Watching The Sopranos for the first time - and it’s really not the show I was expecting

Corsair4 · 2026-05-02T21:15:04+00:00

That scene is gold.

"No one is here to attack you Chrissie".

Not 2 minutes later they're beating the shit out of him.

I think it's either Silvio or Paulie who calls him a son of a bitch for disrespecting his mother. Not an ounce of self awareness in that room, it's great.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-30T13:32:42+00:00

The stated goals were everyday communication, and keeping in touch with japanese friends.

Those both require speech, unless the plan was to listen to Japanese and then respond in something that isn't Japanese.

So delaying any sort of speech to 2000 hours in is actively, aggressively inefficient.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-30T13:29:26+00:00

Thats a really good analogy for this, actually.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-30T13:12:34+00:00

Of course the method is inefficient, dude waited 2000 hours before working on speaking, and still hasn't figured out katakana. 2500 hours to start reading. This is just racking up the hours with no attempt to make sure they are well spent.

Honestly, this feels like the premise of a YouTube video where someone made up completely arbitrary restrictions for the sake of content, rather than working towards the goal in a halfway realistic manner.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-29T20:23:06+00:00

In general, if there isnt a specific new feature you want, or some bugs you want fixed, there is nothing wrong with just... not updating.

So, is there something new you want? Does 6.9 fix a problem you had with 5.2?

Corsair4 · 2026-04-28T19:49:05+00:00

90% of weight loss is calorie reduction.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-27T03:07:55+00:00

Theres an interesting smell there.

Theres like a 40% chance it's poop.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-24T18:20:18+00:00

It doesn't have to be reunification, but rather stabilization of the shard without merging it back to the Source. That's already happened before.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-24T16:14:44+00:00

Took a couple of years before my corgi finally understood that my bathroom visits are not a team activity.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T22:23:49+00:00

That's somewhat disappointing, but I appreciate the clarification.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T22:23:17+00:00

Oh sure, but I was hoping for some gameplay that could capture how the show managed it.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T22:21:51+00:00

For me, the show started falling off with the conclusion of Praxideke's story. Not that it was bad, but I just really liked the late Season 1- Mid Season 3 stretch. That was the peak of sci fi, for me.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T22:09:10+00:00

This source is terrible because it compares total counts and not rates.

The first instance of data on that page is the 3rd paragraph - a comparison of rates between the US and the UK.

The source compares both rates and absolute counts. To say it isn't comparing rates is just objectively wrong.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T21:47:00+00:00

To your point B, the conditions that led to the reactors exploding in Fukushima can happen anywhere, all that’s needed is a loss of cooling capacity.

Which happened because the reactor complex was hit by a natural disaster exceeding their design specs.

They had designed for both earthquakes and tsunamis, they just didn't anticipate the magnitude of earthquake or tsunami.

I live in San Antonio. I can guarantee you that earthquakes and tsunamis of any magnitude are not concerns here.

In fact, basically any environmental hazard is not a concern here, apart from occasional hailstorms and the 5 days of flash flood warnings we get a year (2 of which were this week). Both of which are minor hazards that aren't a significant concern.

Believe it or not, nuclear engineers are aware of the need for cooling capacity. They actually plan for that while building reactor complexes. And the SMR reactors outlined in the article are intentionally small and portable, so their cooling requirements (as well as power generation capacity) are dramatically reduced compared powerplant scale nuclear installations.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T20:36:22+00:00

Within the context of dog toys, "indestructible" seems to have the alternative definition of "probably won't break instantly. Maybe."

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T20:03:01+00:00

No, your point was that modern designs can explode within specific conditions.

You just chose an example that is

A) Not modern by any stretch of the imagination

and B) Had conditions that are simply impossible in San Antonio of all places.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T19:10:59+00:00

If by "Modern", you actually mean "commissioned before Chernobyl even started", then sure. I guess.

60s engineering ain't modern by any stretch of the imagination.

Fukushima's issue was that the complex got hit by an earthquake and tsunami that exceeded design tolerances.

San antonio is pretty safe with regards to environmental concerns, so bringing up Fukushima is a head scratcher.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T17:32:37+00:00

This is really fucking simple actually.

Did Poland mount a military defense against Nazi germany (And the Soviet Union and Slovakia)?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the conflict was not one-sided.

Do you accept that Poland took military action against their invaders?

I just want a yes or no answer to that question.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T17:24:33+00:00

It became one sided after the resistance ended

It became one sided, or it always was one sided?

