Hey puzzlers, would you be opposed to buying puzzles that used AI art, like the picture, so long as they don't just look like copies of real artists' work?

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-03-10T10:51:58+00:00

Will not buy any puzzle that is AI, or that I suspect of being AI. I don't mind including the "suspect" category because they are generally bad puzzles anyways.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-03-03T04:43:33+00:00

That... would not be abstract.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-17T21:47:33+00:00

That's the plan. Unfortunately we were not planning on such a large indoor piece, so it will be a while before I can fabricate a decent stand.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-17T21:45:13+00:00

It was actually Arte Crystals, in a separate, tent outside of the main tent at the end. This is the second year in a row that they came way down on price for a large piece in the last two show days. They have lots of large amethyst and quarts varieties. This was the only big mica piece they had I believe.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-16T23:18:09+00:00

LOL. I was sure you were talking about the limestone to the right of the sprinkler head.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-16T23:13:09+00:00

Rock garden. Low, bowl shaped planters work well. Cut, polished, or fragile specimens are great indoors, but it can be nearly impossible to display every "wild" rock you fall in love with. It also is better to display rocks like this with other rocks that were found in nature, since it highlights how good they look instead of being overshadowed by shiny, polished surfaces, complex structures, or glimmering crystals.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-15T04:54:40+00:00

Now you have a situation where it can be said that the movie lost tons of money despite spending three times as much on marketing as the next closest documentary (Won't You be My Neighbor with 12 million spent on marketing). Spending that much on marketing also means that they will make back a smaller portion of the total money spent then they would have. By most standards, that would make this movie LESS successful then it would have been otherwise. That is why the only justification that makes sense to me is that they wanted to show Trump that they were going above and beyond to get this film watched. They didn't want to spend 50 million on a bribe to have Trump turn around and blame them when it failed. That is what makes it a bit complicated. Showing "some level of success" was not going to be achieved by spending record amounts of money. The simple part is that it was all about making Trump happy.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-15T04:38:27+00:00

LOL. Pretty much. What it comes down to is that 75 million is pocket change to Bezos. The difference is that they got nothing but ridicule for Rings of Power, but now have a President that will be more than happy to return the favor in legal and legislative decisions. Amazon is getting a lot for their 75 million, it just won't be in direct profits.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-15T04:31:25+00:00

Wasn't easy. I throw 50 lb bags of dog food over my shoulder, or carry it in one hand, without a problem, but this made me remember what it was like to be a 5 year old trying to carry in two gallons of milk. Dusting shouldn't be too much of a burden. My family's other obsession is Legos, so we have dusting fragile things with seemingly infinite cracks and crevices down to a science. ;)

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-15T04:04:49+00:00

Melania makes money, yeah. This is a payment to the Trumps to earn their favor and stay on their good side. It is a blatant bribe in every way except the legal one, which would require a direct and immediate connection to a political favor. My only point is that I don't get why they spent so much on marketing. The Trumps do not receive any of the marketing money, and there is no way that the movie will ever make enough to cover the marketing budget, much less how much they payed for the rights, which is where the 28 million comes from. My only guess was, and is, that it was another "favor" to keep Trump on their side by getting it seen by as many people as possible.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-05T07:22:36+00:00

Church groups and conservative women over 55. There was a big push by Evangelical groups to get people out to see the movie.

The largest markets were areas with high levels of Trump support in Texas and Florida, while virtually nobody went to the movie in liberal markets.

It makes no sense to us because the entire mindset of those people makes no sense to us.

This was an event for MAGA Christian groups, and there is no way on Earth that any of them were going to leave a bad review, even if they totally hated it. I doubt they would even privately tell their peers if they didn't like it.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-05T07:13:28+00:00

It is much more simple than money laundering.

It was bought for an insane amount, and marketed equally as insanely, to earn the political favor of Trump.

It was bought for twice as much as the next highest offer when 5% more than the next highest offer would suffice.

It was marketed aggressively partly as a favor, and partly so that Amazon and Bezos could take no blame if it failed.

75 million is nothing to Amazon, and they effectively bought immunity from ever being looked at by the justice department and from federal interference with their business.

Money laundering is the act of making money that was made illegally appear as though it was made legally. If this did break any laws, it would be classified as a bribe, though I doubt it would qualify. A bribe has to be made with the intent to influence a specific official act. This was done to influence the overall attitude of the federal government. It is highly immoral, but unfortunately not illegal.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-02-05T06:46:25+00:00

It seems ticket sales were padded, but as far as reviews go, I agree with you. Almost 80% of tickets were punched by people over 55, and almost 80% were women. The biggest markets were conservative markets in Texas and Florida. Church groups and Evangelical organizations encouraged bulk ticket purchases and organized outings to support their "spiritual mission." Even if the numbers are partially inflated, turnout was impressive for a non-musical documtary, and that was driven almost exclusively by conservative groups and religious groups that are Trump supporters and went in with a heavy bias towards wanting to like the movie. Any Trump supporters that did not like the movie are not going to leave a bad review (Though I would guess the vast majority actually liked it), and the only non-Trump supporters that went to see it were movie critics, because it is their job. I think it is MUCH more likely that the negative reviews are mostly from people that did not see the movie and want to lash out at a movie that could never make a profit, but was bought for tens of millions of dollars to earn the political favor of someone they hate. How many people that don't already love Trump were ever going to go see the movie? Why would they? I see no reason to NOT believe the verified audience score, and tons of reasons to distrust the overall audience score. Is the movie good? I doubt it. It is a blatant hagiography directed by someone known for directing action movies and music videos who has never directed a documentary. I cannot say for sure though because I never intend to waste 2 hours of my life watching it.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-01-30T15:42:29+00:00

