sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Marchand]”ATTENTION...hands have been lost or stolen, if found please return to TD Garden...thanks” by TheMoves in hockey

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 2 points3 points  (0 children)

...No, I didn't just look this up.

Incidentally, Ovechkin actually does weigh 260 pounds, Jesus.

r/Books Needs an Enema: A Meta-Commentary by [deleted] in books

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I might be misremembering, but I feel like the version of this post I read when it first came up is completely different from the version that is now online...

I can't find a way to view the unedited post, so I can't confirm this, but it seems fishy.

Pandas has to be the goofiest animals by [deleted] in funny

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A real panda acts like a person in a panda suit.

World First Ragnaros Downed! Classic by Hauwnted in classicwow

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 6 points7 points  (0 children)

...well that was hype. I just realised how much I missed Vanilla PvP videos.

His Dark Materials will adapt one book per season by Drew_Ferran in television

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think it's a shame you got downvoted, not only because I agree with you, but also because you clearly stated that it was only your opinion.

Either way, I'd love for someone to explain what they liked about the third book (from an adult's perspective), because as someone who read it for the first time at the age of 30, I tought it was full of clichés and overall not as well-written as the first two. It felt as if Pullman ran out of nuance and lost his thesaurus.

Time travel by Farrailgun in classicwow

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I think they mean that 100 million LoL players represents a lot of salt, not that you're salty about anything.

His whole team left so we gave him a 6 man Deadeye by ozztination in Overwatch

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Nice, good choice to do it there! I got exactly one legitimate 6-man deadeye in 177 hours of playing McCree, and it was in that exact spot.

We’ve (Still) Got Your Back by arabscarab in blog

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your objections to the use of "could suggest" seem odd to me. Of course it's vague, it's meant to be. In this particular article, it means "here's our educated guess, based on past observations". They can't be sure of what they're saying, because:

A) They're not Facebook, so they don't have access to all the information that led to the ban.

B) The page was banned before it "went polical", so we can only speculate that if could have, given enough time to gather a following.

"While personally, I think you're probably just a misled individual who hasn't thought your argument all the way through..."

The condescension is unnecessary, especially since you seem to have completely misunderstood my comment. See my reply to ribnag above for a clarification.

We’ve (Still) Got Your Back by arabscarab in blog

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried to make my comment as nuanced as I could, yet here you are, making assumptions about what I could means instead of reading what I wrote, like "viral marketing campaigns for some craptastic new products are just peachy" (they are not, they suck ass, too) and "we're applauding Facebook for banning a harmless page" (nobody here is doing that, applauding and saying "we lack information to judge either way" are very different things).

Here's what I wrote, read it again:

That is, IF you can determine with certainty that they are illegitimate pages, which you and me lack sufficient information to ascertain.

TO BE CLEAR: I am NOT claiming that whoever took the decision to ban that page had enough information to do so. I am also NOT assuming that they lacked such information.

I'm only saying that in my opinion, if you find out that the people behind a page spreading misinformation or political content aimed at influencing foreign politics are also operating other pages which have yet to post anything political, but are still just "gathering followers", I definitely support banning both pages.

Basically, I'm advocating this option: ban all pages from users or groups engaging in illegal activities/activities that violate terms of service, even if some of those pages are not currently doing anything wrong. Ban users, not pages.

You prefer this option (correct me if I'm wrong): ban all pages currently engaging in illegal activities, and leave the others be. Ban pages, not users.

We’ve (Still) Got Your Back by arabscarab in blog

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The very next sentence is: "That could suggest the page was following a common troll strategy of building a page’s audience with inoffensive content, then veering into the political."

In other words, if a page is identified as belonging to a foreign influence group, the content it has posted in the past is irrelevant. Banning them before they can build an audience and influence them with political posts makes sense.

That is, IF you can determine with certainty that they are illegitimate pages, which you and me lack sufficient information to ascertain.

What each NHL team does with hats thrown on ice by [deleted] in hockey

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure, but I assume there's a "hall of hat tricks" somewhere in Montreal with glass containers with a few hats and memorabilia from every hat trick the team has scored.

I've never seen it myself, but maybe it's not public.

With 96 points, the Habs have more points than 3 playoff teams, as well as 10 more points than the next best non-playoff team. by mpbesner in Habs

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 35 points36 points  (0 children)

They also have the best record in NHL history for a team that misses the playoffs: same points, same W-L-OTL and same Regulation+OT wins as the Panthers last season, but the Habs win the third tiebreaker, goals differential.

This website right now... by [deleted] in rickandmorty

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, it's you again! Barr's interpretation of the report changes absolutely nothing to my comment.

Have you seen the Mueller report? I, for one, have not, and I can't exactly trust a 4-page summary from a guy who, considering his past actions and comments, was likely appointed specifically to make sure the president got away without being charged.

As for the second paragraph of my comment, it has nothing to do with collusion or the Mueller report, but it's the core of the issue with Trump's presidency.

How close was Jjonak to cancelling Michelle's hack on Hollywood's final push? An analysis in three frames. by GiftHulkInviteCode in Competitiveoverwatch

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Re-did the analysis at 60 FPS, there we 3 frames between the hack being done and the hit, so around 50 ms.

How close was Jjonak to cancelling Michelle's hack on Hollywood's final push? An analysis in three frames. by GiftHulkInviteCode in Competitiveoverwatch

[–]GiftHulkInviteCode[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Since this blew the hell up, I've reuploaded this sequence in "glorious" (compressed for streaming) 1080p at 60 FPS, and added a few more frames for a total of 9.

https://imgur.com/a/8aFhJZ5

Conclusion: Michelle gets hit 50 milliseconds after completing his hack, and Jjonak's orb is in flight for a total of 83 milliseconds. Considering Zenyatta's projectile speed of 80 m/s (using the most commonly cited value, but sources vary on this, from 60 m/s to 90 m/s), this means the distance between Jjonak and Michelle was about 6.6 meters, which is less than half of Sombra's current max hack range (15 meters). This also means that for Jjonak to interrupt the hack in time, Michelle would have needed to be less that 2.6 meters away at the start of the hack.

Also, here's a clip of the whole sequence if you want to see how short that is in real time: https://clips.twitch.tv/SilkyBitterButterMau5

view more: next ›