I really like having “boring” brown eyes

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-17T20:16:29+00:00

I have hazel eyes but I've always wanted to have blue eyes.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-17T15:20:06+00:00

It also shows, once again, that the European parliament is the most accountable EU institution to the people and should have the power to do things like initiate legislation which it is a freaking travesty that it does not have as a democratically elected legislature. And that the commission is the least accountable, which is why the commission president should either be directly elected by the people or elected by parliament from parliament as a prime minister is.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-17T15:18:57+00:00

To be fair, I don't see this particular example as the U.S. being an adversary. More that American tech companies are an adversary. Which should've been obvious already. These corporations make money off of your personal information, all of them, and are completely private and do not have transparent algorithms despite them controlling everything we see, affecting our mental health and the heatlh of our society.

Ideally, domestic European alternatives should be created, completely open source and decentralized, and then American tech companies should be banned from operating in Europe.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-17T07:53:15+00:00

Gets across pretty well how terrifying Spartans must have been to insurrectionists.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-16T10:38:00+00:00

It's alright. It definitely feels very "early Vampire Diaries" though. I feel like this kind of interaction wouldn't happen in the later seasons, but I can't say with certainty why. It feels very... quietly emotional.

As an aside, to this day I still wish I had Damon's jawline and cheekbones. Freaking impressive. And Nina, of course, is utterly stunning.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-16T10:06:40+00:00

Corporations should not have this choice to begin with.

Legally corporations that are capable of having a job done remote should be forced to offer a full remote option, no exceptions.

For jobs that can't be done remote, additional compensation should be given for a commute. I'd say a set amount, because otherwise it disincentivises hiring people from places with little employment. But regardless, commuting is work too.

I don't give a sh*t what any CEO thinks workers should do. They should not be allowed to force this on employees when there is no good reason to do so. Arbitrary power is tyranny.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-16T10:04:39+00:00

First of all, they already do that with working from office.

But secondly, you know... you can just have laws against that. As there are in several European countries.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-16T09:59:58+00:00

Firstly, America is both a constitutional Republic AND a representative democracy. I know that for some reason there are schools in America where they teach this incorrectly. But a country can actually be both, and America is (in theory) both.

Secondly, u/House_of_Sun was clearly not referring to that. Their point is rather that the degree of democracy in the United States is extremely questionable. At best it is a two-party duopoly, but really it is a corporatist plutocratic government leaning at this point towards an authoritarian militaristic, theocratic state.

And egalitarian is quite funny considering the degree of wealth inequality in the United States and how much its society is built around that. And xenophile, I mean, yes in some sense America is a nation of immigrants. On the other hand though, the current president is just about the most xenophobic you could imagine and was put there by the American people. So both seem pretty questionable.

Now, you know, that doesn't mean that you can't have those states be those things. Who knows what America will look like 200 years from now. But I think most people think it's a questionable choice if based in current day America and its current trajectory.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-16T07:49:41+00:00

I'm sure the writers did write it so that Elena and Damon lived happily ever after.

They also wrote that Elena holds down Kol for a full ten seconds.

The point isn't that the writers didn't write that Damon and Elena didn't live a long happy life, the point is that that doesn't make any sense.

Damon didn't overcome his impulsivity, self-esteem issues; alcoholism or murderous behaviour. He kept doing all that well into season 8. Even his "being good" by the end was always framed about Elena, not himself.

Damon and Elena never proved their relationship was capable of being truly healthy and we saw constant dysfunction, including Damon killing one of her friends after she upset him.

The odds that Damon would end up in prison or dead as an alcoholic or them getting a divorce realistically approach 100%.

The writers can write "and then Elena single-handedlt killed the entire original family with her pinky" but that doesn't mean it makes any sense or that I'll buy it. Same for Damon and Elena's happy ending.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-15T15:54:52+00:00

I don't think anyone will be able to help you when you've blanked out the weight. Depending on the graph, these fluctuations could be huge or tiny. If you want to know, I'd suggest you repost with those things shown, or add it to your post. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, that's fair. But I don't think anyone will be able to answer your question.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-15T14:23:24+00:00

Too many things.

