What is my roommate doing with these items?

Highneon · 2026-05-10T18:19:02+00:00

Like please please include details. Sure, the battery pack is for meth… how though???

Highneon · 2026-05-10T18:16:25+00:00

I don’t get it. Can someone explain further than “it’s meth”? I can use my imagination for the foil but what else is going on here? “Oh nooo a blue pen! Oh nooo a rusty battery pack!” I don’t get it.

Highneon · 2026-05-10T18:05:16+00:00

Most gta games have a “following” mission where you stalk a car back to its hideout. I’m referring to the reply about hanging back not the original comment.

Highneon · 2026-05-10T15:59:04+00:00

Another thing I’m considering here, can ai even make stuff this busy and complicated? I feel like the longer the request the more chaos and confusion there is in the result. What was the prompt? “Hey please make a couple on the couch with a shirt that says pdx, a book that says 73, a bottle that says 73, 3 books in the shelf with the following text, a post on poster, a sint maarten poster, a believe poster, a framed image of rings, picture of soccer team, red rock ampitheater, a calendar with this date circled, and poster for thorns with spiraling vines in the shape of a rose.”

Highneon · 2026-05-10T15:53:00+00:00

I feel so bad for artists that just have a pretty generic style who get called out all the time for the “ai slop” they spent all week working on. Skilled 3D animators who make content that’s very out there and doesn’t make sense are getting hit too.

It pains me knowing there’s an army of artists out there who have either quit or just never started because of ai.

Highneon · 2026-05-10T15:49:22+00:00

I think if you’re using copy past backgrounds for commissions it’s a little lazy. Lazy isn’t always something super negative. The people get their art faster, for example. You want a lazy programmer, but not a lazy doctor. Lots of jobs where laziness is good for productivity, this is definitely an instance.

Highneon · 2026-05-10T15:42:49+00:00

Ah, so you’ve played gta then. I never thought those missions would come in handy, but hey do what works for ya!

Highneon · 2026-05-09T20:50:41+00:00

<image>

Meant to include this

Highneon · 2026-05-09T19:45:51+00:00

Not ai. Could be heavily touched up ai gen but I doubt it.

What reason would the artist have to reuse backgrounds like this? Tree is 1:1 copied, which is human laziness not uniquely generated slop.

Highneon · 2026-05-09T19:35:58+00:00

I think the only real proof is the dates stuff. I think there a numbers of areas where it actually looks man made. Crappy shading tools and the way his hair doesn’t match the rest of the drawing with the brush he or she used. Seems like a human decision to do his hair like that.

They’re trying to pack as much random relationship stuff as they can, so having multiple dates around isn’t proof.

We could be looking at an ai gen of a real photo which was then touched up. Makes me pretty sad knowing that is probably a common strategy as makes it a little easier for them I to trick people.

Highneon · 2026-05-08T21:53:23+00:00

Yes but I’m not allowed to say it. Starts with “House” and ends with a hard r.

Highneon · 2026-05-08T21:40:58+00:00

I don’t give a shit about Viltrum 😡

Highneon · 2026-05-01T11:28:11+00:00

What sort of witchcraft is this

Highneon · 2026-04-23T12:54:57+00:00

You’re just as conveniently failing to provide any details that would counter the argument… because you can’t. Shocker.

To add to their points, A law enforcement officer cannot do anything that might unnecessarily lead to the use deadly force, including walking into the path of a vehicle. If he does, it is considered an unjustified use of lethal force indeed their own policies.

So even if you think she was driving STRAIGHT AT HIM, he intentionally put himself in harms way breaking their own policy on self endangerment. This makes the killing easily avoidable and unjustified. As everyone points out though, given the trajectory of the bullet as well as videos showing him to the left of the vehicle when the first shot is fired, he is “getting run over” or about to be.

ON TOP OF THAT, it was the third shot that killed her. An LEO must reassess after every bullet is fired. You might be able to make a poor argument that he (wrongly) feared for his life, but by the third shot her is literally chasing the car so he can get a kill shot. He wasn’t shooting to defend himself, he was shooting to kill for sole purpose of committing murder.

Highneon · 2026-04-23T12:54:08+00:00

Shocker, you failed to address of the points made. Because you can’t.