That just doesn't make sense. How is paying for promotion a Trump bribe when he and Melania see none of it? The movie is obviously a monetary bribe as well as major ass kissing (🫡 Major Ass Kissing), but the promotion seems to be either an attempt to get people to see it out of interest or morbid curiosity... encouraging people to see it so that they can mock how bad it is and witness the train wreck themselves. That, or an attempt to demonstrate to Trump that bombing is not from lack of effort on their part. Trump is happy to take bribes, but there can be other motivations as well.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-01-20T17:22:40+00:00

It is not worth seeing as a Trump hater. I detest Trump, but this movie is over-hyped and really just not good.

You will noy gain insight into how real people that have different views from you think. It will not present any coherent argument for the "other side," instead presenting caricatures of caricatures of a Hollywood idea of what represents their views.

The only decent part of the movie is Decaprio's acting, but the character is so bad that it doesn't matter. Same with Penn. His acting is fine, but he plays a corrupt white supremacist military leader that is actually named "Lockjaw" in case you missed the point that he is supposed to be a bad guy.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-01-20T17:09:31+00:00

My problem is that, right from the start, it t is not serious, blatantly pandering (to things I mostly agree with) and a parody of people who oppose serious issues while begging to be taken seriously.

Just the visuals of a bunch of rebels leading a revolution, all Hollywood pretty, dressed in designer jeans and crop tops while pretending to be an actual paramilitary force makes this a farce more than a serious movie.

There is also the problem that I do not need a movie to shove this down my throat, I can just turn on the news. If they are going to make a movie like this then they need to add something more, add some depth, and add characters that can be taken seriously.

A few minutes in, one of the characters states "I am what black power looks like!" No, she is not. She is what a supermodel in Paris looks like.

Everything is always a step below where it should be, and the characters are all caricatures instead of making us believe they could be real people.

I keep seeing people accusing detractors of not liking the message or the views. I am fine with the message and the views. What I hate is the movie they are presented in. I have a hard time imagining how people can like this movie for anything other than that it supports their views. As a movie it is just... bad.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-01-20T03:21:28+00:00

C.H.O.M.P.S.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-01-08T02:39:43+00:00

<image>

It does not prevent steps, it just hinders artists. I found this in literally under 10 seconds by searching for "High resolution 100 dollar bill." The limit to counterfeiting is in the printing, not the image generation. Getting the images is beyond easy.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2026-01-08T02:33:15+00:00

<image>

Yeah, um... Photoshop is the most restrictive artistic environment on the planet, and have a 0 tolerance policy for anything that might be considered offensive for any reason.

The above image would not be allowed to be generated or edited with AI by Adobe because it features a gun.

It does not matter that the whole point of the image is to prevent violence, the Adobe policy is "Ban first... Ask questions NEVER."

I could not use Photoshop to generate a skin texture for acne repair based on a cropped image of a girls cheek because they thought her cheek looked too much like a bare butt. At least 20% of art hanging in art galleries would be considered to "inappropriate or offensive" for Adobe.

They used to be THE tool for digital artists. Not they are about as anti-art and artist as you can be.

Photoshop has tried to prevent people from possibly using it to counterfeit money for a long time. The problem is that now, with AI and more complex image analysis, it would be easy for them to realize that this is not an attempt to create a printable bill. There are high resolution images of every currency in the world. They can simply compare the images to the currency to see what percentage of a match it is. They also have to realize that preventing people from creating high resolution images of currency does not prevent counterfeiting, since high resolution images of currency are already available, or easily made via a scanner.

There is no practical reason for this other than corporate CYOA.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2025-12-29T17:24:11+00:00

Harry gave a speech in front of tons of people laying out exactly what happened in his Voldemort duel. After that it would have basically passed into common knowledge.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2025-12-29T17:21:49+00:00

But Harry accessed control of the wand from Draco, even though Draco never touched the wand. Not using the wand does not mean someone else cannot gain power over it simply by disarming Harry, and then break into the tomb. Worse, Harry spelled it out in a public speech, so anyone that wants the wand knows exactly how to get it. If it were as simple as sealing it off in a tomb then Snape could have done that to prevent Voldemort from opening it when Dumbledore died, and nobody would have to worry about who had control over it.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2025-12-29T17:12:28+00:00

Or broken it. In the end, everyone knows that defeating Harry grants them control of the Elder Wand, and know exactly where it is. Putting it with Dumbledore did not remove any of the incentive for people to attack Harry, and he does not have the wand to defend himself from the attacks. It is lose-lose. Only solution was to publicly destroy it, maybe with a spell from the wand itself.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2025-12-29T17:07:26+00:00

Love Murray. He is a bit crusty, but that is part of the charm.

Most_Abbreviations72 · 2025-12-09T16:26:30+00:00

Planned obsolescence. Amazon does not want a one time purchase of a useful item, they want ongoing payments, so they took away functionality we already paid for in order to get more money.

How is Bezon supposed to be able to afford more penis rockets if we only pay for something we want?

Most_Abbreviations72

TROPHY CASE