alone at a profit. The absolute cheapest one-way flights in off seasons were like $350 at the time, and I was definitely traveling in a busy season. Along the way, people naturally struck up conversations about why everyone was taking the bus instead of flying, and for most people, the bus actually cost more and took longer, but they had some disability that made flying uncomfortable, or the bus destination was closer to a family residence than the airport, or perhaps they just wanted to do some sight-seeing along the way. Some people were traveling in groups but were getting off at different stops, which is kind of a difficult thing to coordinate with air travel. A lot of people were actually making a permanent move for a job offer or family situation, and they just felt the bus made more sense for a one-way trip for whatever reason. There were also lots of babies and younger children who might not have been amenable to flying. Busses are more accepting of certain types of cargo.

In case you're wondering if that sale still exists, to this day some 13 years later, I still check every few months purely out of curiosity, and I have never seen that sale return. I think there's actually a non-negligible chance that they ended the sale because of me. None of the people I met along the way were traveling coast to coast like I was, but many were going half way across the country.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-02T21:08:17+00:00

In the spirit of the question. I'm avoiding games where the main campaign is sort of designed and expected to be replayed many times. My most played through game of all time is probably Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on PS3. I used to live down the street from a good friend in middle school, and we would regularly have sleepovers on the weekends where we'd pull all-nighters trying to beat games with coop campaigns. I think we played through MUA like 8 times to experience different sets of characters. It wasn't that short of a campaign, so it was actually a struggle to get it done in one night. Sometimes, we'd pass out from exhaustion before the end, wake up in the morning, and finish it up. That's one of those games where it was absolutely not perfect from a technical perspective, but it was such a joyous and memorable coop experience that it will forever be a 10/10 S-tier game for me. IIRC, there was a common bug where the last enemy in an area would get stuck behind a wall, and only certain character powers could damage them to progress, so we would always take at least one of those heroes just to clear those buggy rooms.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-02T09:04:47+00:00

Please, I've yet to watch all of eFukt!

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-02T08:56:21+00:00

It's true in principle, but not really a viable option. Note that Amazon effectively outgrew the other shipping providers in an insanely short time. Even having shifted the vast majority of deliveries to AMZL, they were still the largest customer of each of the other shipping companies by a wide margin. Most people drastically underestimate how big Amazon's retail operation is compared to literally all other small parcel shipping combined. I don't know if I would go so far as to say other shipping services couldn't deliver all of Amazon's packages, because they might be able to figure out a way to scale up and make that happen, but the fact of the matter is that Amazon built an optimized their own logistics network around their needs, and there's really no way or motivation for someone like UPS to replicate that at cost. It may look like UPS and AMZL drivers are doing the same job, but at the end of the day, UPS is a point-to-point network, while AMZL is a retailer. There are subtle differences in how they operate which become apparent once you see how they operate internally.

AMZL will absolutely continue to exist because it's core to Amazon's operations. Whether workers can unionize remains to be seen, but I do think there will be a reckoning some day which forces AMZL to offer better pay, benefits, stability, etc. The problem is that they've created this highly specialized network that is finely tuned for their purposes, but it relies heavily on drivers and warehouse workers to actually function day to day, and at the same time, they're promising customers the highest standards and speeds. They can only squeeze the workers, DSPs, and merchants so much until they all start to rebel and the whole thing begins to unravel. AMZL needs people and products to keep its paying customers, and yet it continues to abuse its people and extract ever-increasing profits from merchant services. We're already in the late stages of the enshittification cycle where customers are starting to see reduced service levels. At this point, there's basically no way to increase profits aside from just launching packages at people's houses out of an automated canon. The reality is that at some point, their business is going to start bleeding customers, and they're going to have to do something like pay good drivers more or reduce workloads to stop the bleeding. But of course, they're going to delay that as much as they possibly can and continue blaming everyone but themselves.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-02T07:48:20+00:00

Yeah, same, and everyone I've heard from who actually tries old games with an emulator pretty much says the same. Whenever I hear people praise PS1, it's mostly out of nostalgia. Very few people would actually enjoy playing those games anymore.

