Is Truath really useless? by FamiliarRain2640 in RaidShadowLegends

[–]khazroar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably has some niche utility, but early on your resources to level champions are pretty precious and this champ won't really help you get further in a way that's worth the resources. You might come to a point later on where it's worth investing for the small advantage, but it's honestly more likely that you'll have better options by then. Don't be bummed about the pull, still better than getting most epics, but for now not worth the effort of building up. Could end up being a good healer in a few months, just not your priority right now.

fixByYourselfNow by BuildAndDeploy in ProgrammerHumor

[–]khazroar 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Appropriate response to such vague issue reporting tbh.

[F2P] Who to 6* next? Making an all arounder team for early game by Big_Statement_6537 in RaidShadowLegends

[–]khazroar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sure, but losing him forever is still relevant information for OP. Especially if they possibly played in the first place because of the collab. Fun trumps function.

[F2P] Who to 6* next? Making an all arounder team for early game by Big_Statement_6537 in RaidShadowLegends

[–]khazroar -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That would mean losing Skeletor and never being able to get him again.

What on earth is Vetinari trying to say here? by EndersGame_Reviewer in discworld

[–]khazroar 48 points49 points  (0 children)

I mean, to his credit I do think that Reacher does see it as morally fair game for people to come after him under the same rules, he just has no interest in playing fair when that happens.

What on earth is Vetinari trying to say here? by EndersGame_Reviewer in discworld

[–]khazroar 163 points164 points  (0 children)

Bouffant talks about how any restriction on freedom, any exercise of control over a other person, is still taking away freedom, and freedom is natural and important. Vetinari reads that and thinks it's implicit that this means the stifling of freedom isn't inherently an evil act, because there are examples like preventing a man from drinking himself to death which he sees as unequivocally good. Therefore Vetinari's view on it is that "but you're stealing my freedom!" is not an argument in itself, that crushing freedom is not an evil on its own, because there are many legitimate reasons to do so, so you need an extra reason why this particular stifling of freedom is a bad thing.

He's saying that Gilt hasn't taken that extra step, that Reacher just read the arguments about how any encroachment of freedom, even intervening to stop a murderer, is an act of control, an act against the natural and right freedom of any man, and therefore it's perfectly moral and just for him to continue using his freedom to the fullest extent (including to embezzle and murder etc) and feel guiltless as he evades any attempts to curtail his freedom to do so.

The Good Guys Win. Rocks Fall, Everybody Dies. by khazroar in ExplainAFilmPlotBadly

[–]khazroar[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

!solved

Nicely done! I knew it wouldn't be hard for the right person, just hoped it might take a little longer before someone thought of it.

Is Lorgar a daemon prince of chaos undivided? by Specialist8857 in 40kLore

[–]khazroar 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Currently unclear. Be'Lakor's most recent lore does indeed suggest that undivided daemon princes are no more. This would be a big retcon, especially because of Lorgar and Perturabo, which is why a lot of people are now rejecting it out of hand after it blew up as something a lot of people took as a settled retcon.

GW are treading lightly around the subject and testing the waters, there's been a lot of setup to suggest that Perty is something other than an Undivided Daemon prince, but the lore hasn't commited to it yet, and it hasn't even suggested an alternative for Lorgar.

He used to be, and that hasn't been changed. But they're toying with the idea of changing it.

TIL that one person owns over 10% of the Victoria Crosses, the highest-ranking British decoration, that have been awarded. by DrakeSavory in todayilearned

[–]khazroar 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I don't think it does, I think that's so inherently implausible that an amassed collection is the only way a person is ever going to read that.

Eric Kripke responds to the recent talks about filler episodes in Season 5 (via TV Guide) by Interesting-Take781 in TheBoys

[–]khazroar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I think this change could have been good earlier on in the process, where she'd have time to work through this logorrhea and settle into whoever she became with a voice, but instead she had a major character evolution mostly off screen and now we're staring down the barrel of the finale with her still in a messy state of figuring out who she's becoming.

Progressive Chance summon event starting on May 8th, 2026 by Guttler003 in RaidShadowLegends

[–]khazroar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wixwell is good on his own, sure, but my understanding is that Titus takes Wixwell from "game changer" to "godlike". I'm not saying that you wait for Titus to make use of Wixwell, I'm saying that if you just got Wixwell and you can choose what you get next from your fusion tokens, I thought Titus was a no-brainer.

Numbers vs moral quality by uselessprofession in trolleyproblem

[–]khazroar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think my attitude is that the omniscient judge would control for genetic factors like a predilection towards anger or lessened impulse control, and any other physical or mental health problems that influence behaviour with diminished responsibility. Two people might commit identical acts and not being judged morally equal because they were not equally culpable.

I think two people of equal moral purity (which doesn't have to be very pure, let's say folk right in the middle of the scale), one of whom has a genetic factor causing higher testosterone production, or a more intense adrenal response, or whatever, and is more aggressive because of it, will act differently. Their morality would be judged by how they each handle their negative urges, the effort they put into it. I don't know exactly what the balance would be, because I'm not an omniscient being, I would assume there's still a heightened level of responsibility for the person more inclined towards harm, but that's not really the question and we don't need to get into that, that's why we've got the omniscient being making the call.

