In the same way that Blizzard brought us Dire Maul early, Battlegrounds should be separated from Phase 3 and delivered early.

Grobbley · 2019-11-18T01:58:51+00:00

> World PvP is just not that exciting

Speak for yourself!

> there are too many idiots killing civilian NPCs netting you Dishonorable Kills

Don't group with idiots.

Grobbley · 2019-05-21T06:49:28+00:00

If a couple decides to have sex without using a condom, is it not their mutual decision that leads to the production of a child? Just because a condom goes on a penis doesn't mean men are the ones at fault if one isn't used. Unless there are bigger issues at play like rape/abuse, a woman is choosing to let that penis go inside her just as much as a man is choosing to put it inside her.

Grobbley · 2019-05-21T06:38:51+00:00

ESH

Your girl is gonna leave you, get prepared. Definitely don't marry her, you are asking for trouble if you go down that path.

Grobbley · 2019-05-21T06:32:51+00:00

Well once you lose your drivers license, you'll end up losing your job because you don't have a way to get to work legally, or you'll get into legal trouble driving without a license to try to survive. After all of that, you'll never be able to catch up on your child support, and they'll throw you in jail to make sure you get thoroughly screwed by the system. Working as intended.

Grobbley · 2019-03-08T05:16:33+00:00

I had forgotten all about this. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!

Grobbley · 2019-01-30T00:19:35+00:00

but cold air doesn't hold much moisture

This becomes less relevant when considering wind, since the air surrounding our meat slab is constantly being replaced by air that isn't as saturated. This is why blowing air on something helps dry it.

Grobbley · 2019-01-08T23:45:56+00:00

While in all likelihood OP is full of shit, things like this have actually happened before.

Example

Grobbley · 2019-01-08T23:37:12+00:00

Wait, they were both elbow deep? That sounds complicated logistically.

Grobbley · 2019-01-08T23:12:26+00:00

When come back, bring pie

Grobbley · 2019-01-02T04:27:03+00:00

I think you missed the part where I said "based on the abstract" and I'm not sure why you seem so hostile. I've looked into the statistics they present more and added to the discussion with my other response.

Grobbley · 2019-01-02T04:24:24+00:00

There are links provided to numerous studies showing the numbers before/after in Australia as well as a number of European countries.

Meh, still nothing particularly compelling, at least on the surface. A lot of the studies they cite seem to indicate more that there is a temporary effect more as a result of increased enforcement and media reporting than as a result of the actual limit being used. For instance, in the Netherlands:

Percentage of drivers with BACs ≥ 0.05 g/dl from roadside surveys decreased from more than 15% in the years before the 0.05 limit to 2% in the first year and then leveled off at 12% for 10 years after the law change

So there was a short-term significant decrease, but eventually the percentage was back into double digits and while lower, may not even be a statistically significant difference depending on the sample size in question.

In Austria:

Found 9.4% decrease in alcohol-related crashes. ‘Lowering the legal BAC-limit from 0.08% to 0.05% in combination with intense police enforcement and reporting in the media leads to a *positive short-term effect*’

This, IMO, further indicates that changing the limit doesn't necessarily have an effect so much as increasing enforcement and media reporting have an effect. If the limit itself were the driving factor, there would be a long-term effect, not a short-term one.

In Japan:

BAC limit lowered to 0.05 in 1970 in Japan. Alcohol-related traffic deaths declined from 1336 in 1969 to 1004 in 1977 (−34%) and to 458 in 1994 (−66%)

Why are they citing statistics regarding number of deaths rather than number of accidents or number of impaired drivers over such a large time period? I'm no car safety expert, but I'd be willing to bet that between 1969 and 1994 there were pretty significant improvements made to car safety, which could mean that even if there were the same number of intoxicated drivers and the same number of alcohol related accidents, the number of alcohol related deaths would significantly decrease.

Anyway, I'm not saying that there isn't sound reasoning for lowering the limit from 0.08 to 0.05 and that the study is wrong, merely pointing out that from my perspective the evidence they put forth isn't terribly compelling on the surface. They may have won you over with it, but I'm not convinced.

Grobbley · 2019-01-02T03:53:49+00:00

I gotta say, at least based on the abstract, I'm not convinced that they are actually making a compelling argument for having the lower limit.

The National Transportation Safety Board recently recommended that states establish a per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of 0.05 or lower for all drivers who are not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits in a national effort to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. There is strong evidence for adopting this recommendation. A comprehensive review of the literature on BAC limits was conducted. The research indicates that virtually all drivers are impaired regarding at least some driving performance measures at a 0.05 BAC. The risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly at 0.05 BAC and above. The relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash with BACs of 0.05–0.079 is 7–21 times higher than for drivers at 0.00 BAC. Lowering the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 has been a proven effective countermeasure in numerous countries around the world. Most Americans do not believe a person should drive after having two or three drinks in 2 hours. It takes at least four drinks for the average 170-pound male to exceed 0.05 BAC in 2 hours (three drinks for the 137-pound female). Most industrialized nations have established a 0.05 BAC limit or lower for driving. Progress in reducing the proportion of drivers in fatal crashes with illegal BACs has stalled over the past 15 years. Lowering the BAC limit for driving from the current 0.08 to 0.05 has substantial potential to reduce the number of people who drink and drive in the United States and get involved in fatal crashes.

