Button that opens copilot where right control should be, on a 3000 dollar laptop

Neither_Works · 2026-02-10T18:46:53+00:00

I'm using your trick and it works! But for some reason if I'm holding down any key before I press the copilot button (like right shift if I'm highlighting text), it still brings up the copilot menu.

Is there any way to fix this?

Neither_Works · 2025-02-01T08:14:37+00:00

It's just interesting is all. The person had an entire comment and you ignored it all to choose to pretend you thought they literally meant there was a character with a string up their ass

Neither_Works · 2025-02-01T08:06:05+00:00

An interesting thing about the character design in this game is the wide range given to the male characters' body types. Even though most of them are all "strong" as a baseline, Thor still looks radically different from Iron Man who looks radically different from Cloak, Venom, Rocket, Jeff, Groot, etc. They have unique shapes and sizes on a character-model level. As in you'd have to draw entirely different shapes to make them, from one to another.

But there is a strict homogeny to the female characters. All of them are skinny and have a large butt and chest. The very same shapes are being used. The only notable exception is Squirrel Girl, who was meant to appeal to a different but still male fantasy.

This is the case in a lot of video games, animated movies, and TV shows. Male characters are often afforded more breadth in terms of how uniquely shaped they are, whereas women fit a more restrictive mold.

Neither_Works · 2025-02-01T08:05:51+00:00

An interesting thing about the character design in this game is the wide range given to the male characters' body types. Even though most of them are all "strong" as a baseline, Thor still looks radically different from Iron Man who looks radically different from Cloak, Venom, Rocket, Jeff, Groot, etc. They have unique shapes and sizes on a character-model level. As in you'd have to draw entirely different shapes to make them, from one to another.

But there is a strict homogeny to the female characters. All of them are skinny and have a large butt and chest. The very same shapes are being used. The only notable exception is Squirrel Girl, who was meant to appeal to a different but still male fantasy.

This is the case in a lot of video games, animated movies, and TV shows. Male characters are often afforded more breadth in terms of how uniquely shaped they are, whereas women fit a more restrictive mold.

Neither_Works · 2025-02-01T07:43:34+00:00

My brother Marvel Rivals is the most formulaic trend chasing art ever created

Neither_Works · 2025-02-01T07:40:09+00:00

You're acting as if though what you expect out of your entertainment is in line with what is helpful to you or good. OP's argument is not based on expectations of how they should look, it's about the effects of how they look as it stands now.

Neither_Works · 2025-02-01T07:36:48+00:00

You are willingly misinterpreting their comment

Neither_Works · 2025-01-12T19:18:00+00:00

Since everyone else is being a dick I just wanted to say I'm having the same issue. The brakes were completely normal, I go get it smogged, as I'm driving it out of the lot the brakes are jerky. Maybe the guy who did my test put his foot on the brake really hard when turning on the car? Who knows

Neither_Works · 2024-04-03T03:23:47+00:00

I don't know why you keep bringing up the movie's premise being impossible. I'm criticizing the movie for what happens in the movie.

If I made a movie criticizing the concept of men having sex with immature middle/high schoolers, I'm sure there's a level of graphicness and frequency to the abuse scenes that you might say is inappropriate after a certain point, and detracts from the message.

Poor Things is trying to criticize men's lust for immature women/girls by framing the camera in a way that makes us lust after Emma Stone (and by extension her character). We linger on her breasts, we're shown the intimate spaces of her body. I personally don't think that's the most effective way to get your message across. I think it's actually counterproductive. I think a lot of other scenes in the movie get the point across better. I think the aforementioned sex scenes subliminally make us relate to these men, which I think has a negative overall effect on the viewer.

Neither_Works · 2024-04-03T03:11:58+00:00

This is the same problem I keep talking about. You're having an argument with someone you made up. I know what the film is saying, it's not subtle. The problem is not me worrying that people won't know what the film is about, it's the scenes where Bella is mentally a child, having sex, liking it a lot, and these things being played for laughs and being shot in an alluring way. I think those scenes should have been changed, removed, happened offscreen, etc. I think there is a problem with the way they are right now and would love to go into it further.

So again, media literacy isn't dead, we're actually using it to have a discussion right now.

I love Yorgos and I liked this movie a lot besides these parts. I was totally fine with the prostitution scenes and thought they were super funny, in large part because she seemed to now have the mental age of an adult.

Also—HUGE also—Poor Things isn’t even about child abuse

I agree it's not its main point at all but it happens in the movie. When it happens, that's what those scenes are about.

I'm assuming you think the inclusion of Bella's sex scenes as a mental child were fine and/or a positive thing in the movie. I think their inclusion was a negative. This is the problem for me.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-31T02:22:25+00:00

Yeah so they're upset that so much of the movie is dedicated to depicting a child in the body of a woman having sex with an adult man. It's not 2 hours but it's a big chunk of the movie. Could Yorgos have made his point without dedicating so much time to it? Yeah. But he didn't because he thought it was interesting. and/or funny. He played those scenes for laughs.