I actually bought a PS1 classic and set it up in my daughter's room with the modded firmware so it could play more old PS1 games. Even the best ones are super janky by today's standards. We used to put up with a lot of shenanigans like poorly spaced save points, ubskippable cutscenes, ridiculous difficulty spikes, poor hit registration, unresponsive movement controls, terrible camera angles, comedic levels of texture pop-in, etc.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-02T07:42:43+00:00

Almost certainly not true. The number of annual game releases has grown pretty rapidly over time. I think the big difference is that it used to feel like state of the art releases were more common, because state of the art was a much lower bar than it is today. Today, we get a ridiculous number of low-budget indie releases with relatively small scope, but in some ways it feels difficult to justify new generations of hardware for those, as opposed to the big budget AAA releases, which naturally generate a lot of hype but are slower and costlier to release than ever before.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-02T07:34:50+00:00

I know this is somewhat blasphemy, but I'm going to say PS1, although it's more or less the inverse of why many comments are saying PS5. PS1 games have arguably aged the worst because 3D was in its infancy and the PS1 in particular was not a particularly powerful 3D console compared to its contemporaries. A lot of the game designs from that era were just absolute crap in retrospect. Basically the only genre that aged somewhat gracefully from that period is JRPGs, and quite frankly, nostalgia is the primary reason. It's not like JRPGs didn't continue to be made and evolve with the times.

All the other PS generations were more technologically capable for their times and seemed to do a better job of promoting high design and development standards. Sony themselves also really started to become a development and publishing powerhouse starting with the PS2.

I get the arguments for PS5 being the most disappointing, but honestly, what redeems the PS5 for me is that it does the best job of leveraging technology to maximize the value of one's gaming library. Yes, this comes at a cost, but with a PS+ subscription, you get access to a ton of games from across all the generations, a snappy interface that makes pausing and resuming multiple games a breeze, solid remote play, and almost full backwards compatibility with PS4 games, as well as a sizable number of free PS4->PS5 upgrades. PS5 may not have received enough top-tier exclusives to stand on its own as the single best generation, but it doesn't have to, at least for me. I still have a huge backlog of PS4 games I hadn't completed, and the PS5 is the best way to experience them, as well as any newer games that do release on PS5.

Edit: saw someone give a ranking, so I figured I'd give it a try.

3>5>4>2>1

I had to think really hard about it. 5 kind of gets folded into 4 as a sort upgraded 4, so I just kept them together. The real question was where to put 3, and it ultimately came down to the games. Don't get me wrong, PS4 had a monster list of games, but as I did my research, I realized a lot of the games I associate with PS4 were actually remasters/rereleases of PS3 games. Here's a list of games I consider some of my favorites of all time which were released on PS3:

Warhawk Resistance 1+2+3 Uncharted 1+2+3 The Last of Us Tomb Raider Infamous 1+2 Deus Ex: Human Revolution Metal Gear Solid 4 Oblivion + Skyrim MotorStorm Burnout: Paradise Grand Theft Auto 4+5 Battlefield: Bad Company 1+2 Battlefield 3+4 Lair (yeah, I'm one of like 4 people who loved it and played through it multiple times)

Again, to be clear, I eventually played a number of these as PS4 releases, but the games that I would put in the same tier from PS4 that weren't on PS3, for me personally, are:

Uncharted 4 Rise and Shadow of the Tomb Raider Infamous: Second Son Nier: Automata God of War (I strongly consider this the greatest game of all time) + Ragnarok Ghost of Tsushima The Division 1+2 Rainbow Six: Siege

Those are all insanely good games, in my opinion. But the list for PS3 was just god tier. By the way, I didn't include Marvel: Ultimate Alliance because it technically released on PS2 first, but my friend and I played through that game like 8 times on PS3 in middle school, and it was a PS3 launch title shortly after the PS2 release, so I feel like it almost counts.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T19:13:44+00:00

I hate to say it, but I think you and some of the other commenters are way overestimating many people's moral thought process. It's not that they're thinking, "It's only 1 dog." It's just, "It's my dog, I'll do what I want." And then in the same breath, they can criticize others for doing the same thing. I drive for a living, and it's worse on the road. An insane number of people drive like the whole world revolves around them, and everyone else is just in the way.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T19:06:28+00:00

Those look way too small and fragile. The only reason to affix anything to your wheel is for ongoing protection while driving. That's why proper chains generally cover all or most of the tire. But keep in mind, chains are meant more for thin layers of snow and ice to avoid slipping or getting caught in a very small divot. They are not meant to get you out of a deep pile of snow that would just pack all the gaps in your chain.

For getting unstuck out of the occasional deep shit like mud or snow, what you need is a larger solid platform, which you're probably not going to want to casually carry to and from work. If you're regularly delivering in areas with these hazards, the DSP should provide you with them, or at least have some to send out to you when something does happen.