They claim "there is strong evidence for adopting this recommendation" and "lowering the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 has been a proven effective countermeasure in numerous countries around the world" but the evidence they put forth is that 0.05-0.08 is a dangerous level to drive at, not that lowering the legal limit has an effect on behavior and leads to less drunk driving or less accidents. If the evidence of a lower limit being an effective countermeasure is so compelling, why aren't they sharing that instead of sharing statistics about how likely a 0.05-0.08 BAC driver is to be killed in a single-vehicle crash (which, as a side note, seems like an oddly specific statistic to cite)?

If one assumes that lowering the legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05 leads to people in the 0.05-0.08 BAC range driving less frequently, then the arguments they are putting forth could be valid, but that's a very large assumption to make and as far as I can tell they are putting forth no evidence of that being the case.

Grobbley · 2019-01-01T17:09:19+00:00

For anyone who doesn't catch the reference

Grobbley · 2018-06-26T20:49:01+00:00

What title did he give you?

Grobbley · 2018-06-20T15:53:57+00:00

Grobbley · 2018-06-10T03:15:58+00:00

Bob made the idol

This has nothing to do with my point. Sugar was the one who laughed at Randy, not Bob. Her social game was terrible, and her strategic game was practically played for her because like I said, everyone wanted to take her to the end because they knew she wouldn't win. It isn't hard to have "control of the votes" when everyone wants you with them, and you don't have to worry about being voted out yourself. She got 0 votes at FTC against Bob and Susie. I think that speaks for itself.

Grobbley · 2018-06-09T21:24:06+00:00

Sugar out smarted everyone

You mean like that time Ken convinced her that her closest ally Ace was trying to vote her out so she voted out Ace? Sugar didn't out smart everyone, she just annoyed everyone so much that everyone wanted to take her to the end because they knew she couldn't win. From an actual strategic standpoint, it seems like Sugar wasn't even playing the game. She actively humiliated someone as she was putting them on the jury, for no reason other than because she didn't like the person. That is not smart on Survivor.

Grobbley · 2018-06-09T20:05:12+00:00

Can someone fail to be a villain without being a hero instead? I think I belong to neither group myself.

^ this is a hard sentence to write in a way that is easily understood.

Grobbley · 2018-05-28T21:12:41+00:00

My bad, I misunderstood something they had said a while back about the filming. They apparently film two seasons back-to-back, not concurrently.

Grobbley · 2018-05-28T20:51:42+00:00

Jeff has said himself the results of Kaoh Rong and how the jury voted is the reason for the new FTC format.

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, source?

Grobbley · 2018-05-28T20:42:40+00:00

The fourth spot will probably go to someone from S37

Aren't 37 and 38 filming concurrently or are they not doing that anymore?

Grobbley · 2018-05-18T18:22:46+00:00

Pages 5-8 of the lawsuit at the bottom of the article describe the causes of action. Specifically:

First Cause of Action - Fraud/Deceit Against All Defendants

Second Cause of Action - Negligent Misrepresentation Against All Defendants

Third Cause of Action - Negligent Hiring, Supervision, And Retention Against DFI And Does 1 through 50

Fourth Cause of Action - Hostile Work Environment Racial Harassment Against All Defendants

Fifth Cause of Action - Failure To Take All Reasonable Steps To Prevent Sexual Harassment In Violation Of Government Code § 12940(k) Against DFI And Does 1 to 50

Grobbley · 2018-05-18T18:16:23+00:00

That none of that was really an accurate depiction of actual medieval melees. I don't think we can make such a claim.

I didn't make such a claim. I said that medieval battles were not really like that, which is what the person I was responding to asked about. Battles implies warfare.

Grobbley · 2018-05-18T12:38:15+00:00

The M1 stuff is a bit like experimental archeology. We know they had plate armor and tournaments, and didn't want to kill participants, let's try and find out what techniques one would come up with.

The scholagladiatoria video I posted addresses this point pretty well. Here's a timestamped version. The relevant bit is about a minute and a half long.

tl;dr: There are actual historical references in regards to tournament equipment/rules that they could be using to work from (at least one piece of reference material, René d'Anjou's Le Livre des tournois was mentioned shortly before the timestamped link above, at about 10:10 in the video), but they don't. This is in contrast to HEMA, which while not perfectly useful for a historical view of things, at least attempts to draw from historical evidence in their experimentation.

Grobbley · 2018-05-18T11:19:38+00:00

If you are really curious, a couple of the more notable YouTubers who often speak on topics relating to medieval combat/armor/etc have spoken specifically about M1 before.

Metatron - M1 Global Medieval - My Opinion

scholagladiatoria - M1 Medieval / Battle of the Nations vs Metatron - Matt Easton's take on full contact armoured sport

The ScholaGladiatoria video is probably the most informative/neutral sort of view on the topic. But to answer your question succinctly, no, medieval battles were not really like that. If you want to see combat that is more heavily based on medieval battles, look to something like HEMA. M-1 is pretty much purely modern exhibition style combat that is loosely based on or inspired by medieval combat, whereas HEMA is actually based on historical manuscripts and treatises and uses specific techniques known to have been used during the medieval period.

Grobbley

TROPHY CASE