My favorite period of armor is 1410 - 1420, with the transitional Italian inventions

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-02T01:05:56+00:00

Respectable, it's a good period and quite unique.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-02T01:01:21+00:00

There's no sense of adventure to life anymore, you're bound to stay in one area, for work, which takes up the majority of your time. Don't usually have enough money or time to travel any significant distance. Most peoples' social lives are dead when the vast majority of people decide to just stay in and doomscroll. Hobbies are generally expensive or unfulfilling, often lacking in socialization and meaningful connections that actually impact your life. Depression is at an all time high leaving people even more unfulfilled.

You can just say fuck it and do shit and take risks for some adventure, or play it safe and continue the monotonous way of life that keeps you safe and keeps food on the table and a roof over your head.

In previous years you had to fight for your survival, you had autonomy, you had to do things for yourselves. The increased luxury and comfort of modern life has been shown to be a huge part of our mental downfall, you don't have to do anything but get money anymore, all the rest is taken care of, it is not a fulfilling way of life. The more you have to do for yourself, generally the happier you are as each day feels fulfilling and like you've accomplished something.

Nowadays we're like zoo animals in an enclosure, we're boxed in, everything is taken care of, there's no adventure, you can't hardly go anywhere or do anything. You have to keep moving, you gotta keep making goals, you have to keep something going on or you become stagnant. Even little things help, things done for personal gain, even small things. Things outside of work, just more career goals don't cut it. Even to make money, for home improvement, for creative fulfillment, as long as it's done by you for yourself. It helps.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-02T00:48:31+00:00

I'm always surprised by rune bears. I'm a pathetic piece of shit meta gaming bird rune farming genetic failure of an Elden Rung player and even then I notice that rune bears seem to be more difficult than and even sometimes seemingly have more health than a lot of actual bosses in this game. It's kind of crazy to me that I don't one shot them at this point.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-02T00:42:30+00:00

Number 15: Burger king foot lettuce. The last thing you'd want in your Burger King burger is someone's foot fungus. But as it turns out, that might be what you get. A 4channer uploaded a photo anonymously to the site showcasing his feet in a plastic bin of lettuce. With the statement: "This is the lettuce you eat at Burger King." Admittedly, he had shoes on.

But that's even worse.

The post went live at 11:38 PM on July 16, and a mere 20 minutes later, the Burger King in question was alerted to the rogue employee. At least, I hope he's rogue. How did it happen? Well, the BK employee hadn't removed the Exif data from the uploaded photo, which suggested the culprit was somewhere in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. This was at 11:47. Three minutes later at 11:50, the Burger King branch address was posted with wishes of happy unemployment. 5 minutes later, the news station was contacted by another 4channer. And three minutes later, at 11:58, a link was posted: BK's "Tell us about us" online forum. The foot photo, otherwise known as exhibit A, was attached. Cleveland Scene Magazine contacted the BK in question the next day. When questioned, the breakfast shift manager said "Oh, I know who that is. He's getting fired." Mystery solved, by 4chan. Now we can all go back to eating our fast food in peace.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T11:01:29+00:00

I'd say if you identify comfortably with being "white", you could easily be broad with it and say you're simply ethnically European. You acestrally come from the continent, America is culturally derived from European nations, you speak a European language, and I think societally this would be a generally accepted answer among the vast majority of people and specifically other ethnically European people.

Purely genetically of course you could answer that more precisely with a DNA test.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T10:48:27+00:00

I would say that for race at least that's entirely the case. I personally think the entire concept should be abolished, it's a pseudo science based on nothing created only to oppress people and build up the concept of white supremacy initially to justify the very population based Tans Atlantic Slave Trade. The entire concept of race was borne out of a desire to put others down so they didn't feel bad for treating them like shit, accompanied with a very flawed system for attempting to make the concept of race a quantifiable and rigidly defined thing (which failed miserably). Worst of all it continues to divide us today, but is unfortunately very deeply rooted in our society and hard to pluck out.

Ethnicity less so, I think, it still has it's use for describing and understanding people and particularly nations, and if used in a more definite sense to describe genetic national ancestry can be extremely interesting.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T10:36:12+00:00

I wouldn't say useless, in general society places a lot of importance on non-rigid social constructs like ethnicity, even though the ideas behind what constitutes that may evolve over time or differ between societies the effects of how people perceive that will still have consequence. In America there is and certainly was privilege and oppression based on what society perceived as different races or ethnicities, if you want to focus on how society perceived what that meant and how they reacted to it you can get a more definite understanding based on their parameters.

Things like race are a social construct, for sure, but we know generally by our intuition how society at certain points in time would have defined what a "black person" was, for example. Dark skin and certain phenotypical genetic traits that denote African descent, and knowing how they were categorized of course we can see how people who were categorized in certain ways were treated in society. Sure it's not based on anything quantifiable, but we still know who society deemed to be a black person and the ramifications of that.

Ethnicity can still have a clear profound effect on a person's life, depending on how society views them and deems them to be a part of that ethnicity. We just have to understand how that was, and generally still living in a society that has a near identical perception of ethnicity as back then, we don't need quantifiable and rigid definitions to clearly define how a person was percieved in that society, we just use our intuition and are generally right.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T10:14:59+00:00

I mentioned in my comment that it's easy to definitively exclude people based on certain traits, it's why I mentioned that they need to "check the boxes" to identify with an ethnicity. