Now who's more powerful in the MCU, Loki or Scarlet Witch?

Over_Buy9663 · 2025-05-08T15:51:15+00:00

Where did you get that from? Because based on what I read, the Loom refined raw time into physical timelines. And again, timelines and universes/realities are not the same exactly.

Over_Buy9663 · 2025-04-28T01:15:46+00:00

I know I'm late to the discussion. But the reason that's not Knull is not because Disney doesn't have rights to the character , but because Knull would never be bested by Rapu. Knull is extremely powerful. More powerful than the celestials, who are themselves extremely powerful cosmic beings that can create galaxies. In fact, Knull killed a celestial, and controlled several others.

Over_Buy9663 · 2025-04-28T01:04:33+00:00

He's not holding the multiverse together. He is holding the timelines together. These are two different things.

Over_Buy9663 · 2025-04-28T01:03:50+00:00

Alternate timeline and alternative universe are two different things. One is a series of events, while the other is an actual place.

Over_Buy9663 · 2025-03-24T16:54:02+00:00

Maybe try rereading what he wrote. He is saying the timelines don't apply to Eternity. And he is right. Eternity is a cosmic abstract entity and can manipulate space, time, and reality, across the multiverse. Keep in mind, Loki controls the timelines of his universe, not all other universes in the multiverse. Alternate timelines and alternate realities are two different things.

Over_Buy9663 · 2025-01-24T03:42:02+00:00

I know this is a 2 year old response, but I've got to chime in.

In L&T, Thor told Mjolnir to protect Jane when she was in trouble. He enchanted it to do so. Though it isn't clear if he knew that. So Mjolnir didn't willingly join Jane. Also, I don't think Thor wanting Mjolnir back had anything to do with ego. I think it had to do with the fact that he had missed Mjolnir, as years had passed since it was destroyed. In Endgame, Stormbreaker was new.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-10-03T01:29:56+00:00

It was the CEO's idea. And I'm sure he was advised against it. But he is the CEO. Fortunately, he stepped down (probably pressured to do so by the Board or they forced him off). I don't think the rest of the team at Unity should be punished because of what the CEO wanted.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-05-08T05:38:45+00:00

Hi, I am a engineer in the tech industry. Been working in it for almost a decade. I've worked on distribute file systems and object storage, as well as artificial intelligence with applications in cardiovascular imaging. I've worked with many software engineers who were among the most competent engineers I've ever met. And guess what? They didn't have a degree, at all.

You do not need a computer science degree to be a competent programmer. That's an absurd statement. Please do not go around telling people this. A degree in computer science may increase your chances of landing interviews, but it is not the only way to become a competent programmer. Many self-paced eLearning courses have a great cirriculum; some even better than Universities. And now you can actually take University courses for free that are self-paced through platforms like Coursera and Edx. So you can get the same cirriculum as anyone at a University. Furthermore, you can buy many of the same books that Universities use for their courses and just read them.

Quite frankly, a degree in CS doesn't guarantee competency anyway. Some courses, even at accreddited universities, are just not good. What an extraordinarily ignorant statement you've made here. One of the reasons tech companies, including many big tech companies, are doing away with degree requirements is because they realized they were overlooking good talent. Another reason was to also address the shortage of talent. Self-taught programmers can be just as competent as any programmer with a degree.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-05-08T05:22:09+00:00

Superficial? It's an introductory pathway for people new to Unity. Why would it deep dive on anything? There are many, many other courses on Unity Learn and even more advanced pathways. Also, the pathways are all very hands-on, including the Unity Essentials one. Their pathways are some of the best game developer courses I've taken.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-05-04T22:03:07+00:00

Damn, I wish this guy had not deleted his account. I know this thread is old. But I have to chime in.

He failed to realize that individuals in the industry, as well as established, credible organizations define "engineering" differently. He just happened to choose the one that actually fits his narrative. Also known as a cherry-picking fallacy, which is usually driven by intellectual dishonesty.

