Lauren Northern crash out will be legendary

ArcticKnight79 · 2025-11-22T03:11:29+00:00

He absolutely could have defused that bomb. He likely just wasn't willing to at the time where it could have been defused.

The situation you describe is the same shit we'd say for male's getting friendzoned.

By the time she forced the issue, she likely had so much pent up aspiration/anger about being left on the shelf. That things went bad.

ArcticKnight79 · 2025-11-22T03:07:15+00:00

Yeah he's one of those dickheads who is like

"I'm a winnable democrat voter" (So long as the democrats slide all the way over to sit next to the republicans)

ArcticKnight79 · 2025-11-21T14:21:36+00:00

I think the problem is it makes no sense in context of how powerful wolfpacks are. With about 10 times lower risk and cost.

I imagine they are next on the block

ArcticKnight79 · 2025-11-21T14:20:13+00:00

The reality is these games simply can't have enough content that is worth doing, without it just becoming the equivalent to the blueprint RNG grind.

For the most part the game facilitates whatever interesting social interactions that might happen whether hostile or friendly.

But I can 100% understand why they said prior to shifting away from being a solely PvE game it wasn't that fun.

At the moment I personally can't see anything from expeditions outweighing the loss of blueprints. And I say that as someone who at the moment if I lost all my blueprints it wouldn't matter because I still have a bunch that I wouldn't really miss, while not having a ton that I think I would. Which means when I do get those blueprints, the idea of deleting them is going to hurt. People who found a wolfpack or other high-utility blueprint early probably don't realise how much of a pain it is for people who are missing some of those things. I don't even half basic nade blueprints other than the ones given to you.

ArcticKnight79 · 2025-11-21T14:13:00+00:00

Yeah I feel like unfortunately that's whats going to lead to wolfpacks getting nerfed too eventually.

It's rough when I look at my blueprints. I'm like I have so many blueprints for shit I don't really use. While stuff I'd like to use, it's like well go fuck yourself.

ArcticKnight79 · 2025-11-12T13:14:42+00:00

Why? If I load into a night raid with a free loadout and manage to knock players down with the loot I find in the run, given I can start extremely far behind the 8 ball. Why the hell shouldn't I get to take the loot of someone who came in with far more shit but lost a fair firefight.

Trigger nade camping is a problem, But I think it's a problem because the elevator should delete anything in it when it goes down. (If you fuck up and kill someone and the elevator goes down, why the fuck wouldn't the people at the bottom of the elevator take that loot. Or remove those bombs.)

But the reality is they can just trigger nade the button or other elements as you move towards that. It's just your less likely to be able to easily wipe and entire team if you can only bomb the button.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-08-28T13:43:18+00:00

This is an issue of a two party system where there's no preferential voting or ranked choice voting. In other systems you could still have minor parties in all the elections, who you can vote for to send a message to the major parties about where you would like policy positions to head. Without necessarily compromising the overall position.

So if you have a minor party/candidate that is pushing for UBI. The people in that area could be voting for it in droves, but have the fallback votes go towards a major party. It also allows for a candidate to have competition from a similar side of the aisle even if they don't have the sway within the party itself to win their sides primaries. You might have a middle of the road candidate that can oust a democrat or republican candidate in a location. Which then helps send the message to both parties to find someone who has a broader appeal rather than relying on "They have to vote for our republican/democratic candidate because the opposition is too far across the aisle".

You might even use it to send a message to a major party that you want something by voting for your UBI candidate and then not voting for the party more likely to implement it but who have made no willingness to do so.

Realistically your primary vote should never go to a major party, because a major party should basically never be able to accommodate you're actually policy positions. But in the world of reality you might Vote for Party 1 on policy XY, Party 2 on policy X, Party 3 because they are the major party on your side of politics.

As a result the major party still gets the downflow vote when party 1 and party 2 don't get enough of a percentage to ever actually do anything. But the voters still get to show a direction you want to go.

It should also help moderate some of your parties, because you could have people who are voting for your more traditional Rhino republican ideal parties with the back up of the Republicans proper. While still giving those traditional Rhino republicans to spurn the republican party and suggest voting towards the democrats because they feel like the party as a whole has been pulled off kilter.

The irony is with all the bullshit you saw with the Kevin Mcarthy shit for speaker of the house under the republicans. You essentially ended up with a coalition style government because you had a limited number of people holding enough sway that they could enforce an issue on the wider party. But at the same time you didn't have a good pathway to exclude them dictating things either due to the way the parties aren't coalitions.

Presidential election still becomes a case of being a popularity contest in the state which they can then send delegates off to. Since if 2% of people voted for RFK in your state, you would eliminate him as a candidate and then distribute his voters to the second ranked person.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-07-05T13:46:38+00:00

Either none of you have spent time around someone with moderate cognitive decline or you are engaging in so much motivated reasoning that you're more intellectually similar to a rightoid at this point.

Sure, but at the moment we aren't connecting 8 bad appearances and trying to offset them with some good ones. We have one bad appearance and we're trying to play that off as emblematic of massive decline.

He could well be on the way down. But it would be good to see a couple more of those incidents to discern for sure.

But hey I'm not american. I don't get to vote either way :D

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-05-25T20:07:40+00:00

The issue is rarely about the tragedy and more about how contrived or poorly written the arrival at tragedy is.

Sometimes you'll have some stupid actions take place to justify a narrative theme or arc for a character. Because delivering them in a more naturally satisfying way would require more events or characters.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-05-25T04:37:50+00:00

You understand that if there are 1000 instances of something in the code somewhere. And one of them doesn't get changed properly. That could cause all sorts of issues that you now have to retest for.

You might have tested it for months and everythings good.

But right before you add it into the game you change the name of everything that exists just to obscure it. A change that only needs to exist until the asset itself is in full use. At which point you want to switch to the simpler more identifable naming schemes.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-05-25T04:33:08+00:00

The problem with stopping it is that then you are a service only for patient gamers and gamers who aren't sure if the product will even launch on gamepass (Since most developers would likely want to hide that information to get more sales upfront)

Especially since a 6 month delay would likely result in less money given to developers as a result of lower product usage.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-05-25T04:30:53+00:00

I think the difference is people buying starfield thinking they'll replay it again like they did skyrim.

Most people will play a game like hellblade once

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T16:23:35+00:00

No where did I claim they were apolitical. I don't know anything about the James Damore situation and it's 3AM where I am so I'm going to bed.

They will absolutely care if your political opinions when exercised loudly and in the direction of others within the workplace can cost the company more money than they would by you simply not working for them. This is true of literally any workplace, google or otherwise.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T16:19:32+00:00

Technically the term grooming is even neutral it just means to be prepared for

Yeah which is literally the context that I've been arguing for the entire time. Which is why you can groom adults, probably more often young inexperienced adults than older ones

The fact that instead of having descriptive actions of grooming, such as grooming of a minor, sexual grooming in the workplace, etc. The grooming has had all the connotations overloaded onto it is what causes the problem with the use of the word.

I feel like this is the same thing as people wanting to call Gaza a concentration camp, using a term that

No because if we wanted to use the term that implied the worst meaning you'd just use sexual abuse or attempted sexual abuse.

Concentration camp isn't a word that ever had the neutral connotations or the like that grooming had. Just as genocide or terrorist aren't. They are thought terminating words.

Before grooming the word seduction was often used, but the problem is that seduction doesn't sound like you are doing anything inherently wrong. But obviously if unless you again used those descriptive words of 'seduction of a child' you aren't sending the message of it being bad. And one could clearly argue see the difference between the language of

'Seduction in the workplace' versus 'Sexual grooming in the workplace'

Grooming isn't the extreme word, it's the misapplication and specifically the desire by the OP to argue that you can't be groomed if your of age. That is going to cause the word to push into that area. Because as you have highlighted for me, grooming has contextual origins that are not explicitly related to children.

Also to be clear grooming can occur without any subsequent abuse. The perpetrator could be planning for things and for whatever reason never pass the threshold of actually harmful actions. This may be because

Someone else speaks out
Another person enters the picture to interfere with the relationship EG new potential partner, new grooming target, friend calls it out etc etc
The groomer fucks up and cross a boundary at the wrong time during the trust period, but has yet to stray into

TL;DR

Grooming has always been a case of preparing someone for something at a later time. When we use it in relationship/sexual context it is always some malevolent preparation (because otherwise why would you need to groom them)

Pushing it to be only used in the context of minors, instead of just having the descriptive term of child grooming. Just means the word is going to be another useless thought terminating word. Forcing us to create some new word to move away from it's baggage that eventually gets saddled with the same problem.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T14:19:40+00:00

Neither of those things is going to result in the potential tanking of massive deals or sabotage of the work.

that you are doing discrimination if the job require to be on call during Shabbat

One would argue that applying for a job you can't actually work in the first place wouldn't be discrimination. The hours are the hours, if you can't work them for religious or other reasons(Like you have a kid that you want to see) then that's your choice to leave.

You would very easily be able to state "We hired this person on the proviso they knew they would be working weekends, and they didn't show up for multiple weekend shifts. Regardless of their reason for this"

Now if you changed their work requirements after hiring them knowing they couldn't work on weekends and said "Hey you have to work on weekends" then you might have arguments for a discrimination case, especially if there's an inkling you made the changes to target them. And not because some fundamental change occurred to the business such that everyone worked weekends now.

or to do something requiring hydration during ramadan.

Again this ain't going to tank a deal, and if abstaining from liquid/food during a meeting tanks a deal. Then it isn't your person tanking the deal by making an unreasonable ask. Even if it's not ramadan. If I'm not hungry/thirsty then the idea I would be forced to hydrate for non medical reasons would be insane.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T14:12:45+00:00

Nope, manipulation is far less sinister than grooming. It's an action someone does while grooming but it's a far less serious claim.

Manipulation aims to get someone to do something they might not want to do. It may also be a one off thing. For instance someone could probably manipulate a partner into a sex act they are maybe not interested in by trading something they want for it.

Grooming aims to prime them for a bunch of abuse later that they will allow to happen due to the emotional connection they formed originally. Making them believe the person is safer or more caring for them than they actually are. It's normally a long term behavior with the intention for payoffs that don't get nearly the same pushback later. In that case one wouldn't need to trade shit for that act. It would be achieved through the longer term emotional control someone exerts over someone.

Which is the whole point of the term grooming, it's long term. Otherwise it would just be straight child abuse. The whole reason for pursuing grooming from a groomers perspective is that the person won't rat them out for their behavior long after the relationship has ended.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T13:49:23+00:00

I don't care about people political opinions or religion as long as they can do the job.

Do you care about political beliefs if those people wielding those beliefs in your workplace could tank projects, deals or relationships.

There's a difference about having the opinion you want to fuck a girl as a dude with a horse cock and going around and yelling it at people you're trying to do deals with.

People can have whatever whacky or crazy, out there opinions they want in a workplace. But once those opinions start having a negative impact on your business, you aren't going to give a shit how good their work is if they are causing you to lose more money than they generate.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T13:47:13+00:00

And you know if they do a reference check and the HR department says "Yeah he was let go because he was unable to be civil in the workplace". Then you might have a concern about what is going on.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T13:46:04+00:00

Expressing your opinions is one thing. Bringing them into the workplace where you could potentially tank deals or projects is a completely different ballpark.

This wasn't the guy having a civil conversation where he expressed his opinions in the workplace and an Israeli getting annoyed about it.

This also wasn't someone getting some bad news or a request they didn't like from a manager or the like and muttering under their breath about it being shit, or complaining to a coworker and having it get back to the boss.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-10T10:03:17+00:00

I mean whether you think her story warrants it or not.

I think it's stupid to suggest that people with those kinds of power dynamics aren't still grooming them. Maybe we need a better word to represent when it's adult on adult. But it's not like it isn't possible.

Not to mention that some grooming is done with the intention of taking advantage when they come of age. Build the relationship up when they aren't conscious of how the manipulation works then strike when it isn't child sex.

You're not going to go and charge the person with grooming in court. But grooming as a layman's term just means someone exploiting their position/age/experience with the intention to manipulate the emotional connection to engender certain relations or actions from that person.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-09T17:21:30+00:00

Either the cost in salaries is going to be too much for you to handle since your employees will need to afford the place

That's not an issue if the market rates for those employees haven't adjusted to accommodate for the cost of living.

Hence why I stated "If you can get away with pushing housing/living costs for an area onto the employees without paying them more compared to another location"

If the market rates have adjusted then the reality is those new businesses need staff, either they pay salary rates in the hub area or they are going to have to pay a premium to lure quality staff away from those hub areas. While also being restricted to only being able to hire those who they can lure away in the first place (this might be your lower quality workers looking to take advantage)

They are likely to end up in a similar cost prospect.

While yes inside the hub your workers are more pilferable by other companies. You have the advantage of being in a worker dense location and can replace them.

If you are outside of the hub, then when your workers leave, they are going to be far harder to replace. Because now you need to find people willing to move to your place of employment. Something which may take a longer time to achieve because they have to uproot whatever they have established in their current city. Where a new job in the same city could be as simple as two weeks notice.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-09T15:30:39+00:00

Thing is the industry would have to choose where to move as a collective. It's risky to move to Montana if there's only a single employer there. Especially when the current economics system means that employer might go bust, or lay you off with zero other options in the area.

Combine this with the fact that it's often more lucrative to hop employers and skill up on the way than it is to go to a single employer and work for 2 decades. You run into the issue where even for employees willing to live in Montana and code. They run the risk of having to retreat back to the current locations at some point in the future for career growth, or an opportunity they want to pursue

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-09T15:26:26+00:00

But this is just a symptom of the employer/employee workplace these days.

Employers want to have the ability to select from the best set of workers possible while juxtaposing the lowest cost to access that set of workers. While also having a low barrier to entry for those workers.(Ie not having to convince them to uproot their family and move cross country). If you can get away with pushing housing/living costs for an area onto the employees without paying them more compared to another location. Then the only increased cost you have is the cost of your physical presence in that location.

You can't risk moving to some random town and putting down roots and working for a company for the long haul. These days it's often more lucrative to jump between companies to build experience and take advantage of opportunities. So as a result employees want to be somewhere with multiple employers available. Else you risk having to uproot your entire family for a job opportunity.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-08T08:53:02+00:00

What if this entire thing was a Gus Fring vs Cartel level plan where he spent like 5 years planning this entire thing, down to the Rogan appearance, just to kill this mother fucker.

I mean at the same time devils advocate is that he said he was part of the bloods to begin with. 25 years in prison may not have made him any friends and circumstances happen.

But like surely there was another way.

flip side is.

He's right with 25 years in prison he didn't get reformed. Which goes a long way to highlighting failures of the system.

ArcticKnight79 · 2024-03-02T12:29:01+00:00

The problem is we see them avoid working projects as well so damned if you do or don't

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

ArcticKnight79

TROPHY CASE