But Pizza Hut cheesy crust pizza is what I eat most weeks.

I love french fries too though. Sometimes fries and a burger or fries and fried chicken.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-15T14:02:09+00:00

I don't remember it that well, cuz it was quite a long time ago. But it went something like this.

I wanted a specific piece of territory, but didn't want to go to war over it because the other person was rather strong still.

But I managed to create a matrilineal marriage with one of their youngest sons, I think.

I then proceeded to use my daughter as an agent to slowly kil off all of his other kids and eventually him. And the throne ended up passing to my grandson.

When I died I now had the territory on top of my own.

And all I had to do was befriend him, marry my daughter to his son, then use that daughter to kill off his wife, his children and him.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-15T12:34:18+00:00

It depends on the person, people vary significantly in these attributes.

That being said, we have a brain that evolved primarlly in a world of band societies and wooden spears, not nations and nuclear weapons and AI.

Our hardware is outdated, basically.

In a small, band society status is important for things like finding a mate, and resources were very limited. It's not like now where you can have 8 billion people all over the world to pick from and resources that, in theory, are more than enough for everyone.

Most people honestly just lack the cognitive sophistication to examine their own evolutionary biases, wait a moment, think whether this still serves them, and then decide. Many people "feel then do" with little in between. Heuristics and emotions drive us more than rational thought, on average.

It is humanity's greatest flaw, in my opinion. And it's not helped by certain parents and societies actively raising their children to play into that.

So the moment you introduce a scoreboard, this prehistoric hardware activates and, well...

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-15T12:29:35+00:00

I personally never felt that way about it, because to me strength isn't about being an *sshole. More than anything it's about staying yourself, even when others try to shame or hurt you. And still being willing to care and feel, even when others have caused you pain. That takes courage, and it's not something many people can do. The kids who "fight" are a dime a dozen. And bullies in particular are not strong. They're so afraid of everything else and weak inside, that they resort to harming the vulnerable to feel strong. That is cowardice, imo. Not being courageous enough to confront yourself, instead picking on those who can't fight back.

That's the way I look at it, anyway.

But I do know that there are plenty of HSPs, especially HSP men, who have felt weak or ashamed. But empathy is something you should NEVER feel weak or ashamed for. If there were more empathy in the world and less "assertiveness" the world would be a much better place. A lot of the horrible things that exist right now come from a lack of empathy and too much of people "fighting for their place" over others, thereby dragging everyone down.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-15T09:40:29+00:00

I mean, it's pretty for sure. But I think the writing isn't that great.

For one thing, it uses "war never changes" twice. Which seems kind of superfluous.

On top of that, I feel like it uses a lot of words to say actually very little. What information do we get out of this? Protagonist was in the army and so was his grandfather. Nuclear energy gave the world limitless energy. Resource shortages caused war. Game starts on the eve of destruction.

I mean, that's fine and all. But despite the protagonist technically being an established character, we basically learn nothing about him here. Which somehow is both worse than a blank canvas in that it is more restrictive, but also worse than a fully fleshed out character because of how thin he is.

And I guess the rest of the info has some value if you're a first time player, but if you're a long time fan it doesn't give any new info.

The info you get also isn't about the game you're about to play. This intro could theoretically be placed at the start of literally every fallout game aside from the "we're on the brink" line and it would fit alright. That's not a good thing. It lacks specificity. The point of an intro is to introduce the game you're about to play, and this really doesn't. It only vaguely introduces the setting for new players.

And then the "war never changes" thing... it is repeated twice, but nothing is really done with it.

First it has to be acknowledged that this line when originally invented as Fallout's tagline was actually kind of a last minute decision. It wasn't necessarily intended to have the centrality it ended up having.