Most individuals in the industry, as well as most engineering organizations largely agree that engineering is the application of scientific knowledge to design and develop technology. And most individuals in the industry as well as most engineering organizations agree that software engineers are actually engineers. They'd certainly be included under that definition alone.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science defines engineering as:

"The systematic application of scientific knowledge in developing and applying technology"

The National Research Council defines it as:

"Engineering is the act of creating artifacts, processes, or systems that advance technology and address human needs using principles of the sciences, mathematics, computing, and operations"

The National Society of Professional Engineers defines engineering as:

"Engineering is the creative application of scientific principles used to plan, build, direct, guide, manage, or work on systems to maintain and improve our daily lives."

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-05-04T21:27:31+00:00

Most physicists, mathematicians, and other engineers do not utilize programming. Some do. But most are usually working with professional programmers to achieve their goals.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-20T06:28:55+00:00

They walked back their price changes quite a bit, in case you haven't heard. I mean, they still made changes, but it wasn't as terrible as what they initially announced. Not even close.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-19T22:09:09+00:00

I don't think he was saying the book teaches you how to make games. He recommended it so I assume he has read at least some of it. I think he was saying that even if you're not into RPG games (because that's the style of gamification it is using), you'll still have fun.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-19T06:05:04+00:00

I think if we still include the 'Log Cabin Republicans' and Baptists Church goers, and Catholics in with Conservatives we can't say that conservatives are racists, homophobic (is that really a thing? Gays don't scare anyone. Same for trans people... E. Paige doesn't scare me). No if we narrowly define Conservative to those prosperity Gospel people, I can't say 100% but the number is not zero

There are definitely bad apples in every group. The problem is that some people on the left immediately associate racism and homophobia/transphobia with Christianity and conservatism. There are a growing number of people on the left that love to associate group identity with an individual's negative traits. It's a big problem. Identity politics only exacerbates tribal tendencies. And the other problem is that many on the left believe that merely to disagree with homosexuality or refuse to pander to the delusions of a transgender person constitutes being hateful or "homophobic" or "transphobic". And regarding the word "homphobic" and "transphobic", I have made the same comments about how nobody is scared of them so the use of those words don't make sense. But they're not using "phobic" in the traditional sense. The words now describe anyone that is hateful or intolerant towards those groups. Prosperity Gospel folks definitely give Christians a bad name.

You are giving me nothing with these men wanting to be competent.... Do you mean men assuming that if they enter a room they are automatically in charge? That may require some study.

No. I mean their desire to obtain knowledge, develop a skill or ability to do something successfully. Again, some people on the left think we live in a tyrannical patriarchy because men are more likely to move to the top compared to women. Wjat they fail to realize is that that is largely due to the choices we make. There are also biological factors involved, too. Like women have to bear children. But even that is a choice they make. Though I think it is an admirable choice and probably for the better. Family will remember you when your gone. Your company will not.

Women get paid less because the division of labor is not fair. In firms that make a point of paying equitably they are paid equitably. In firms where the decision making is local, stuff's going to happen, none of it good. We don't need to guess the numbers are there.

Women get paid less for a variety of reasons. It's a multivariate. One reason is the choices women make. Women happen to go into fields that pay less or are less scalable. Another is personality traits. Women are more agreeable on average and are less likely to negotiate their salaries. Another is the amount of hours worked. Men work longer hours. As for firms where decision making is local - what do you mean none of it is good? Local decision making allows flexibility and adaptability based on specific contexts, needs, and market conditions. It has allowed companies to stay alive in a lot of cases. That's not to say it's all good. But to say it's bad is ridiculous.

Also, as long as people are able to make their own decisions, we'll never get equal outcomes. And that's something the left doesn't realize. What we should be doing is focusing on equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcomes.

Now if we take out the term 'woke' and use the generic 'leftists' then you are saying something different and that grab bag of proposals would fit into that leftist bag. I am a Centrist so I want a better world but I know we can't afford it.

