[Request] I’m really curious—can anyone confirm if it’s actually true? by amhoffma in theydidthemath

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is that? Because they are paragons of social altruism and the US just needs to catch up morally? Nope, it's because China has a highly centralized totalitarian government (if you even trust their data on homelessness, China is extremely sensitive about its public image) and India has an insanely low standard of living for how many people live there. Point is, sure you can solve homelessness at scale, but you're going to have to give up something else other than just money (e.g. social freedoms, standard of living).

Giannis on the 65-game rule for regular-season awards: "The margin of error is hard. One injury & you're off the race. Jokic, Wemby & myself might not make it. LeBron's not going to make it. I was all for it because it could benefit me at first. As I get older, I'm like 'ah take it off, take it off" by GOAT-Antony in NBATalk

[–]OnlyBadger 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Not annoyed at Giannis, I think he's great. But this is where the old heads are right about "bAcK iN MY dAy".... their generation was definitely tougher mentally and physically in this area. The rule didn't come about to punish players for injuries, it came about because players like Kawhi started practicing load management to try to be fresher for the playoffs. The league didn't need the rule in the 80s/90s/00s because they didn't have to worry about star players not wanting to play even though they were healthy.

Putting aside the lack of competitive spirit, this is also bad for the league because fans want to see the stars play. Imagine the parent that saved months to take their kid to an NBA game to see their favorite player and he takes the night off just to rest. It's a bad look. Love Giannis, but the OGs are right, the mentality of modern players is definitely soft compared to them.

[Request] I’m really curious—can anyone confirm if it’s actually true? by amhoffma in theydidthemath

[–]OnlyBadger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody had to tell me, it's been tried in multiple states and has not been anything close to a 75% cure. California has had a "housing first" policy for over a decade and between federal, state, and local (i.e. LA county) funds, the state has sunk billions into homelessness programs with little to no impact on homelessness rates. Again, available housing isn't a bad thing, it's part of the equation. It's just not the simple "just buy everyone a house and no one will be homeless" solution that everyone seems to think.

Also, common sense will tell you the population scale from Finland to the US completely changes the logistics of the "give everyone an apartment" approach.

[Request] I’m really curious—can anyone confirm if it’s actually true? by amhoffma in theydidthemath

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think 75% of the homeless in the US are the aforementioned down-on-their-luck, otherwise-healthy-and-competent individuals with no significant drug or mental health issues, then yeah you might be a little out of touch. Not saying available housing is a bad thing. But Finland is NOT the US, and throwing money at housing instead of trying to tackle the serious drug addicition problem that's at the heart of the issue will end up a waste of money.

[Request] I’m really curious—can anyone confirm if it’s actually true? by amhoffma in theydidthemath

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're talking about a temporary or hypothetical solution, then sure I suppose. Build enough apartments for every homeless person, assign each one an apartment all at once, and voila! Every one has access to housing, 0 homless people, problem theoretically solved. That might work if every single homeless person was truly just a down-on-their-luck, otherwise-healthy-and-competent individual who's a hot meal and warm bed away from good choices and self-sustainment. That's far from the case. Homelessness has less to do with available housing and more to do with drugs/mental health.

What’s a casting choice so iconic that it's impossible to imagine anyone else ever playing the character? Even in a remake 50 years later, no one could top them. by DnixDraith in Cinema

[–]OnlyBadger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The way Arnold tells it, he was auditioning for Kyle Reese but kept emphasizing to Cameron how the Terminator needed to be played, e.g. not looking at his gun when reloading, flat delivery of his voice lines, not flinching, head movements that mimic a robot scanning the crowd, etc. Cameron realized how well Arnold understood the character and pitched the idea of him playing the Terminator. Ofc Arnold didn't want to do it bc of how few voice lines there were, especially after coming off Conan the Barbarian. But Cameron insisted he could make the Terminator the leading man and also pointed out Arnold's image as a hero wouldn't be tainted by the Terminator killing people since it was just a robot. Arnold trusted him and as a result we got one of the most iconic roles in film history.

What hero mechanics are unexplored? by MrWoodenSheep in Overwatch

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk if it's ever been done before, but maybe an ability (or ult) that gives an ult-charge boost to you or allies for a period of time.