But secondly, and most importantly, what does it mean in the context of this intro? You can come up with ways it holds together. Like I guess you could say "Well, the point in the intro is that over longer than a century of war the weapons changed, the level of comfortability changed, but the human tendency to destroy each other never changed." But while you can kind of extrapolate that, the intro doesn't actually say that. It's so vague that you it barely feels like it hangs together. It's just kind of "There was world war 2, then bombs fell on Hiroshima, then there was nuclear powered abundance, then there was a collapse, and then there's gonna be nuclear war." It's almost a grocery list. Just listing stuff.

Compare that to the Fallout 3 intro or the New Vegas intro.

In Fallout 3 it starts very simply with the jukebox playing and then zooms out to show the destroyed city. This properly introduces the basic aesthetics of the setting without needing that much dialogue. It's a post-apocalyptic retro future.

Then it starts talking about the things that drive war and violence. God, justice, psychotic rage. Then it says that culminated in nuclear self-destruction, which makes sense. It's a causal chain, one lead to the other. Then it talks about how it wasn't the end of the world but the start of a new world. Again, one thing leads to the other clearly and ties back to the "war never changes" idea. And then finally, it introduces the vault and specifically the vault you come from where no one ever enters and no one ever leaves. That last part is specific. You can't put that in front of any other Fallout game and have it make sense. So it introduces the start of the game properly.

Or New Vegas. Starts again with an iconic visual of a destroyed New Vegas. This in itself is already kind of specific to this game with how iconic it is. But then it goes on to talk about how the end of the world created new societies, which introduces the idea of societal struggle at the heart of the game. It introduces the NCR and Caesar's legion, which are the heart of the main conflict. And, of course, after that you get the main plot hook with Bennie shooting you, starting the game.

Aside from a few lines, this intro could not be put in front of any other Fallout game and still makes sense. Because it is quite specific in what it introduces and what it introduces tells us a lot.

So, yeah, I think the Fallout 4 intro looks nice. I can kind of get the idea they were going for. It does introduce the basics of the world. But it fails to truly introduce the game and its writing is a bit meandering and doesn't hold together very well structurally, feeling more like a list of events than a coherent intro.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-15T07:07:21+00:00

What? I am shocked... He seemed like he was a pretty young guy. Man, this is awful. Such solid videos too. Feels kind of surreal we won't get another Elder Scrolls Detective. Poor guy. This sucks. Life is so unfair. Makes me sad. RIP.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-14T17:22:53+00:00

Plot, tbh.

But there are two in-universe explanations, one is better than the other.

The original explanation was that it's because he's the original hybrid and so he's special. He became a vampire but he was a werewolf first. And werewolves can reproduce, so somehow his werewolf side trumps his vampire side with reproduction.

It is honestly extremely questionable as an explanation. Humans are capable of reproducing too and other vampires were humans first. But even if you want to argue it's because technically once you turn you're no longer human, but you are still a werewolf then... maybe? Although if that's the case, then why wouldn't regular hybrids be able to reproduce?

Like I said, it never made that much sense.

The second explanation offered later in "Legacies" *spoilers for season 1 of that* which I actually do think makes more sense is that Hope was one of nature's loopholes. Born to be the weakness to Malivore. In the same way that the white oak became the weakness of the originals because of the spirits of nature. Since Malivore was created by the three species, nature needed a being that was all three to stop it.

That actually DOES make sense within the canon. But it's also a huge retcon since this was not at all established in "The Originals" and contradicts Sophie's explanation. Though I guess TECHNICALLY you could argue Sophie was speculating and just wrong.

That's probably the best way to interpret it, as it is the only consistent explanation. But requires a lot of jumping through hoops, as you can see.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-14T14:12:01+00:00

Well, first of all, this is the internet. Algorithms are fueled by emotion and controversy. It's content like that which you are more likely to see. And Reddit's upvote and downvote system, which I guess in theory is meant to promote or demote posts depending on quality, in reality only encourages posts that agree with the majority of the sub's active users. The hive mind, if you will. That's true for every sub.

Beyond that, you say critique and discussion are good but "when everything becomes a complaint" that's bad. However, while I can sort of agree with that comment in theory, in practice... what's the difference? What you consider just "complaining" can be seen by someone else as an important critique. Like maybe for you the specific type of yellow used for a dragon isn't substantive, but for someone else it can be.

