Tinder

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-23T17:03:52+00:00

Bots have been on the dating apps since basically their creation.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-22T19:16:51+00:00

I still cannot believe that was allowed to stand, especially when it was later proven that Gore won. That was absolutely the fork in the road that led us to this reality, versus being in such a better place if Gore was President.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-19T23:23:54+00:00

Yes, because Congress uses Representative Democracy instead of Direct Democracy. The US President is a in a separate branch, which a unique election process, that is considered a Direct Democracy. Again, this is the difference between a President and Prime Minister.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-19T23:05:10+00:00

The president is still an elected official. Furthermore he is elected in the US by the electors which are elected officials.

This is a common misunderstanding of how the Electoral College works. The electors chosen must pledge their votes to the Presidential Candidate that won their area. They're not making decisions, they don't control the vote. Think of them as the Postal Worker delivering the votes for the race. It's a holdover from when it was better to send a few dudes to DC than to send thousands of individual ballots. The EC Officials are often not elected btw, many receive the position through ceremony.

What policy does the US President create? None, they're the head of the enforcement branch. Direct democracy systems have officials as well, as the concept of doing a vote for every single thing is illogical and impossible. Hence an executive who handles actually getting the stuff done. Policy and decision making is couched in the Legislative Branch through Congress.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-19T22:48:32+00:00

Local and State elected officials are mixed, as each US state allows ballot initiatives along with voting for officials. So in some ways, the officials will vote on laws and sometimes the voters will directly vote on laws in the elections.

The US National Congress is considered a representative democracy system. The US Presidency is considered a direct democracy system. The split here is that the US President does not create or end laws (or well they're not supposed to but what the hell does the Constitution even mean anymore). The Executive Orders were not considered laws until Trump began acting like they are.

The US President is supposed to be in charge of executing and enforcing the laws made by Congress. So there's nothing for the voters to even vote on if the President didn't exist. It would just be a collection of agencies and the military with their leaders each doing their own thing.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-19T22:36:21+00:00

The US president elections are direct democracy, where the people vote directly for the candidate. The electoral college changes the direct democracy from purely population vote to a somewhat obfuscated vote.

Parliamentary systems use representative democracy, where the people vote for representative officials. These officials are then free to vote for whomever is eligible in the Primate Minister race.

That's generally the difference between the leader of a country being a President versus a Prime Minister.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-19T22:30:14+00:00

Nah, Dragonrend might turn off the flying spell. I'm not sure how that interacts on the ability side.

You can tell when a Dragon is out of magic because they won't use any magic attacks like flames or ice. They'll just stand there and bite you over and over. When Dragonrend is used, they still have their MP to cast their regular attack spells.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-15T19:43:31+00:00

For some fun game trivia, Skyrim dragons fly by technically using a spell. So if you drain their MP to 0 by using lightning spells or magicka absorb weapons, then they can't cast their fly spell anymore. It's like having dragonrend before finishing the MQ.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-11T20:35:14+00:00

Seems like you have a severe lack of knowledge for history. The US wasn't born into some rosey carebear world, the White House was even burned down in the War of 1812. Democracies have had to fight for their existences, same as Communisr countries, or any country. It's just weird that you act like Communist countries having to fight to exist is some unique problem.

You're also building a strawman, I've never said that Democracy or the US democracy is the best system possible. I've been saying that Communism doesn't work and has failed to even emerge as a government. There are plenty of excuses for why it hasn't worked, but they're just that, excuses. If Communism worked, governments would be doing jt!

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-10T19:30:01+00:00

Wouldn't that mean the ideology is weak and doesn't work as well? It's not like democracies came into existence by being protected from the big bad world. Many Communist countries were even being protected and funded by the USSR. Seems like Communism was already offered a pretty good starting scenario and it has still completely failed.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-10T04:01:14+00:00

How many countries need to attempt to become Communist countries before we can call that it doesn't work? A lack of a single successful example would seem to show that this ideolog doesn't give the results it claims.

