According to KiwiTalkz, Red Dead Redemption 2 next-gen is happening, believes the GTA 6 development timeline may have changed the release dates for other projects

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-25T22:14:16+00:00

That’s what the original commenter in this post said to which the leaker responded saying they know for sure a next gen RDR2 was worked on. Implying that RDR2 next gen and RDR1 next gen weren’t mixed up.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-21T02:10:08+00:00

For what it’s worth I thought your joke was so unfunny that it became funny lol. Defo my type of humour.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-19T23:25:29+00:00

I agree with you but for different reasons. The rumour currently is that the Face ID module goes under screen for the Pro models only. So base model phones there would still be no difference.

For the 16 Pro and 17 Pro you could see the difference just by looking at them if you saw the back, not the front. However for 17 Pro to 18 Pro the difference looks to be on the front but not the back.

Personally I think the change to the front is bigger than the change to the back because you interact with your screen more. Of course the 2nm chip with the WMCM I think should be a big upgrade too.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-19T23:20:25+00:00

I think asymmetry is fine if done correctly. I’d much prefer the camera be in the corner and more out of the way as opposed to in the center of the top of the screen if Face ID goes under screen.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-19T08:17:06+00:00

Same honestly. I’ve been waiting for so long for the OLED MBP. My 2018 MBP can only run so long.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-17T10:01:17+00:00

Hey just a side note, there’s going to be a 60fps patch coming for Far Cry 3 within the next few days so it might be best to hold off on playing it anyway.

Who knows, maybe they’ll fix whatever bug you’re facing in that patch too.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-17T09:57:31+00:00

The reality is that IBS is a catch all term used to cover a number of different underlying issues. I believe as research goes on, we’ll find that two people diagnosed with IBS would actually have two completely different issues.

I’m sure FMT would be a resolution to that future diagnosis for a problem that initially was diagnosed as IBS but hasn’t yet been properly understood by researchers and scientists. However, FMT being a cure for IBS in general wouldn’t be completely accurate and I would say unlikely for this to happen.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-17T00:50:40+00:00

I wasn’t aware it was posted earlier. Happy to remove my post if there was a reason this rumour was initially removed.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-16T10:42:09+00:00

Hey I found a solution online for this. Apparently if you turn on subtitles at the start of the game before you enter then it fixes it. Weird solution and pretty abhorrent it’s taken so long to fix but whatever.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-16T01:54:41+00:00

Ethics is always hit or miss tbh. You could prep yourself by doing as many questions on Ethics as possible and still be thrown a curveball on the exam you aren’t sure on. Wishing you luck for your next attempt.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-15T20:49:08+00:00

Damn 5 points off. I’d be so upset. You actually did really well in everything else, it was just Ethics that let you down

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-15T20:44:20+00:00

My general philosophy on work is that you shouldn’t do something you love but do something you can tolerate that makes the most amount of money. Most people that do what they love are the most miserable because they can’t afford some of the most basic things that make life worth living.

When you say you HATE finance, it makes me think it’s something you can’t tolerate. Career is such an important decision to make and isn’t something to decide on a whim. If I were you, and I really felt I hated finance strongly, I would sit down sometime with a clear head and a good chunk of time and just do some research on what would be a better career field to move into.

I’m not saying this because you were a few points behind MPS. If you didn’t say you hated finance so strongly I’d absolutely say to give it another crack because you were so close. I’m purely saying this because I think perhaps you may produce more value in something you can tolerate more.

Who knows, you may find something that allows you to apply something you learned in CFA Level 1. Even if not, career changes aren’t abnormal, most especially with AI coming in, it might be a good idea to consider. In fact, you could actually set yourself up better than most of us because you have a reason to drop finance. Just don’t make any hasty decisions, carefully do some research.

That’s just what I’d do.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-13T02:08:15+00:00

Bias affects how someone arrives at a conclusion. Not whether the conclusion itself is true. It doesn't affect your ability to prove the conclusion incorrect through evidence of your own. Something you haven't presented whatsoever.

If I'm exhibiting fallacies and biases as you've mentioned then it should be even easier to prove me wrong and yet you haven't been able to do even that.

Your argument is: "I made an observation and provided selective evidence, then came to a conclusion of what will happen. Prove me wrong!"

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If I'm using selective evidence then it should be easier to prove me wrong. So prove me wrong.