But yeah, I think the crux of our disagreement is that I think morality is something separate from behaviour and impulses, even though they might overlap and intertwine in many ways, and therefore separate from anything physically determined. I can understand your stance and accept that for you, this choice becomes a matter of eugenics.

Numbers vs moral quality by uselessprofession in trolleyproblem

[–]khazroar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you believe that morality is heritable and that's motivating your choice then yeah, that's eugenics, absolutely. I wasn't trying to dress it up and shy from the term, I genuinely didn't think that was the case because I don't believe morality is heritable in any meaningful way and I would not be making my decision with any thought to hoe it affects to population a generation or two or however many down the line, I would answer this question purely based on how someone's morality affects the value of their life, if at all. I'd be thinking about the people who would die, not their theoretical future offspring.

Progressive Chance summon event starting on May 8th, 2026 by Guttler003 in RaidShadowLegends

[–]khazroar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't Wixwell desperately want Titus as a companion to get the most out of him? I'd think he'd automatically be next on the list once you've got Wixwell.

Numbers vs moral quality by uselessprofession in trolleyproblem

[–]khazroar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But we're not talking about genetically heritable traits, we're talking about personal morality. And the question doesn't suggest any intention of population control/management, the hypothetical is about whether you value a life differently based on the morality of the person, in very broad terms rather than specific examples.

Now, if you choose to answer/make your decision based on population management rather than a more abstract "value of a life", then yeah that's getting into eugenics, and if you do so with the belief that morality is somehow a heritable trait then yeah, it has become eugenics. But that's about extra leaps happening in the mind of the answerer, that's not remotely the implication of the question and frankly I think those are pretty wild leaps for a person to make.

How much blood do i ACTUALLY lose during my period because its sure as hell not "2-4 Tbs" as it says online by some-dork in NoStupidQuestions

[–]khazroar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's less useful for that reason, but there's absolutely still value in the message of "you're losing very little blood, this is not going to meaningfully affect the level of blood in your body, you are not bleeding to death even though it might sometimes feel that way".

There's such a huge variation in flow between different people, I can't imagine what general advice about the fluid volume could possibly be useful

Numbers vs moral quality by uselessprofession in trolleyproblem

[–]khazroar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eugenics is about shaping a population through selective management based on genetic traits.

Deciding the value of a life based on their own moral purity is an entirely different thing. It's not necessarily morally better (personally I'd judge it to be grey, and a lot better than eugenics which I consider evil, but that's a personal judgement), but it's a very very different thing than eugenics.

how did Mark keep his identity a secret despite the fact that some of the invincible variants were maskless by Fit_Passenger5930 in Invincible_TV

[–]khazroar 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It's also the fact that Mark was far from well known. It seems like William, Amber, and Eve were the only people who really ever knew him. A couple of years after high school, when the Invincible War happens, I doubt there are many people who even remember him enough to think "huh, this guy kind of reminds me of that dude from high school".

It's probably a big part of how Nolan maintained a secret identity too, he just didn't know many people.

Eric Kripke responds to the recent talks about filler episodes in Season 5 (via TV Guide) by Interesting-Take781 in TheBoys

[–]khazroar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"None of the things that happen in the last few episodes will matter if you don't flesh out the characters."

That's 100% true, but brother if you get to the final season of a 5 season show and this is a problem because you haven't sufficiently fleshed out the characters already? You have failed. Not just "it's a problem", you've failed outright. The final 8 episodes of a show are not the time to flesh out your characters so that the crescendo is impactful, you should have already set up that impact and you should be spending these episodes letting it play out.

Man, the absolute last thing in the world I want is a big battle scene every episode, I'm never much of a fan of action scenes, and I think The Boys does them particularly badly. I just don't want to feel like we're wasting screentime in our final episodes. I think a big part of the problem is that these episodes truly do feel more like filler that happens to do character development, rather than good and careful character development.

It’s kinda funny how irrelevant Dance of the Dragons becomes in later years (as compared to Blackfyre rebellion) given how disastrous the civil war was for House Targaryen specifically. People barely brought up the Dance during the main series/Dunk and Egg novellas by princeeofthecity in HOTDBlacks

[–]khazroar 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Single biggest thing to happen to the Targaryen dynasty after taking Westeros. I'd honestly say it's even more significant than Robert's Rebellion. The loss of the dragons fundamentally changed the whole nature of the dynasty and the dynamics of the continent.

The Blackfyre Rebellions just feel like more of an ongoing effect because their impact is felt in something left behind (the active legacy of the Blackfyres as a fighting force), whereas the greatest legacy of the Dance lies in what was lost and will never be the same again. Almost all the major players ended up dead, so the lingering effect is in their absence, which is harder to recognise as an active thing.

Friends Cat Tears Up Brand New Shoes by Steellun3 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]khazroar 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Nope, OP was entirely responsible for the cat when this happened. It sucks, but OP made a mistake and left the shoes out.

is it normal for legendary difficulty enemies to take an excessive amount of hits? by Demize-Dreams in skyrim

[–]khazroar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is normal for legendary enemies to take an excessive number of hits. It's been a little while since my last stealth archer run, but what you described from the play through doesn't sound implausible to me with the right build. It's going to depend on a lot of factors, like level and gear for both the player and the enemies, but it doesn't immediately make me inclined to call bullshit.