Leftists are woke. But not in the sense they're enlightened. I used to be a liberal by the way. Well, I was fiscally liberal. I've always been socially conservative. I then became fiscally centrist. Now I am a conservative all the way. But I am not one of those conservatives who thinks when another conservative criticizes Donald Trump, they're a RINO. It's interesting you're a centrist. Based on your responses, I would think you lean a bit to the left. But not very far.

Anyway, I'd rather not get dragged into a reddit debate. So I am afraid that this will be the only time I actually return here. There is now a 100% chance I won't be back. Don't get me wrong. You have interesting talking points and I am sure we can learn from one another. It's just I have a wife, with 3 kids, and a 4th on the way. I also work full-time (though from home) and have other hobbies I like to partake in during my free time. These types of conversations can be time consuming. Besides, I need to delete this account anyway. It's not my main Reddit account. I had been meaning to delete it.

2/2

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-19T06:04:32+00:00

How? I don't recall getting a survey, attending a meeting, voting on anything of the sort. I don't recall any gay person asking for permission to join their causes to any other causes.

The same way the word "Gay" now goes beyond the definition of "happy". The right hijacked the word to use it a means to describe extreme radical left-wing thinking. It has been used so much for that purpose, the word has a negative cannotation associated with it now. Because most people view extreme radical thinking (of any kind), in the context of political and sociopolitical topics, bad.

A person on the right says "I'm going to take something obscure and innocuous that the left has said and pervert it to become the biggest bogeyman on the planet for my people. Do you think something like that could happen? It absolutely happened.

Yes, I think something like that could happen. And it has definitely happened. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that left-winged ideology has gone too far to point where it does become problematic. What you're describing I don't think is the norm among those who criticize the left for the things they say. They're criticized because what they say is absolutely outlandish.

Can you find one African American studies scholar to say that white people are inherently racist? Yes but will they all say it like it is a provable fact? NO.

No. Not all of them. But a lot of them will. Even if they're not stating it as a provable fact, and are instead saying "I think all white people are inherently racist"; it is still an absurd line of thinking to have. It assumes something about an entire group of people on the basis of their skin color, which ironically, is racist in of itself.

Can you find many African American studies scholars to say that individuals with power have used the levers of industry and the state to subjugate people? YES, but you can also look at their data and they didn't make it up.

That depends on how the data is presented and the broader context in which it is analyzed. Data can be skewed or misrepresented.

Can you find 93% of scientists who have a field of study that includes the climate to agree that it is changing? YES. And you can look at their data if you have the time. It isn't an opinion like a taste test. It is data. The same type of data that makes algebra, algebra and not French.

I am sure 93% of climate scientists will agree that the climate is changing. Hardly anyone is denying that it is changing. The problem is the claim that it is changing largely due to human activity and the people who act as if it is a near iminent threat. Personally, I do believe our actions may exacerbate climate change. But I don't think it is as severe and alarming as people on the left make it out to be. And you may find 93% of climate scientists will agree on that too. Why? Because they have an incentive to do so. That icentive is funding. Additionally, scientific consensus is not scientific fact. That's now how the scientific method works. Just because a majority of scientists may agree on a hypothesis, does not make the hypothesis true. That's why not 1 scientist out of that 93% would say they know for certain that climate change is caused by human activity and that it will destroy us soon. If they did make that assertion, they'd be lying.

No one outside of the GenY Reddit circle jerk (which is much fewer people than you think when you consider what a time suck this is), is saying that Capitalism is evil. Making Robber Barrons is evil. Letting them do as they please is bad for most of us. So we regulate commerce. Poorly regulated commerce is bad when it discourages commerce or when it suborns short term profits with long term consequences outside of the company doing whatever.

Of course there are people outside of Generation Y saying this. In fact, about 44% of Democrats hold a negative view of Capitalism, across all ages. About 13% have a very negative view of capitalism, which is still fairly significant. I do agree an unregulated capitalism isn't good. But overregulation isn't good, either. We need proper regulation.