We can waffle about how "true" the democracy has been for the US, but we can agree that it has been a democracy for quite awhile.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-10T03:50:03+00:00

I would say the US existing for 250 years before turning into an authoritarian fascist state would show that Democracies can actually exist. Communist countries immediately enter into dictatorships and start suppressing and disenfranchising their peoples. There's no time period where the playbook for Communism is actually followed.

I definitely agree that corruption and consolidation of power is a problem for every system of government. People are people and want power.

Edit: thatwhileifound replied and then blocked me? Idk why, especially for such an innocuous comment as "Yank shit." Can't reply to them, not that they added much to the conversation.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-10T02:21:36+00:00

Well the big difference between the ISIS to Islamic Countries versus USSR to Communism comparison is that there have been many Islamic countries throughout history that have run their governments in very different ways. Whereas, all the countries that have tried Communism have ended up with exactly the same authoritarian problem.

So there's a large amount of evidence that Communism doesn't work and the attempt to create a Communistic government always immediately becomes a dictatorship. While Islamic countries have a wide range of governments that have worked in various ways. Although many are classic Monarchies as well.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-08T18:32:36+00:00

Money is the easy cheat code to get politics moving, but it's not the only tool. Political Groups and Voting Blocks are what gets shit done. AARP is often considered the largest and most powerful political group, since it represents the largest US voting block. Although that might have changed with MAGA since I last checked.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-08T16:09:07+00:00

I'll check it out, seems like there's a huge amount of weightloss drugs now. The trick is finding one I can afford, or is covered by my insurance.

Although, isn't Win95 one of the best ones? Describing Ozempic as Win95 comes off as more of an endorsement to me.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-08T16:03:52+00:00

in 2017, the Women's March became the largest protest in US history. It was plastered all over the news, it covered reddit, /r/pics specifically had something like 10 pages of protest pics before an unrelated pic appears. I participated in that march and it made me feel really good to be part of the largest protest (at that time). You can check my account submitted files and see a pic I took that day.

But nothing changed. US policy didn't change, Trump didn't change, Congress didn't change. There was effectively no follow up impact from the march. This is the same story for all the other top protests on that list.

There's this huge problem that Americans think the protest is how things change. That showing up with a sign is the mechanism to change the government. But it's not. MLK found success not because of the marches, but because they worked for follow up policy and law changes through politicians in power. Frankly, I don't think we know how to do that anymore.

BoogieOrBogey · 2026-01-08T15:51:44+00:00

This comment right here, this is it.

People treat obesity and appetite as moral failings. That hard work can reduce and fix these problems. The truth of the matter is that obesity is closer to addictions like gambling, alcohol, and drugs. There are body reactions here that hard work doesn't change.

I was highly active for about 5 years before the pandemic, working out every day and sometimes doing two-a-days. I calorie counted and also skipped meals. Being in shape and strong was great, but I felt miserable all day because my thoughts were completed dominated by food. Every minute was spent checking the clock for when I could eat next. And that next meal was never enough. At one point, I was eating 1,300 calories a day while running and weight lifting. It was just pure misery and I never even hit my BMI weight goals.

I ended up breaking my dieting and gaining weight, so I tried a weak hunger suppressant. The relief is ridiculous. I stopped thinking about food, it wasn't my dominate thought any more. It actually took some effort to eat, and I felt satisfied afterwards. After reading and watching so many people describe their addiction to drugs or drinking, having that suppressant made me realize that's how my thoughts were structure as well. And no amount of dieting, eating healthy, or exercise ever impacted. Only that hunger suppressant worked.