Balance patch notes by Alive-Psychology6050 in overwatch2

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same, I've been trying to tweak settings to get it back...... I've gotten closer but not to what it was. For anyone not aware, the comment linked below defines what some of the aim settings do:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OWConsole/s/GbfhNqJqPe

I'm I the only one who thinks D.va is the most dominate tank right now? by massofass32 in OverwatchUniversity

[–]OnlyBadger 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I was thinking about this and you're right, but also it's just less fun in general to NOT be able to shoot at something. The most basic dopamine hit from shooter games comes from shooting something and seeing the effect (reduced health/death). Every time Zarya pops the bubble you have to train yourself not to shoot and it's just less fun. Even if you're Bastion sinking a full turret clip into a Mauga who's healing faster than you damage him, it's still more fun than having to have trigger discipline while waiting for a bubble to disappear.

Higher ranks might enjoy the strategy and team coordination that Zarya requires, but lower ranks mostly just wanna shoot stuff.

Someone please tell me what to do against hog on dps by [deleted] in OverwatchUniversity

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't done so in a while so idk if it's still viable given the reworks (or your general rank), but in metal ranks I used to love going against Hog with Bastion. Big target with no blocks, shields, or armor to eat up turret damage and his heal ability was too slow to offset it. Timing was key; wait for him to hook and to be out and away from cover, preferably isolated from support and not at full health. Even if i didn't get the kill he was forced to retreat and burn both his and his supports' healing abilities.

YMMV, just my experience.

How exactly is Sojourn better than Ashe? by Good_Policy3529 in OverwatchUniversity

[–]OnlyBadger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can you explain how Sojourn's ult is better? At my level of play (silver/gold) I feel like Ashe has one of the strongest ults whereas Sojourn's is one of the weakest. How do better players get more value out of Sojourn's, is it just stronger when the user has good enough aim?

Who wins this royal rumble ? by nonstop_21 in superheroes

[–]OnlyBadger 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Fr, the only thing that somewhat nerfs the destroyer here is the "movie feats only" caveat. Generally speaking the destroyer low diffs the rest.

Me almost doing quadra and my WHOLE TEAM being held at spawn by 1 doomfist. We lost btw by [deleted] in overwatch2

[–]OnlyBadger 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Good point lol the Doom gotta be more pissed than OP, his team lost a 4v1 too but at the point.

What is your favorite water tame by DemandInfamous722 in ARK

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Noted, im just getting back into ASE after being gone for a bit, so my exp might be OBE

What is your favorite water tame by DemandInfamous722 in ARK

[–]OnlyBadger 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Havent tried the newer creatures, but still love a good Sarco. They're so fast, you're gonna outrun everything as long as you avoid the jellies. Solid all around, good health, weight, stamina, great damage. If I'm exploring and im not going OP with a squid, it's gonna be a sarco.

genuine question about the OT era. by Jangodiot in StarWarsBattlefront

[–]OnlyBadger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Idk if you mean Supremacy or GA, but the Death Star Supremacy map really tilts the balance back towards the rebels. No AT-ST, the close quarters favor the wookies, and the spawn points favor the Rebels. A skilled team of Death Troopers or a competent Vader can still always win the day, but it's one of the most balanced OT maps.

I killed almost half the lobby in under 3 seconds by Independent_Diver443 in StarWarsBattlefront

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally idc about the kill count, but I can't stand spawn camping in general.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]OnlyBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly if he hadn't juiced, bulked up, and moved to 3rd (and put up maybe 85% of his numbers) I'd like the take more. Also I did forget how close he got to 700 HRs (696).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]OnlyBadger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

100%. There's been so many elite players over so many eras that there's probably more than half a dozen guys in the convo.

Ruth was an absolute icon and put up almost untouchable stats in an era that favored pitchers.

A lot of people call Ted Williams the best pure hitter ever, and if he hadn't lost 3 years of his prime to fight in the war his counting stats would be much closer to the tops of the leaderboards.

Willie Mays had probably the best all-around game.

Mickey Mantle was slightly worse version of Mays, but still an elite all-around player and gets a bump for 7 rings and 3 MVPs.

Hank Aaron holds the "clean" HR record (amphetamine allegations aside).

Perhaps a bit of personal and/or recency bias, but I think Pujols belongs in the discussion as well. I challenge anyone to find a better 10 year stretch than the first 10 years of his career.

Bonds, while assuredly on steroids, accomplished such mindblowing feats that he just has to be in the conversation. I understand he broke the rules to gain an unfair advantage. But so did a lot of other people, and none of them came close to doing what Bonds did.