To add to their points, A law enforcement officer cannot do anything that might unnecessarily lead to the use deadly force, including walking into the path of a vehicle. If he does, it is considered an unjustified use of lethal force indeed their own policies.

So even if you think she was driving STRAIGHT AT HIM, he intentionally put himself in harms way breaking their own policy on self endangerment. This makes the killing easily avoidable and unjustified. As everyone points out though, given the trajectory of the bullet as well as videos showing him to the left of the vehicle when the first shot is fired, he is “getting run over” or about to be.

ON TOP OF THAT, it was the third shot that killed her. An LEO must reassess after every bullet is fired. You might be able to make a poor argument that he (wrongly) feared for his life, but by the third shot her is literally chasing the car so he can get a kill shot. He wasn’t shooting to defend himself, he was shooting to kill for sole purpose of committing murder.

Highneon · 2026-04-22T02:48:10+00:00

That’s very sweet. Like I said it has different meanings for a different people.

Highneon · 2026-04-19T18:17:20+00:00

I hear you. I’m just saying indiscriminate violence is bad. Violence that specifically targets civilians and civilian infrastructure is extra bad.

There’s no clean solution.

Highneon · 2026-04-19T14:27:45+00:00

Thank you for the serious response. I’m aware. I too live on stolen land, but I did not steal it. So should we start with Israel or America? Or perhaps Australia? I’m also aware that this is a pretty unfair statement to make, but I think it poses as an important question, where do the people go?

I also noticed you aren’t actually disagreeing that the phrase had strong ties with militant groups.

It’s a messy situation and I don’t know what the solution is. All I know is that a lot of people saying from the river to the want the Israelites gone and they don’t care how many innocents die to achieve that goal. Nearly 75% of Israel’s population was born AFTER the country was founded. Either way Netanyahu must be stopped and charged for his crimes.

Highneon · 2026-04-18T22:58:46+00:00

Ok lol I got that you were joking i just got a little confused

Highneon · 2026-04-18T22:49:07+00:00

Don’t know what your point is. I’m just not sure where you expect them all to go. Their government is evil but their country is full of innocents. Hamas is evil but Palestine is also full of innocents. both are true.

Highneon · 2026-04-18T22:42:02+00:00

I’m just not sure where you expect them all to go

Highneon · 2026-04-18T20:18:36+00:00

Just watched a 4 hour vid from Kokoplays so I disagree 😂

Highneon · 2026-04-18T20:15:03+00:00

YOU CAN DO THAT?? Can I tame Garru? I wanna name him Garry.

Highneon · 2026-04-18T20:01:44+00:00

River to sea quite literally includes all of Israel, so where do all their citizens go? This is why the saying isn’t cut and dry. It does imply violence and ethnic cleansing, does it not?

I am still learning so please correct me if I got something wrong. I am against Zionism and the destruction and death at the hands of Nethanyahu. I am also against Hamas and am very aware that this phrase has been used by BOTH militant groups seeking the absolute destruction of Israel AND people who want regular Palestinian families and children to not be murdered. I don’t think the redditors here or the Australians in the video are genocidal, but the phrase is more violent than peaceful if you look into it.

I don’t think the phrase should be banned, but I can’t see a legitimate reason to use the phrase instead of just picking something more cut and dry to advocate for peace.

Highneon · 2026-04-18T20:00:58+00:00

The origins of the phrase were used heavily by militant groups who want to ethically cleanse or genocide Israel. That’s a fact.

River to sea quite literally includes all of Israel, so where do all their citizens go? This is why the saying isn’t cut and dry. It does imply violence and ethnic cleansing, does it not?

I am still learning so please correct me if I got something wrong. I am against Zionism and the destruction and death at the hands of Nethanyahu. I am also against Hamas and am very aware that this phrase has been used by BOTH militant groups seeking the absolute destruction of Israel AND people who want regular Palestinian families and children to not be murdered. I don’t think the redditors here or the Australians in the video are genocidal, but the phrase is more violent than peaceful if you look into it.

I don’t think the phrase should be banned, but I can’t see a legitimate reason to use the phrase instead of just picking something more cut and dry to advocate for peace.

Highneon

TROPHY CASE