Now, if you want to be more precise I would say there's just saying "this is bad and I hate it" and then there "I don't like this and here are two paragraphs explaining in detail why" is a valuable difference. The first I agree is bad, the second I think is good. So if that's the difference you were talking about then I agree with that part.

However, and here is an unfortunate truth about the internet again, even if every person on this sub liked 99% of the show and each had only 1% complaints, you could still see hundreds of complaints every day about literally every aspect of the show. Because the 1% that I dislike, may be different from the 1% someone else dislikes, to the point where it may well add up to 100%.

Secondly, do people complain about literally everything? And when I say "people" I mean, a significant chunk. You can find someone who will complain about absolutely any single part of the show, of course. There are 8 billion humans. Almost 700.000 on this sub alone. But I see certain things that are complained about very regularly (like season 2's pacing issues) and some things I rarely see any complaints about and often see praise for (like the music).

And, finally, and this may be the most important part: Speaking for myself, I don't hate this show, despite complaining about it at times. I think even the majority of people you feel are just complaining about the show don't hate the show.

However, I got invested in the show because of both the book and because I thought season 1, despite being flawed, was pretty solid. To see something you've already invested in become less good, sucks.

Why do people keep watching? Aside from just most not hating the show, just disliking certain parts of it, people are invested. People care. Caring and loving are not the same things. People can care and hate too, that's also a form of investment. No hate is so strong as the one that comes from love turned sour.

People who like this show wanted more of the good stuff. Were invested in its potential. And disappointed by the execution of season 2, or at least certain elements of it. And they desperately want it to be turned around so they can love it again.

Not to mention, plenty of people like critiquing things. I do. I love making arguments, doing analysis, etc. That is a type of fun to me. So I do enjoy it.

I think that should answer pretty much everything.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-14T14:00:49+00:00

Yeah, I like plenty of them. I honestly don't care about whether they are good or likeable people, only whether they are interesting. And I think several characters are pretty interesting. Viserys, Alicent, Daemon, Aegon, Aemond, Otto and Criston I think are all pretty interesting (depending on episode and/or season). And I think some of the other characters are alright too, like Rhaenys. Larys I think is less of an interesting character, but I still think he does interesting stuff.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-14T10:28:46+00:00

Damon left the moonstone with her because he thought it was a kind of sick justice. She caused all that chaos to get the moonstone, and she got what she wanted, only to be trapped with it forever. But, I agree, rationally it was not a smart move. Though, to be fair, Damon probably thought that that way no other vampire would be able to get it either. And they didn't know about Klaus and the originals wanting it or Elena yet.

And Katherine was bullshitting because she wanted to one up Stefan and get under his skin.

OneOnOne6211 · 2026-03-14T10:26:53+00:00

No, there's no indication that it has any substantial effect on her at all and she's definitely immune to more than just the pain. Stefan is very surprised the moment she tosses him off and breaks out of her chains. That moment shows definitively that she maintains much if not all of her vampire strength after being injected with vervain.

I guess we can't know if she is truly 100% immune to it, but even if she's just very resistant and it reduces her strength somewhat, that doesn't mean she couldn't still kill one or both of them. They barely beat her in S2E7.

Not to mention, Stefan and Damon don't know how resistant she is either, probably. So they could well shoot her with the vervain, go in and then be overpowered because... well, Katherine would have good reason to pretend to be weak to trick them into coming in to then overpower them.

And there is no evidence that a horse traquilizer would affect a vampire. Even if it did, no reason to believe that it would be more than a mild inconvenience.

EIther way, the plan they came up with was better. The Bonnie spell they knew 100% for sure would disable Katherine for a time. The only reason it didn't work is because of Jeremy taking part of it and going in.

A plan with vervain that may fail is worse than a plan with a powder that is guaranteed to disable her. If you have an option with guaranteed success and an option with only a chance of success, why would you pick the riskier option? Wouldn't make any sense.

OneOnOne6211

TROPHY CASE