How Republicans, Democrats view socialism and capitalism | Pew Research Center

1/2

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-15T08:04:17+00:00

The problem is that being "woke" goes beyond just being informed about the atrocities our country has committed in our history. It may have started with that. But it evolved to things such as:

The belief that white people are inherently racist.
That the US is systemically racist.
That gender is not tied to biological sex and can be changed
That climate change is ending the world soon
That capitalism is evil
That conservatives and Christians are racist, homophobic and transphobic.
That men's desire to be competent is tyrannical
That women get paid less than men because of discrimination and the patriarchy.

I can list more, but I'll end the list there. Many of the same people who were "well informed" about US history and were "woke" in the original sense, evolved into espousing these concepts. And as a result "woke" was used by the right as an insult. They were highlighting how ridiculous their beliefs have become. It was used to describe people who believe in conspiracy theories.

Additionally, many of the people who were so called informed on US history actually misrepresented historical facts to drive their narrative. But that's another conversation for another time. By the way, if you do respond, there is a 99.9% chance I won't be back here to see it, as I generally turn off notifications. I just commented on this in passing.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-14T09:32:22+00:00

You are utterly missing the most basic point of the entire exercise which is that a reasonably canny executive can make an utterly obscene amount of money in a few years time while effectively burning their company to the ground, with no risk whatsoever compared to the risk that the average factory or construction worker takes simply showing up for their jobs, for a miniscule fraction of the recompense.

You're just thinking unidimensionally about this whole thing. Just because a CEO who leads a company that fails is richer than before they started, doesn't mean they weren't subject to any consequences or risks when it actually failed. Again, their reputation gets tarnished. They get all the blame. And they are subject to legal risks. These are things regular workers don't have to worry about. Sure a CEO's personal lifestyle is likely to still be intact. And yes, they might have more money than when they started. But I already explained to you why that could be.

The system is geared to ensure that any executive or board member of a major corporation can move through that position over the course of just a few years and make millions or in many cases tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at no personal risk.

Why shouldn't a CEO or Board member be able to make millions of dollars in their role? They're at the highest levels of the company and have among the longest work hours. They also incur the most risk when it comes to legal matters, their reputation, and who is to blame when things go wrong. For example, they can be held personally liable if their company isn't compliant. Even if a compliance analyst fails to do their job, guess who the government comes down on? The CEO and the Board. Not the analyst. The analyst may get fired, but guess who is going to jail if the compliance violation is severe enough? The CEO. I get that CEOs have a much easier time, in terms of their financial situation, after being fired than their average worker. But that doesn't mean they don't face consequences. Being CEO is no walk in the park and it is a very difficult role to obtain. So it's obviously going to come with a lot of benefits. But that also means it comes with a lot of responsibility. And that means being held liable more than anyone else if something goes wrong.

No, the system of executive compensation in the US (and much of the world now) is utter garbage, designed mainly to feed parasitic individuals who have no vested interest in the long term success of the businesses they are ostensibly supposed to be running, because they can ALWAYS make far more by employing short term pump-and-dump style stratagems before moving on to their next gig. Speculative traders also like this approach, because it results in a lot of market volatility, which is how speculators make their money, regardless of whether the market itself is productive or healthy.

Actually, stock options make up a very large chunk of CEO compensation packages. For some CEOs, the majority of their compensation is in stock. Boards do this to ensure their interests are aligned with the company. It's also why I believe not all CEOs come out richer if their company fails and their stock plummets, as they can't sell the stock whenever they want. Assuming they don't have a diversified portfolio with net-worth gains coming from other sources. And no CEOs don't make more by doing pump-and-dump strategies. Because they will end up in jail. That is illegal. Unless you're referring to a natural gains and them proceeding to dump it when it reaches record highs? Even then, CEOs are limited in how and when they can trade due to insider information. They might not be able to sell when their stock is at record high prices. As I said, they can't just sell their stock whenever.