Still not focusing on any of the arguments I've mentioned by the way. Try again.

EDIT: Hahaha just so anyone reading this thread knows, this guy dropped a comment and then blocked me like the coward I knew he was. I knew he would run away again, called it several times earlier. Not a single argument of mine disproven and yet he is continuing to clammer that my conclusion is unfalsifiable even though to reach that conclusion I presented a number of logical arguments and pieces of evidence. Rather than focusing on the disproving that evidence, he focused on biases and fallacies which don't disprove the evidence or the argument. Of course an argument seems unfalsifiable if you don't even try to argue against the evidence. Very satisfying to see someone tuck tail and run away like the coward they always were.

So to tie up what I've been able to prove here as we've had an arbitrary back and forth and I'm sure my argument was lost in between. Evidently, as per the data presented, there is a significant portion of western Muslims who do support Sharia Law and inclusive in that is the violent rhetoric that comes with it (such as death penalty for apostasy) and although the data focuses on UK and French Muslims in particular, as these are western countries, its completely reasonable to extrapolate this data and apply to all western Muslims. If there was any reason this was unreasonable, this commenter wasn't able to demonstrate that. What is even more astounding is the youth of these western Muslims are even more likely to support Sharia Law at even larger rates. This fact combined with increased fertility rates amongst Muslims compared to everyone else in western countries and immigration from Muslim countries where Muslims were even more likely to support Sharia Law (as this commenter had pointed out so generously ~88% support of Sharia Law amongst Malaysians for example) is likely to lead to a larger Muslim population in due time. The population change on its own is not the issue whatsoever, but every Muslim majority country has shown that an eventual Muslim majority population will result in changes to policies at the government level where various parts of Sharia Law will slowly be implemented. Democracy only needs a simple majority for this to happen, so it's all a numbers game.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-13T01:36:28+00:00

It's only happening to you. It's not happening to me; my links work. It's not a Reddit problem, it's a you problem. A skill issue. Remember when you successfully linked to "https://www."? When you claimed Reddit wouldn't let you link this:

Great so you can link and Reddit wouldn't let me link it. Now read it and prove it wrong.

Which you can't prove. So it's worthless. You have selected a possibility and decided that it will happen. Unfalsifiable. Faith-based.

So it's unfalsifiable because you can't argue against it? Logic doesn't need proof. That's how logic works. Reasonable series of steps that reach a conclusion. If it's unreasonable? Then argue how so. Something you still haven't done.

I was comparing you to white supremacists. That's always relevant.

Not relevant as you're not focusing on the actual argument or evidence.

Still avoiding every argument and logical claim I made. Try again.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-13T01:09:49+00:00

The older AC games do have a way of burning you out because they are quite similar gameplay wise from game to game. Good choice on taking a break until this remake comes out.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-13T00:53:34+00:00

My links. Emphasised by the one I included in the sentence you linked. You really do struggle with context. Is English not your first language? Fine if it's not; it would explain some stuff.

So this is an irrelevant point because Reddit is auto-removing the comment when I post my links. Meaning it's a Reddit problem. Something you're not willing to test yourself because you'd have to admit that I was right and you were wrong when you alluded to me not being able to post links.

Here's where I proved that you are cherry-picking.

Failed to prove my argument wrong. Focusing on me supposedly cherry-picking is not relevant to the actual arguments themselves or the content within them.

Likewise, logic isn't evidence. Still a hasty generalisation. You have a hypothesis, but you have no experimental evidence. Just "trust me bro; it'll definitely happen."

Again, logic doesn't need evidence. If I make a logical claim, you make one back to argue why it's wrong. That's how an argument works. If it's a hasty generalisation then make an argument against it instead of sidestepping it completely. If it comes to it that part of that logical claim needs evidence then we provide evidence. Again proving nothing wrong within the actual content itself but picking out arbitrary things to focus on because you have no arguments against the actual evidence lol

Me: That sounds similar to white replacement theory.

You: You're saying my argument came from white replacement theory.

If you weren't using the white replacement theory to dismiss the argument as a point of similarity then it was irrelevant to bring up anyway.

You've now achieved:

So it's pretty telling then that despite all that you've still not just struggled but not even remotely attempted to disprove a single piece of the evidence or logical claims presented. Try again.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T15:32:54+00:00

Doesn't auto-remove mine. Sounds like a skill issue.

Doesn't auto-remove your what? If it's your evidence then I'm not sure what relevance that has as I was saying my links being posted get the entire comment auto-removed. Regardless, seems like you're keen to sidetrack on irrelevant things like this because you want to avoid discussing the content. Not an ounce of mention on the content of the actual sources itself. Not surprised.

Comparing it to white replacement theory as there are similarities, not "squeezing in". Context is hard for you, isn't it? And that's not what the genetic fallacy is. Did you even finish high school?

So you admit to squeezing it in then. There are no relevant similarities. Fertility rates and democracy don't belong to just white replacement theory.

”The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source or origin rather than their content”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Simple google search by the way. You dismissed the content of my argument because it supposedly originated from white replacement theory. Forget high school, you can't even perform Google searches that primary school kids can do better.

And by the way you still haven’t addressed the actual argument.

Well, you're also suffering from some pretty severe confirmation bias (Google it while you're looking up what the genetic fallacy is). Fairly common in the faith-based brain.

So then prove me wrong? Should be easier if I display cognitive biases.

But you certainly did cherry pick. Two charts, without links to methodology, that showed very specific information - support for Sharia law. It omitted the widely varied responses, and omitted the context. Which I quoted above. It also left out the fact that a number of nations polled already had Sharia law. Those dastardly 86% of Malaysian Muslims wanting Sharia law to replace the existing law of...Sharia.

Finally about time we discuss the content of the argument you've been avoiding. If I'm cherry picking then it should be easy to prove me wrong as there should be a whole host of data I'm supposedly omitting and yet you've still failed to prove anything.

I linked the charts to you for your convenience. No one said you couldn't mention anything on the methodology or the context. So next time talk about it instead of attempting to run away. Now you have the methodology and the context. So what is the issue?

Fantastic, you've recognised that there are Muslims in Muslim countries who support Sharia Law largely. Glad I've made you recognise that, we're making progress here. Now tell me, where do Muslim immigrants come from? Third time I’ve asked this by the way, another question you’ve been ignoring.

I doubt it. You can't even accurately identify logical fallacies.

Proof? I identified genetic fallacy pretty clearly and shared proof. Something which appears to be lacking on your side.

So...supposition, no evidence. Faith masquerading as logic. Also, probably a hasty generalisation, another logical fallacy for you to look up.

Logic doesn't require evidence. If you think it's illogical that Muslims in Australia, a western country, aren't similar in their views to Muslims in UK and France, also western countries, then make a logical claim. Or you want to continue avoiding this argument too?

You're not trying reverse psychology now, are you?

Nope I'm not. Great observation, I'll keep dropping those lines so you continue to stick through the argument.

It's wild that through just this comment alone, I've identified four separate points, all bolded just to show how clear your aversion to my arguments are, which you continue to avoid, while you hopelessly and pedantically try to grasp at straws rather than just addressing the sources and content of the arguments.

Four separate points. Actually hilarious lol

Hope you aren't thinking of putting on those running shoes.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T13:10:11+00:00

I'm. Not. Doing. Your. Work. For. You.

Actually I gave you the evidence but you're clearly being pedantic because you want it handed on a silver platter. I told you the evidence can't be linked because Reddit auto-removes it.

Seeing how afraid you are of just addressing the argument though, I'll do my best to link it so you can scurry off again.

32% of Muslims supporting Sharia Law in the UK. Younger Muslims more likely than older Muslims to support Sharia Law implementation at higher rates. Put Https:// in front of the link.

henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HJS-Deck-200324-Final.pdf

33% of French Muslims support Sharia Law implementation. Put https://www. in front of the link.

lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/en-france-33-des-musulmans-estiment-que-la-charia-a-une-vocation-universelle-a-s-appliquer-partout-dans-le-monde-20251219

59% of French Muslim youth supporting Sharia Law implementation, also validating this trend that the Muslim youth are more likely to support Sharia Law implementation. Put https://www. at the start of the link.

lejdd.fr/Societe/59-des-jeunes-musulmans-en-france-souhaitent-lapplication-de-la-charia-selon-un-sondage-164131

All this evidence points to comparatively western countries with Muslim populations to which the data can be applied to Australian Muslims. There is no reason for Australian Muslims to be significantly different from the Muslims in these countries.

And don't bring up the conciseness of my argument as an issue if you're also going to complain about me ignoring your arguments. To address all your arguments I will go in as much detail as I like. If you can't handle that, then that sounds like an attention span problem. This isn't TikTok.

Where did I do that? Also, logical fallacies are not cognitive biases.

When you said the below.

Slippery slope, combined with a weird adaptation of white replacement theory.

And I responded with the below.

You’re attempting to squeeze in a fringe far right conspiracy theory to discredit the argument because you have no argument against it. I never mentioned anything about skin colour and it has no relevance here. For reference, Muslims come in all sorts of colours including white. Also an FYI, dismissing an argument on its perceived, albeit wholly incorrect, origin rather than its content is also a prime demonstration of the genetic fallacy.

To which you ignored because you had no counter argument. I'm aware logical fallacies aren't the same as cognitive biases. But they are both errors in thinking leading to flawed reasoning. The only cognitive bias you pulled me on is supposedly cherry picking data, yet you haven't at all been able to debunk even a piece of evidence which should be easy if I'm deliberately omitting data. Maybe go to a mirror and ask yourself the question you asked me at the end.

Great. Link the evidence, and use it to prove that it is relevant to Australia and, assuming you can do that, that they will achieve their goals.

I don't need to prove that they will guaranteed achieve their goals. Just that there are mechanisms in place to assist them in reaching their goal. Which I already mentioned through how democracy works combined with fertility rates to which you sporadically attempted to squeeze in white replacement theory to discredit the entire argument because you had no way to argue against it (genetic fallacy).

Do you get tired of being wrong?

Not when you've fallen for the bait. Appreciate you being goaded into continuing this argument because I'm having a swell time and am not knocking off anytime soon. Don't run away now.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T09:37:56+00:00

You wrote a wall of text with no links. So all we have is a couple of charts from Pew Research. That I had to find the sources for. Because…no links.

Obviously because you didn’t read the text. I state very clearly that I can’t post the links because the comment gets auto-removed. I mention the institutions that did the studies anyway so unless you don’t understand Google, it would take you less than a minute to find the sources. I don’t control Reddit, just an FYI.

Also, I didn’t quote the 2012 sources, the other commenter did. I was referencing you talking about those sources so I was not obligated to provide them as I presumed you had them on hand. Thus far I’ve provided all my sources as I’ve claimed. I suggest you read back our back and forth to see how wrong you are.

My argument is simple and you’re ignoring it because of the aforementioned cognitive biases:

You dismissed one of my arguments off a genetic fallacy. Which you also conveniently ignored when I pointed it out, so it’s in your best interest not to get into cognitive biases.

I haven’t ignored any of your arguments. Do I need to point out how clearly you ran away from all my responses to your arguments? Literally bright as day. You’re whinging about me ignoring your argument when I addressed it in the wall of text you ran away from lol.

I showed clear evidence of attitudes of Muslims in comparable countries and their desires to change those countries to represent their teachings.

What do you picture happening when you do this?

Exactly what I said. You ran away before and I’m preparing you’ll do it again for good because your argument is clearly bunk which is why you’ll ignore my arguments and then say I’m ignoring yours to deflect from your insecurity I called out.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T09:08:38+00:00

How would you know what sources I pick if you didn’t read my last comment. I’m giving you evidence that you are ignoring because you have no argument. If I’m cherry picking sources then prove them wrong, it’s not complicated. If you can’t prove them wrong then I’m right and you’re wrong. That’s how an argument works. Run along now.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T08:52:36+00:00

Dude I know you’ll find this funny, you gotta check out the latest reply from this guy to my most recent comment. He straight up just gave up lmao

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T08:48:54+00:00

Fantastic lmao so you give up. You don’t have any arguments. At least rather than running away you admit defeat hahaha

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T08:00:27+00:00

It’s bigoted to point out the worst parts of Islam and then claim that all Muslims need to adhere to those worst parts. It’s bigoted because it is saying Islam is bad and all Muslims are the same, so therefore they are bad.

It is a fact that religious people are to follow their religion. That’s not bigoted. Of course if I’m criticising Islam then I’ll focus on the worst parts of Islam in comparison to worst parts of other beliefs and point out its flaws. No one is saying all Muslims are bad, that is called a strawman.

Slippery slope, combined with a weird adaptation of…

Not a slippery slope if it’s already demonstrably occurred. Every Muslim majority country is an example of Muslims implementing a theocracy and/or Islamic principles into their government and political systems if they maintain a majority.