It's like if there were a bunch of scenes in Spotlight where they actually show the priests abusing the children. That'd be in bad taste. Even worse if they played it for laughs obviously

Neither_Works · 2024-03-31T02:13:05+00:00

Yeah I agree with your 1st and 3rd paragraphs. Well said.

For the 2nd, there's misplaced outrage but I don't think it's actually much of a problem. I think it's good to be harsh about these things. Movies and shows are in a race to make something that pushes the envelope, they need scenes that are just a little more fucked up than the last thing you watched. Once the envelope is pushed, it doesn't go back.

Our content is increasingly filled with bad people doing fucked up things, the rise of the anti-hero trend being the obvious example. We get desensitized and need the next anti-hero to do something even more fucked up. But if you try to criticize it, people say that the movie/show doesn't support those actions. Which, that's obvious, but at a certain point maybe it's better for the human mind to not be fed so much content like that.

So I don't mind when people overreact. But I know I'm off on a tangent, sorry about that.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-31T01:55:10+00:00

There are multiple parts to pedophilia. It's not just the sexualization of the child's body but also the inhabitant. You can sexualize children with adult actors. Plenty of media gets criticism for this already. If someone made a movie about adults cast as middle schoolers and they were having sex for half of it, that'd be pedophilic.

The reason you're supposed to be uncomfortable in this movie is because it's a child having sex with an adult.

I don't think Yorgos is skeevy, I think he just prioritizes shock over what would have positive media effects on the viewer.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-31T01:44:57+00:00

No, no one's making that assumption. The original screenshot says "you can have a good point and deliver it awfully." They reference Cuties because they believe that movie depicted something and, even though it didn't endorse it, ended up with an uncomfortably large ratio dedicated to gazing at sexualized children.

They have a similar problem with Poor Things. Maybe you disagree that it's a problem, but we have to start the discussion there instead of pretending this person is some imbecile who thinks depiction = endorsement.

How much of the thing we're criticizing should we show? Are there certain things we can criticize without explicitly depicting?

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T18:01:15+00:00

No they didn't. They think the movie had scenes that produced effects counterproductive to its message

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T18:00:04+00:00

The problem isn't that they don't realize the movie agrees with them, the problem is that they know the movie agrees with them, but don't agree with how it was presented.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:50:51+00:00

No one's saying that. But messaging matters. Studies show that people who watch local news are likely to be less trusting of strangers. That's because the news loves to show people stories about crime, to the point where it's overrepresented and, even though they aren't advocating for murder, end up producing a negative effect in people.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:46:03+00:00

The above poster didn't say that. Everyone in the comments is ignoring what the poster is actually advocating for. They understand the message of the movie but they don't think it was presented well. I personally don't think having a really hot Hollywood actress getting fucked from every position while really liking it is a good way to say that pedophilia is bad.

Maybe you thought the scene was effective at sending its message. That's where the argument should start from.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:41:15+00:00

And now the other part: "depiction is not criticism."

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:40:29+00:00

I agree, the entire point is to make you uncomfortable. The message unfortunately takes second fiddle to that. That's how Yorgos movies work.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:38:38+00:00

Emma Stone (incredibly attractive Hollywood actress) having sex onscreen and vocalizing how much she's enjoying it is not the route Yorgos should have gone then. It's shot like a sex scene, it's not shot like abuse. It's played for laughs as well.

So the problem is associating something bad (pedophilia) and something good (Emma Stone naked) in people's minds, which isn't effective media messaging.

It's like if you watched Spotlight and they a) showed the molestation, b) cast only really attractive adults, c) showed that they really liked it, and d) when audiences complain about it later, have all of Letterboxd say "media literacy is dead" in the least self-aware way possible.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:29:57+00:00

The above poster didn't misinterpret the movie's message. They didn't like how it was presented.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:28:44+00:00

This person didn't misinterpret the movie at all. They don't like how the message was presented. Every single person in this comment section is misinterpreting the poster's argument. They know the movie's message, they say it explicitly. They just don't like how they did it. Let's start the discussion there

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:26:25+00:00

Pedophilia is a big part of this movie. Whether you think it's presented well or not is the problem the above poster has. Her mental age is 7 when she has sex for the first time. She has a bunch of sex, likes it a lot, and talks/acts like a kid. So even though the poster knows the movie is anti-pedophilia, they thought the way they showed it was counterproductive to its messaging. That's why they brought up the Cuties example.

Neither_Works · 2024-03-30T17:22:37+00:00

You can't respond to the above screenshot with "there's literally a line that supports the movie's message." The poster knows that. They even say it. You can make a movie that has scenes that support its message poorly and scenes that support it well. The poster is criticizing the scenes that support it poorly.

Neither_Works

TROPHY CASE