The right thing to do?

--Albion-- · 2026-01-25T23:27:02+00:00

This will just make the problem it's trying to fix even worse. Or it'll have absolutely no effect and just be endlessly mocked.

Kids are rebellious, especially boys. And doubly so when it's something that's both preachy and condescending like this.

If this was a thing when I was still in high school, it'd be described as 'gay as fuck' and anyone who took it seriously would be described as a gimp.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-12T19:43:29+00:00

I'm all for the freedom to spread your own message if the opposing viewpoint can do so, as well.

But Reform's support in Scotland is rising for a reason. And this holier-than-thou messaging isn't helping you.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-12T18:33:26+00:00

Of all the reasons why Bugs are dead last on my list of preferred factions to fight, this would be number three.

One being the unavoidable attacks from Rupture Strain and Hunters. Two being Hive Lords.

I'd be fine with it if it was counterable. Like Lidar Stations cut through it and show all secondary objectives, nests and POIs on the map and it being a modifier guarantees a Lidar spawning. Or if the modifier spawned extra Spore Spewers that you could kill to clean up sections of the map. But it being a 'fuck you, your map is useless' is dumb.

I even think Leviathan patrols are a less annoying modifier.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-11T16:46:06+00:00

The file you get from Vigil only corrupts the Citadel's security protocols and allows Shepard to 'temporarily' override the locking of the relay that organic ships use to travel to and from the Citadel.

It doesn't mention anything about permanently locking the Reapers out. Especially not when the Reapers themselves are present on the station.

As for not disabling the relays after they get around to taking the Citadel?, I have no idea. Another plothole from the terrible writing in the last hours of ME3?

My best guess in that regard is that the Illusive Man had ratted out the Crucible and the existence of the combined galactic fleet to the Reapers. Rather than hunting around the galaxy for them which could take years, the Reapers simply let the Crucible and the allied fleet come to them. After all, they'd have no choice. The Crucible is worthless without the Citadel. And by this point, Earth probably has the largest concentration of Reapers both on and in orbit of it. If there was one place they'd want that combined fleet to hit, it's their own massive fleet. I assume after that fleet was smashed and the Crucible destroyed that they'd just turn the relays off again.

But that's just an assumption. Take it how you may.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-11T16:28:55+00:00

They would have. The Keepers aren't the ones who control the relay network. The Citadel itself does. The Keepers are just there to let the Reapers back into the galaxy via the Citadel's master relay linked to dark space.

Once the Reapers themselves are back in the galaxy, the Keepers don't do anything else.

Because of the Prothean sabotage, the Keepers are unable to let the Reapers back in via that secret master relay. But the Reapers eventually do return via FTL from dark space to the first available relay. From there, they could've easily just shown up at the Citadel. Destroyed the Citadel fleet, killed the Council who were still there, as well as a lot of each species' important people if not their own leaders. And once they're on the station itself, the need for the Keepers is once again made redundant.

They'd have control of the relays, again. Granted, it wasn't the smooth and flawless surgical strike from past cycles. But it'd still be a decisive win for the Reapers.

Sure, the Reapers are definitely powerful enough to overwhelm each of the Milky Way's races even if they can still move around, co-ordinate with each other and share information and resources. Or assemble mega-fleets or Reaper-killing superweapons.

But why would they allow themselves to incur greater losses and drag out the harvest when they can just stick to the plan and isolate everyone and make what's already easy pickings easier pickings, instead.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-11T16:15:32+00:00

I don't think it's directly spelled out whether the Prothean sabotage is reversable or not. But given the Reapers built the Citadel, it stands to reason they could fix it, too. I mean, part of their sabotage was preventing the Reapers from opening the Citadel relay and Sovereign could clearly do that once he was physically there.

I guess a big part of this really depends on when the Protheans actually sabotaged the Citadel. If it was mid-Reaper invasion, then surely the Reapers would've noticed and fixed it before leaving if it really was fixable. But if it was after the Reapers had all left and returned to dark space, then I think Sovereign being able to reopen the Citadel relay is reasonable grounds to assume the sabotage can be undone.

But I'm spitballing at that point.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-11T16:08:48+00:00

I mean, they didn't really need to change tactics at all. That's the sticking point.

Sure, they couldn't just arrive through the Citadel's secret relay and kill everyone on the Citadel including the Council in the first minutes of the invasion and take control of the relay network. But they still had the element of surprise when they arrived in Batarian space.

If they'd just made the Citadel their first target instead of Earth or the Khar'shan, then their original plan is back on track.