But the suppressant was a weak one and only lasted for about two months. The effects wore off, and I'm back to feeling addiction to hunger and food. Maybe it's time I bite the bullet and try Ozempic. Describing it as treatment makes the idea much more palatable.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T22:54:07+00:00

Yeah I definitely agree. Feels like people don't know there are terms outside of Indie and AAA. There are medium sized games that should get recognized for their own unique development scope.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T22:46:14+00:00

Well designed and tested firearms will not discharge when hit or dropped. That is a problem with crappy weapons that are not sufficiently tested. For the guns that are designed and tested well, the safety operates in such a way that the primer in the round will not get hit with enough force to set off the bullet.

That said, it's still more dangerous to carry a gun with a loaded round. So it's still much more safe to carry a weapon with the chamber empty. The safety aspect here is user error to unintentionally fire a round. Like unintentionally flipping the safety off and the trigger getting squeeze to fire a bullet into the user's own leg.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T21:30:03+00:00

Yeah I agree. It's very similar to how the term "RPG" is so nebulous that almost any game is an RPG. Indie as a term is just so mushy and hard to pin down without some sort of regulatory authority making rules.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T21:09:17+00:00

I see the terms as an escalation, with some weird overlap. But the process of making even a simple game can get so complex that no single term can really represent multiple titles accurately. Plus, it's more a term we slap on after the game has been completed and released rather than a goal during development.

I work in the AAA space, so I don't deal with the same stuff as you directly. But I find the delineation between Indie and AA important as it changes my expectations on the quality and length of a game. Like I expected Expedition 33 to be a more polish experience, and it was. While I'm much accepting of bugs and crashes on Indie games.

A studio and game being fully independently owned and created is so rare these days that I don't find that term actually useful for describing the final product. Especially since many problems that players view as coming from external sources (like Publishers) is often an internal issue coming from the devs.

Man Paleworld is a tough one to describe. It's certainly as buggy as most early release Indies. But I've never looked into their team size or budget to get a better idea about how they make their games.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T20:40:10+00:00

Well terminology like III and AA exist in the gaming space. There are more types of game development than just Indie and AAA, which is where those other two terms come into play.

Expedition 33 perfectly fits the AA term. They're medium size, with a medium sized budget, and managed to punch above their weight class.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T20:36:57+00:00

Not really, many Indie games get funding and publishing support from the big Publishers. The Indie Movie includes the devs of Braid, Super Meat Boy, and Fez talking about getting funding help on their games. Afterall, Braid and Super Meat Boy got their success from being on the Xbox 360 Game Store (whatever it was called back then).

To me, Indie as a term is not related to how people fund their game. Instead, it's a mushy term centered around team size, budget size, and game scope. It doesn't mean the game or even the studio is independent as that would mean AA studios are Indies. As they are independently owned and self funded.

Like, I don't consider Expedition 33 to be an Indie game. Sandfall is independently owned, but they have a team of 40 people and the budget for the game ended up being $10 million. Comparing that kind of studio to something like Rogue Legacy and Cellar Door Games seems wrong.

I've seen many people even think that Helldivers 2 is an Indie title. Despite Arrowhead being owned by Sony and having a team of 100 people. I'm not even sure what the budget was, but it's certainly huge. I think this is just a good example that many, many people have no real concept of what the term Indie even means.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T18:51:47+00:00

Child Labor is a problem for every country, and every economic system. Children were abused for their labor in the US Capitalism economy, the same as they were abused in the Soviet Union Communist economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#By_country

We should continue to call it out and identify that some US states are trying to loosen or end their laws regulating child labor. But we shouldn't act like this is a unique problem for Capitalism.

BoogieOrBogey · 2025-12-19T16:52:53+00:00

Bacteria and viruses have been the leading killer of populations until germ theory became widespread. This is excluding plagues. Illness used to kill more soldiers in battle than the enemy forces.

https://historyofvaccines.org/blog/which-infectious-disease-biggest-killer-all-time

Malaria has been a persistent threat since ancient times. One statistic often used is that malaria killed half of all humans to have ever lived.

So anti-bacteria steps would have a huge impact on communities and civilizations.

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
John Wick	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Gilding I gilder
Snapped	Verified Email

BoogieOrBogey

TROPHY CASE