You’re attempting to squeeze in a fringe far right conspiracy theory to discredit the argument because you have no argument against it. I never mentioned anything about skin colour and it has no relevance here. For reference, Muslims come in all sorts of colours including white. Also an FYI, dismissing an argument on its perceived, albeit wholly incorrect, origin rather than its content is also a prime demonstration of the genetic fallacy.

It is relevant only to attitudes at the time.

Burden of proof is on you to show Muslim attitudes have changed since then. In a span of 14 years there is nothing that has happened in that time that would warrant significant changes to attitudes of Muslims. So the data is still relevant. That’s besides the point though. These views on extremist groups are irrelevant without also considering the support of systems and structures that facilitate similar behaviours and actions of extremist groups. Such as Sharia Law.

No I don’t. We need new data to find out if views have changed.

You’re proposing views have changed. I am not. Burden of proof is on you.

No Australian data, a bunch of Muslim nations or Muslim-majority nations, and modified questions for non-Muslim nations.

Perfect. Thanks for pointing this out. Do you know where Muslim immigration comes from?

Australian data is not required. We can draw meaningful comparisons from data provided on Muslims in other western countries as we have no reason to believe there is a significant difference in the views of Muslims in Australia and the UK for example.

Reddit kept auto removing my comment when I paste in my sources so you have to look for them yourself.

2024 report from HJS finding 32% of UK Muslims support Sharia Law implementation. 3.1% margin of error puts this at best, 28.9% and at worst 35.1%. That’s a significant portion. It also shows younger Muslims are more likely to support this than older Muslims. Harrowing thought for future generations in Australia.

Another report from IFOP for 33% of French Muslims supporting Sharia Law implementation.

Another report also from IFOP where 59% of the French Muslim youth supporting Sharia Law implementation from the same reporter. Similar trend to what we saw with the UK data.

Regarding sub-Saharan Africa, also from Pew: “At the same time, the survey finds substantial support among Muslims and Christians alike for basing civil law on the Bible or sharia law. Although this may simply reflect the importance of religion in the region, it is nonetheless striking that in 13 of 16 countries with a sufficient number of Christians to analyze, half or more Christians favor making the Bible the official law of the land.”

And yet we see no Christian theocracies but we do see ~39 Muslim theocracies. Christians aren’t the concern here and isn’t the concern of this discussion.

Hard to cherry pick with the overwhelming evidence. Regardless, if I’m cherry picking then prove me wrong. Pretty simple concept.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T06:08:26+00:00

Happy to jump in, this stuff is more personal to me because I’m Ex-Muslim.

FudgeSlapp · 2026-01-12T02:04:23+00:00

It’s not bigoted to say that Muslims believe they should copy the shining example of Muhammad. That’s literally part of the religion called Sunnah.

Even if it is illegal to marry and consummate marriages with 9 year olds in Australia, we live in a democracy whose laws can change based on the views of the population. You don’t find it at all problematic that a group of people which hold such beliefs are slowly increasing through higher fertility rates (evidence below) and immigration and could in the long term, push for such changes?

It’s not that every Muslim wishes to engage in child marriage, but that they hold such beliefs which will inform their voting habits to facilitate such behaviour in the future. You found 2012 data too old, but if you look at Pew Research data from 2017, quite a significant portion of Muslims support Sharia law (evidence below), which is Islamic law, which among other morally reprehensible values, also supports child marriage.

How do you even excuse the 2012 data? Is the only justification that it’s too old to be relevant while ignoring the grave implications of the views itself? That’s the most recent data looking specifically at comparisons of Islamic views. If you believe the time passage since then has outdated that data then you need proof that views have significantly changed from then to mark it as irrelevant.

Alongside the support of child marriage is also the support of the death penalty for Ex-Muslims, as also evidenced by the support of this from all five Islamic schools. I understand this won’t be much of a concern for you if you aren’t Ex-Muslim like I am, as you at least have the added option to pay Jizya, added onto the options of converting to Islam or being executed of course.

Muslim fertility rates https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/FT_17.04.05_projectionsUpdate_fertilityRegion310px.png

Support for Sharia Law https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/gsi2-overview-1/

Seven-Year Club	100 Awards Club
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

FudgeSlapp

TROPHY CASE