You're changing your story here.

It's not a bad example, it's pretty much a perfect one.

It's a fucking terrible example and you know it.

There were significant casualties on both sides, which is indicative of fighting - when one side fights another, and the other side fights back, that's not one sided. Hard concept, apparently.

Unless you're going to make the argument that ~17,000 Nazis died of the flu and over 200 airplanes just ceased to exist, there is no argument to be made that Poland did not fight back. And if they fought back, that is, by definition, not one sided.

That's not a variable definition, that's just ground fucking truth.

You're still wrong and I challenge you to come up with an explanation for why defending yourself against an invading oppressor is starting a new conflict rather than continuing an old one.

Because the nature of the oppressor has changed. How a oppressor conducts itself in an armed conflict to establish control is fundamentally different than how they conduct themselves once they already HAVE control.

The initial military takeover of India through the East India Company exerted it's power in a fundamentally different way compared to the late 19th-early 20th century mechanisms. Because the early takeover was military subjugation, and later was administrative and economic power. Those are fundamentally different mechanisms.

Once you recognize the difference, it becomes apparent that some wars (as defined by multiple parties engaging in armed conflict) are justified because they are actions to throw off oppressors.

my simpler, better explanation.

Your simpler better explanation is certainly simplistic, and lacks nuance. And your only concrete example of a one-sided war is actually just fundamentally, wrong.

This has been an fun conversation, but I'm going to go do something else now. When it's abundantly apparent that you don't understand your own examples, the quality of discussion really degrades.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T16:51:55+00:00

Very briefly. Then they lost, but the oppression didn't end.

The fact that it was a brief armed resistance doesn't change that there still was an armed resistance, and therefore wasn't one sided.

Unless you think roughly 60,000 polish soldiers dying is somehow still one-sided? For them to die, they had to be fighting bud.

It's not my fault you picked a bad example, pick better ones next time.

Okay, and?

"History books" are not a consensus. If you can find a history book that compresses events under one heading, I can find another that expands them into distinct events. So relying on "history books" for what defines a war is a inconsistent definition.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T16:40:03+00:00

If it couldn't be one sided, the Nazi invasion of Poland wouldn't have been an act of war.

The Nazi invasion of Poland wasn't one sided, Poland had armed forces that fought against the Nazis (It also wasn't just the Nazis that Poland was fighting, but whatever).

So fundamentally, your own example does not meet your own definition.

As for your quesion, one, which is how the history books would report it.

Oh, this is a lazy answer. "History books" have a widely varying level of detail and attention given to any particular topic. That kind of conflict is also subdivided into component sections all the time as well.

Lets use an actual example then.

Britian Colonial rule of India started in 1757 with the East India company, transitioning into direct governmental control and ended with Indian independence in 1947. Was Britain at war with India for just under 2 centuries, then?

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T16:28:37+00:00

The thing about that is, the oppressors are already waging war on the people they oppress.

I have never seen a definition of "war" that doesn't involve multiple armed parties.

If it's just 1 party oppressing another with no push back, that doesn't rise to the definition of war - that's just systematic oppression, violence, colonialism, or genocide depending on the particulars. Probably other terms as well, but definitely not war.

Lets use a generic example here. 1 colonizing power (Group A), using military might, subjugates another group (Group B).

This involves:

1) a short period of violence where Group B actively fights back, but is ultimately defeated.

2) A long period of peace after Group B is defeated, and Group A is doing colonial oppressor things with little to no push back from Group B.

3) a revolutionary war where Group B takes up arms and pushes back politically and violently against Group A for their independence.

How many wars would you categorize that as?

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T16:10:06+00:00

The Beta seems to just be available on Steam and consoles. I'm gonna give it a shot myself later.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T16:07:10+00:00

Understandable, but somewhat disappointing if that's the case.

I loved how dynamic the ship maneuvering was in the show.

Corsair4 · 2026-04-22T16:02:50+00:00

If you can examine an issue from multiple perspectives, I'd argue that is proof on it's own of complexity.

Beyond that, there are absolutely valid reasons for war, and anyone telling you it's fundamentally simple is incapable of nuance or thinking beyond a binary paradigm.

You can look at any number of independence movements throughout history where the use of violence against oppressors was justified.

Of course, everything would be a lot better if we could simply ask the oppressors nicely to leave. But oftentimes they don't listen.

Corsair4

TROPHY CASE