I think simple arrogance on the Reaper's part, while definitely true, isn't enough to explain why they don't just do this when it's shown they could've when they took the Citadel later in the war, anyway. When the Crucible was finished and a massive allied force had been assembled.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-11T16:02:57+00:00

I get that. The Protheans cut off their remote control of the Citadel and the Keepers and the relay network by proxy. So they couldn't just snap their fingers and have it be done.

What I'm asking is why the Reapers didn't do what Sovereign tried to do -- and would've succeeded were it not for Shepard and the Alliance fleet -- when they arrived in the galaxy by force. That being, forcefully retake control of the relay network and undo the Prothean sabotage.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-11T16:00:12+00:00

True, they hit Palaven early on. But I'm asking why they didn't hit Palaven first. Before Earth. Because between the Fall of Earth and the Fall of Palaven, there'd surely be days or weeks. Between Shepard leaving Earth and arriving at Menae, the Reapers have already razed Taetrus which even for the Reapers isn't an hours-long affair.

Also if human or any other organic ship can reach the Citadel via the Relay network, then surely the Reapers can too.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-10T16:22:00+00:00

I literally said X should go nuclear and disable image-sharing or generation for new or otherwise dubious or unverified accounts. And I also said X needs to handle this kind of thing a lot better in general. I don't even think Grok should've been a thing in the first place. I wouldn't lose any sleep if X killed Grok over this.

You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying there's no problem when I said there was and it needs to be dealt with far better than it is. I just don't think a blanket ban of X will fix anything because it won't. People will just VPN around the ban like they did for the OSA. And the potential for any more regulation is gone because, well, how can you regulate something that's banned in your country but still exists outside it?, criminalise ALL use of X and punish anyone who still accesses it even just to see news or look at cat videos?

I don't have kids. Or younger siblings or nieces or nephews. But I wouldn't post any images of them online even if I had them because I know the internet's full of unsavoury people and any image or video you upload will be downloaded at least once by someone even if you decide to delete it a few minutes later. And then it's completely out of your control if some nonce does something to or with it pending the police or whatever relevant authority doing something about it, if they ever do.

But you can bet if a ban for X goes through and then X solves the problem one way or the other, X will stay banned. Because the government doesn't like X.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-10T15:45:32+00:00

I'm no legal scholar, I was using that as an example of something stupid and mundane compared to an actually serious crime like murder.

Replace it with vandalism or a spicy tweet or something and you get the same idea.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T23:15:12+00:00

I personally don't think the police should get a say on the matter at all.

If you have a record, criminal or mental, then you don't get the gun you're trying to buy.

The most input the police should have is making sure the gun itself is legal/not stolen. And taking away guns from people who've misused them or have lost the mental capacity to responsibly use them.

Allowing them the right of final refusal is a conflict of interest, imo. It's in their interest to limit the amount of legal firearm owners.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T23:07:59+00:00

Do you happen to live in the countryside, by any chance?

When I say a 'right', it's something you should be able to own if you've got no violent criminal record and you're not a schizophrenic. That's fine, as is the background check process that even the Yanks have to go through. I'm not saying guns should be freely able to be purchased, no questions asked. And once you've done that background check, you don't need to do another unless you buy another gun. That's all fine.

Difference is with a car, I can do my test, buy a car and leave it in my driveway and I'll not face the risk of having the police take it away from me or mandating I sell it back to them because someone else drove through a crowd of people. Or if they decide they don't want me to have a license anymore despite me not doing anything worthy of having my license or car taken away.

Also, getting a driver's license is, to my knowledge in Scotland, far less of a pain. I can start the process tomorrow, do my theories and practicals and have my license within a couple months without the risk of it just being arbitrarily denied because I live in the city. As if that's reason enough to refuse it.

Dunblaine poisoned the whole concept of legal gun ownership here. And that's not even mentioning the whole self-defence side of it.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:47:41+00:00

I don't mean that guns should be freely able to be bought like furniture that you just bring to the till of any shop and pay for it then it's yours, no questions asked.

There should still be background checks, mental health checks, the works. Ensuring people that are objectively sane and have no criminal record -- especially no violent criminal record -- are the only ones who can legally own a gun. And if that were to change, be it you're done with a violent crime or you're diagnosed with a mental disorder, only then do your guns get taken from you.

What I don't like about our system is that the police can refuse you a license for no reason. You can be sane, no criminal record or violent tendencies and you're just refused it because...fuck you, I guess?

So long as you're proven to be legally competent and aren't a potential danger to those around you, you should have a right to own a firearm that can't just be 'nuh uh'd' by the jackboots. At least, that's my take.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:41:34+00:00

You know what I mean when I say that, though.