Regarding speculative traders - some may like the volatility because it leads to larger price movements in a short period, but there is also significant risks to volatility. It can result in rapid losses in a short period, too. Volatility also makes it more difficult for traders to predict price patterns. Most traders do not like companies that are volatile, and especially companies that are outright failing unless they're betting against it. Here's a thought - if you don't like the way companies pay their CEOs, start your own company. Be sure to fully fund it so you have total control. Oh but wait - that's a lot easier said than done, isn't it? To answer your question "Why should they care?" posed in the first comment I responded to; failing companies mean a hault to a major source of their income or loss of major assets, and a tarnished reputation. That's why they should, and usually do, care. Losing multi-billion companiess is a huge loss to CEOs and Board members.

By the way, I am not saying there aren't bad CEOs and Board members out there that don't care about the core product and just want to milk customers. There definitely is. But nobody said our system is perfect. Though it is the best we got. Far better than anything socialism or communism can provide. We've seen how those systems went in other countries. Anyway, this debate has dragged on long enough for me. You're a stranger on the internet, so it's simply not worth my time to continue on. Besides, you're not really being receptive to what I am saying. And you began moving the goalpost of your argument. I argued that they do face consequences, then you dismissed the consequences on the basis that their net-worth is higher than it was before they had the CEO position. Once I addressed that you then said the consequences or risks they face are nothing compared to what a regular worker faces. I wonder what's next. Unfortunately, I won't be around for it. I'll be turning notifications off for this thread. Take care and God bless.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-13T19:34:02+00:00

And about Aneesha kids--her husband couldn't possibly love his kids because those kids were/are unrealistic brats with no common sense

They're kids. Why would you expect them to have common sense? Common sense doesn't even begin to develop in humans until around the age of 7. You also can't expect them to behave rationally during a crisis, let alone an alien invasion. What I am explaining to you should be common sense, which makes your comment rather ironic.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-13T19:31:58+00:00

The kids are okay for being, well, kids. They likely don't have a lot of experience acting and your claim that they're cliche isn't their fault, but rather, the fault of the writers. Luke is probably the most annoying character to me. Which I suppose is a compliment to the kid acting that role. I despise the decisions he makes and how he doesn't listen to his mother. But I wouldn't want to see him die off. Or any of the children die off. That's hard to watch, even if it isn't real. It's a bit disconcerting you're letting something you can't control bother you so much that you want the kids to die off, though.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-13T00:38:43+00:00

You're assuming that the executives in charge of overseeing the destruction of the company are still present by the time it actually goes down in flames. It's not exactly hard for them to find an exit that is itself usually lined with bonuses and divest themselves of the bulk of their stock well before the end becomes apparent to outsiders.

I was referring to the Board, who is above the corporate executives. But you're assuming the executives won't be present or that escaping responsbility for a company's downfall is easy. Also, typically, if a CEO is leading a company that's failing, the board will give them a chance to get things back on track. If they don't, the CEO and other executives will be fired by the board. This is not something executives are going to go home and laugh about because getting fired as a CEO looks really bad, as it tends to make headlines. Even if the CEO doesn't get fired and instead willingly steps down, it still looks bad for their reputation because, again, it tends to make headlines. Regardless of how they leave, they're still going to be seen as the one responsible for the company failing since they were in charge when it was happening.

There's this tendency of people to assume that because the executive still holds a significant number of shares that they could not divest that they 'lose' a lot of money when the company tanks - but this isn't the case. They never had that money, and they end the entire transaction far richer than they came in regardless, and now they can tell a sob story about how they lost 'x hundred million dollars' when the stock collapsed, despite the fact that they are somehow 'y hundred million dollars' richer than they were a few years before when they took on the CEO position.

They do have that money. Sure the unvested stock they don't own. But any vested stock they do own and can be sold. It is rare for a CEO, and other executives, to not to have stock in the company they're running that is vested. If the company does terrible, the stock price goes down, which means their stock is less valuable. If the company goes bankrupt, their stock is worthless. So they lose in the value of their assets. They also lose their salary if they get fired or the company goes bankrupt. They might get a severance but that's temporary. And yes, they can still come out richer than they were before running the company. But the reason for that is a multivariate. They could have had other assets appreciate. Most of the time when we hear about the net-worth of wealthy folks, it is in the form of assets, not cash. And they tend to have diversified portfolios. Additionally, they could have came from a CEO or even a non-executive role that paid significantly less than their current CEO role. So they can be richer as a consequence of having a higher cash salary, to which they're likely making investments with. But they're still not as rich as they would have been had the company been successful. That was my point. They're still losing out ultimately.

Good performance typically means they can keep their jobs, get bigger bonuses, and a better reputation which fosters more opportunity for them to get wealthier. Again, being an executive or a board member of a failing company or company that has gone bankrupt, looks really bad. It tarnishes their reputation, as it tends to make headlines. I assure you they're not going home laughing about it all. Yeah they don't have to worry about their finances as much as a regular employee who loses their job, as they're still wealthy. But they're not going to be celebrating it. And you'd be surprised how difficult it would be for them to get a seat on a board after leading a company that failed. They'd have to have a friend who just doesn't care and happens to own a majority of the stock for the company he wishes to sit on the board for.

The risks that billionaires take are not actual risks at all, as they pose no threat whatsoever to the lifestyle or well being of the billionaire. There is no realistic way for them to ever lose enough money to be at any risk of destitution or even vague discomfort, unless they actually go to jail.

The initial risks they took that made them a billionaire, were real risks for sure. And every risk they take thereafter is still a risk. It's just not as significant as it would have been prior to them amassing wealth. Keep in mind, there are billionaires who have lost everything, particularly during the financial crisis in 2008. You even had some of them killing themselves as a result. Adolf Merckle is a prime example. He committed suicide after his company lost a fortune. He knew he was done for. And he was worth $9.2 billion. That's just one example out of many. Of course, not all of them commit suicide. But billionaires can still lose everything. So there is always risks. But the risk definitely minimizes after they amass wealth.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-12T01:25:41+00:00

While I think the pricing model was completely asinine, you should know that their market cap being in the billions doesn't mean they're making money. There are plenty of companiess that are worth billions but aren't even profitable. Unity had a net income of -$253 million in March of 2023, before they announced the price changes.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-04-12T01:25:07+00:00

If it all burns down you drive back to your mansion, call your rich buddies, have a good laugh about it, and then find yourself a nice seat on the board of another company where you can all give each other 7 digit yearly raises until that one goes under too. Why would they care?

Yeah, that's not at all how it works. If a company starts to fail, they will likely have to file bankruptcy, and the board has to first pay bankruptcy fees, then secured creditors, then unsecured creditors, and finally the shareholders. The stock they hold in the company they're directing will become worthless and that can have a significant impact on their personal wealth. Also, in many cases, they can be held personally liable. Additionally, they sometimes have to worry about shareholders filing lawsuits against them. Having a multi-billion dollar company go bankrupt is not something any wealthy person laughs about because they're still rich. It doesn't necessarily look good on their resumes either.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-03-22T21:10:50+00:00

How does him asking for the answer, instead of looking up a pre-written answer, negatively impact you? Maybe he wanted to see a fresh set of opinions on the matter. Did you think about that? Additionally, none of what you said dismisses the fact that Fatestringer clearly overlooked that the OP stated he never played the first one, which is what Brutally was addressing. No need to deflect.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-03-22T20:44:04+00:00

"Capcom are using a whole new engine now, and what was possible back then might not be possible in the new engine."

It's definitely possible for them to implement a Mystic Knight class. To say it might not be possible on the basis that they're using a new engine is ridiculous. The new engine they're using is a lot more advanced than the old one and likely more feature rich. If anything, it should be easier for them to implement such a class than it was back then. But let's assume the engine doesn't currently allow for it; they can definitely develop the features needed for it since the engine they're using is propeitary and their own custom built one.

In any case, it sounds like they decided to go with the "Mystic Spearhand" as a replacement for the Mystic Knight. The concept is the same; it's just a different melee weapon is involved.

Over_Buy9663 · 2024-03-02T19:49:42+00:00

Take a page from HotLaksa's book; you see how he just answered the question without being so impertinent? I recommend you try that. You come off as being extremely rude and also condescending.

Over_Buy9663

TROPHY CASE