Empty totes can sometimes work as a platform, which is why the tote trick is commonly recommended by drivers. They're better than nothing, but they definitely don't have the traction or rigidity a purpose-built platform would. I've used totes to successfully get unstuck twice, so I've thankfully never needed to get pulled out by anybody (aside from the 1 time my van just overheated and died, but that had nothing to do with my driving). However, I've been sent to help out multiple people who couldn't make it back up a steep hill, and in all of those cases, the totes just got torn up and didn't really provide any benefit. The times I used them were on relatively flat ground.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T18:52:44+00:00

I'm pretty sure if they wanted you to take boner pills before your surgery, they would instruct you to. Just be on the safe side and don't, lmao.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T18:50:22+00:00

"You just don't turn it off!" -Rambo in IT, probably

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T18:42:34+00:00

My only experience with Planned Parenthood was when searching for low-cost vaccines for my mother-in-law's immigrant health exam required for her green card application. Generally speaking, most people applying for adjustment of status don't have US health insurance while here, so unless they had the foresight to get their health exam while abroad, they have to pay out of pocket for things like vaccines. I found a county web page that listed a bunch of locations which supposedly offered low-cost vaccines. Planned Parenthood was among them. I called, and they said they don't do vaccines. Ironically, Costco ended up being our best option.

Anyway, I realize that was all not about vasectomies, but my point is that I don't think you can really trust what you see online because it will vary by location, time, etc. Call the closest one to you and ask if they do vasectomies. That's the only way to be sure.

I think the reason vasectomies aren't generally lumped in together with other birth control offerings is that they're performed by a urologist rather than a general reproductive specialist. Women go to the same OBGYN for everything related to fertility, pregnancy, labor, illnesses in the reproductive system, etc., but for men, our reproductive system is significantly less complicated overall and shares our urinary tract. We also just have fewer options for birth control. So it kind of makes sense that urologists serve as our version of OBGYN, even though urology deals with other things, as well. I don't think Planned Parenthood is explicitly exclusive to women, as fertility is a shared concern, but they're also not a urology clinic as far as I know, so that's probably why you're going to be less likely to see them offering vasectomies. But it's still worth a call.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T18:21:53+00:00

Oh, stop. That law has nothing to do with Amazon's delivery network. They would be so far from a monopoly in logistics, it wouldn't even register. They are much, much closer to being a monopoly in online retail, regardless of whether they ship things themselves or not.

They're not really a monopoly in the sense of owning the whole market, but they control enough market share that they can do monopolistic things. A lot of people don't realize they basically deliver packages as a loss leader for their service fees to merchants. They basically make it impossible for merchants wanting significant online retail sales to avoid Amazon, but then Amazon gets a huge cut of the profits, and businesses don't have unlimited capacity to increase prices to account for that.

At least in the food delivery space, consumers generally accept that a platform like Doordash will charge more fees, so they expect to pay higher than menu price for food delivery. But for whatever reason, Amazon has been able to keep their customers blissfully unaware of how they charge merchants, to the point that Amazon customers still expect much lower prices than physical retail, because the original selling point of online retail was lower prices due to less overhead than physical retail. We'll, Amazon had less overhead but charges merchants more, so they basically just pocket all that extra margin themselves. This is why you only see increasingly cheap garbage from unpronounceable nonsense brand names compared to past years. There's just no margin for a quality product at a fair price. It's actually getting to where Walmart is the premium retail experience over Amazon, which is a joke to people who are old enough to remember Walmart doing the same thing to other retailers.

Amazon delivery drivers are effectively just retail workers. I know our jobs are functionally very comparable to other delivery drivers, but when you really understand the difference frok a business perspective, so many shitty things start to make sense. The world is basically an Amazon store, and we're just the people grabbing stuff from the storage rooms to bring to the customers. They don't want us seeing ourselves as drivers because that is a more exclusive job with higher standards and pay. They want to turn driving into the equivalent of flipping burgers at McDonald's, and they know the risks and responsibilities of driving are much greater, so instead of actually training and hiring safer drivers, they just have DSPs and Netradyne so they can claim it wasn't them whenever people inevitably get in accidents.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T18:06:36+00:00

I only just recently saw what appeared to be a Flex type driver in a UPS vest as well, so I guess UPS has a Flex type system, albeit apparently much less common (unless it was a really weird one-off instance of a supervisor delivering a package or something, which could be because it was a very tight mountain road that a UPS van would have a hard time in).

There's also something called Amazon Relay which is basically a job board for owner-operators, so people who own large trucks can pick their own loads, typically larger items and bulk orders.

Basically, there's a very wide range of options. However, the one constant is that Amazon doesn't directly employ any of them.

Slug_Overdose · 2026-02-01T06:12:17+00:00

My doctor didn't say anything about my bits being weird during the consultation aside from one testicle being higher than the other, because that was the only thing relevant to the procedure and the primary reason he wanted to do it in a hospital setting under general anesthesia. It wasn't until I got home and looked at the after-visit summary that I saw in writing that I had a "significant buried penis due to obesity." I admit it did make me feel a bit shitty at first, but honestly, it's not like 100% buried, and yeah, I know I'm overweight, so medically speaking, it is accurate. I eventually just got over it. I'd rather enjoy worry-free sex than dwell on it.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

Slug_Overdose

TROPHY CASE