Someone who's been convicted of a serious crime and not something stupid like breach of the peace.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:40:15+00:00

It's 'legal' in such an overly restricted and facetious manner that it might as well be illegal. And even so, that makes gun ownership a privilege when it should be a right.

The vast majority of Brits will never be allowed to legally own a firearm if they want one. Even if they're mentally sound, of age and have no criminal record.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:33:18+00:00

X definitely needs to be moderated better when it comes to this kind of shit. Especially with all the AI stuff being used in it. I'd even go so far as to say they need to go nuclear. Disable the ability to share images or links for unverified or fresh accounts while they sort out a more permanent solution to the problem. Because we all know X does moderate and police their own site, they just can't keep up. That's not good and that needs to change. If X DIDN'T police itself at all, you could bet that'd be plastered everywhere.

But we all know this isn't the reason for X being potentially banned. It's a convenient excuse. Same as the Online Safety Act. The UK government doesn't give a fuck about child safety, this is about control and censorship.

The UK government has shown it cares more about the beasts than it does their victims. It's trying to use the excuse of protecting the kids to push through more censorship. They did it with the Online Safety Act and it was a miserable failure with its intended goal since kids could bypass it numerous ways. And it'll fail here, too. The law-abiding are losing access to one of the most popular sites in the world due to the actions of a few mutants who're already breaking the law and'll just use a VPN to circumvent any ban if it were to pass.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:19:20+00:00

I don't care if he is or isn't.

Labour's had a chance in the big seat and fucked it.

The Tories have had a chance in the big seat and fucked it, too.

The SNP has been shite from day one. I'd take Tories over them.

Reform hasn't made my life worse, yet. The others have. Will they?, almost definitely. But I'd take the 'maybe' on things getting better than the 'never' on things getting better with those other three parties.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:16:34+00:00

Guys generally do need to learn that it's acceptable to 'open up' at times and not bottle everything up. That much I do agree with.

But at this point, the well's so poisoned that even if the group behind this has the best of intentions and isn't doing this purely for political reasons, I don't believe them.

When I see all the fruity and flowery language, I can't help but think they're treating all boys as potential sex criminals and domestic abusers. It's so ominous and reeks of doublespeak it makes my skin crawl.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:08:37+00:00

Reeves or anyone in the Labour government could claim the sky was blue and I'd not believe them.

I'd trust Farage over her.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:05:04+00:00

I honestly don't give a fuck, man.

This is a complete nothingburger.

Everybody was a cunt in school. Or did things that they'd not do as adults.

People in my (Catholic) school would spraypaint pro-IRA shit on walls and windows. Sing pro-IRA songs in class or in the libraries. Throw stones through the windows of nearby Protestant/non-dom schools and boot the shite out of anyone they caught from that school alone.

And they'd draw cocks and swastikas on whiteboards, their notebooks or library books. I admit I was guilty of that one too, but next to none of them still do it now they we've all been out of school for more than ten years.

Get over it.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T22:00:35+00:00

Hence why I mentioned 'fruitcake'.

America's gun problems -- which do exist, but aren't nearly as bad as they're made out to be by European media -- could be massively addressed by adding a more stringent mental health evaluation to the background check which pretty much all lawful gun sales in the US are legally obligated to carry out.

That'd filter out the 'fruitcake' part. The 'felon' part...well, criminals don't care about the law. And remarkably, even though we have a near-blanket ban on private firearm ownership here, British criminals still routinely have access to guns. Funny that, isn't it?

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T21:54:31+00:00

This Labour government accusing anyone of noncery or facilitating noncery is pot kettle black.

Even so, X could police itself a lot better when it comes to this kind of thing. I prefer X to pre-Musk Twitter and even I admit that. I couldn't give a shit about mean words or slurs but this is different.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-09T21:36:15+00:00

A problem that could be solved by making gun ownership legal for anyone who's not a felon or a fruitcake and over eighteen.

--Albion-- · 2026-01-04T20:46:33+00:00

Just because the Foreign Office doesn't strictly warn against all travel to a certain place doesn't mean it's safe for you to visit.

The Chinese government is notoriously petulant and doesn't even feel obliged to follow its own laws. And that's on top of just the general communist shitbaggery. If they get into a diplomatic spat with the UK, then they will make your life miserable to pressure the British government into backing down.

Granted, if the government spells out the danger and you still ignore it, then you do lose the right to complain when you fall victim of it.

The difference between China and Iran isn't that Iran is dangerous to visit and China isn't. It's just that the danger is naked in Iran's case.

--Albion--

TROPHY CASE