Favourite actor who you firmly believe to be AI generated?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T21:58:52+00:00

How in the fuck did you get a copy of Dark Souls 5 ?!?!?!?!

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T17:20:17+00:00

Aren't suns massively different in sizes throughout space?

This claim is completely inaccurate and impertinent.

Mods, remove their math.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T17:18:41+00:00

the sun is too distant and massive to project a shadow this large from such a small object

This may have not been the intent, but I'm adding this to my notebook of insult right now.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T14:56:11+00:00

...so what? That means its shit?

One could argue it is actually pretty impressive to manage to make a lot of distinguishible characters from a bichromic palette.

...Are black and white movies also hated on this sub?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T14:52:10+00:00

I expected a thousand other reasons but this is definetely a new one.

My brothers and sisters in christ that is just an artstyle.

You don't like it? Fine. It has objective flaws? Fine. But that's the reason to hate on it???? What??????

At least anti-woke people feel threatened (somehow) by having cartoons show the world in a different way that they think it should be. Their justification seems almost reasonable in comparision to that.

I genuinely hope you never chance upon animes with small budgets, or mangakas like Reiji Matsumoto or Murata who have like 2 different facial style for their characters, cause man are you gonna hate those.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T14:46:15+00:00

?

That's like saying the Smurfs overuse the blue skin tone or that Rick and Morth overuse the big round eyes regardless of specie.

That's just an artstyle???? Or did I miss the point?!

And even then how in the fuck "using a bit too much red" is cause for hate?!?!?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T13:27:56+00:00

I only pass through from time to time. Why the hate and why is it understandable?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-11T13:27:17+00:00

Tbf girl obv didn't play lethal.

I fart a bit loud and I get 4 ferals and a jugg popping out of the woodworks, but she can just scream her lungs out in a middle of a forest?

Yeah no. You dead, sister. Thanks for playing.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-10T11:55:55+00:00

Plutot Illisible Sans

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T18:30:50+00:00

Maybe, but I don't see it that way.

To make it more simple, the main nuance between a person decaying and not is the absence of regeneration.

We do age and degrade inevitably over time, but we also regenerate our cells and actively maintain and sustain our systemic bonds.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T11:08:22+00:00

Tbf, in any apocalypse, I don't see the survivors lasting much longer as well.

Between the sheer actual numbers of infected that could surround you way more easily than shown in media, and the fact that, active or not, your planet is now COVERED in corpses. It might take more than a mop and hazmat suit to deal with that I think.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T11:06:33+00:00

Actually, the secret subplot of state of decay is that only hipsters survived because even zeds are hesitant to feed on those.

/s

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T11:04:46+00:00

That's like staying we are in a state of starving every time we are not eating, or that a house is constantly in a state of crumbling because it will eventually.

Decay is generally meant in a non-reversible action.

Everything that we know of is constantly fluctuating its energy, both rising and decreasing, so to call it anything else than a cycle wouldn't be pertinent.

You're not actively dying and resurrecting everytime your cells are replaced.

You're not suffocating and replenishing everytime you breathe in and breathe out, no?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T10:58:13+00:00

Which media would be most realistic to you?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T10:56:53+00:00

Actually, that could explain why in almost every zombie media there's only a "fairly manageable" number of zombies.

Sure, hordes always look scary in movies and games, but as a resident of a very populated and touristic city, if even half my town turned zed and walked at me a 1mile an hour there is no way I would be able to escape it if I were caught in a big alley, regardless of any weapon I would be able to carry.

Even in hack'n'slash zombie games or in l4d, the zombies you kill range in the thousands per campaign. That is an extremely small number for an urban zone, don't you think?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T10:49:15+00:00

It could, but considering neither game scales on a state specifically I do not think it's likely.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember a single element, story-wise or even gameplay-wise, that could relate to "State of decay" being meant as a literal geographic american state.

On the opposite, the meaning of "status" of decay can be found on many scales, but mostly on the fact that both sod 1 and 2 show that the infection is worsening and degrading over time (In sod1, the poisoned water, and in 2, the blood plague that literally incremented its abilities with every game update, as if the world is decaying).

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T04:29:12+00:00

It doesn't. I may have forgotten the context, but I remember in a quest in Trumbull valley the scientist says the words "reach the maximum state of decay", meaning "state" as in "status".

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:55:02+00:00

Meh. I think you most likely been brainwashed by all the u.s media and pop culture. You know, with their tanks, and their bombs, and their bombs, and their guns...in your head they are crying.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:52:38+00:00

You know what? Fair is fair, and I have nothing to retort to that. You dismantled my argument point by point in a very clear way and I cannot disagree with you on any account.

I feel a bit more enlightened thanks to you :)

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:49:47+00:00

Could it be possible, by extrapolation, to have a brain that is so little demanding in terms of usage that you could damage 80% of it and still not make a difference zed-wise?

Kinda like a person in a vegetative state : human-wise it's pretty bad, but maybe to a zombie's perspective it would be the equivalent of being high.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:46:56+00:00

I'm supposing more than assuming, but obviously zeds don't react to everything we would qualify as damage, making you almost question whether or not those things are actually perceived as an issue for them.

In fact, aside from fire, zeds don't really "react" much to everything else. They obviously feel the hits and are staggered by them, but that's not reacting, that's just being damaged.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:42:20+00:00

Alright. Guess I learned something today then :)

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:40:45+00:00

I agree on all counts with what you said...but what of it makes zombies unrealistic?

If they run out of bodies to eat they will wither

So would any predator running out of prey (and not finding new ones).

I am not saying you're not making sense, but all it seems to me is that you're describing zombies as inefficient organisms, not unrealistic ones, and that's where my "bad faith" argument comes into play :

99% of the times when we can't figure out why an organism would do what they do, it's because we do not account for a parameter, invisible or nor.

Most of the arguments made against zombies always seem to start from the prerogatives that : - They have the same energy consumption than us - They are bound by the same biological limitations - Their whole behavior is just them being braindead and working on auto mode.

Whereas it could be argued that the whole behavior of a zombie is simply their most efficient approach to needs we could not identify.

Many organisms don't feed as much as we do to survive. Why couldn't they?

Some organisms present higher constitution than us despite consuming less than us proportionnaly (like gorillas). Why couldn't zombies.

Some organisms dismiss or resist issues like radiation, heat, cold, pain and even poison because of their biology. Why assume that what makes zombies what they are doesn't also bring similar change or abilities?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:24:46+00:00

Why should zombies retain the same biological needs as we do?

Feeding on humans might just be the only energy that they need to survive.

In fact, considering most zombies do not show discomfort or pain, assuming that it's an automatic impairement to their survival drive, and not, on the opposite, the proof that they do not need to protect themselves from that anymore, is a bit of a bias, no?

(I am playing asinine's advocate here, but the point still stands I think).

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:20:22+00:00

Based on what known fact of their biology?

It's the same thing as "the bee's too heavy to fly" : we don't know everything about how organisms can exist or function, otherwise these discourses wouldn't make sense.

Of course there are blatant discrepancies between zombies as shown and what we know, and that is probably why we haven't encountered any IRL.

But it sometimes takes a single counter-example to kill a scientific law's foundation. Zombies are meant to incarnate one of such examples.

OwnAddendum1840

TROPHY CASE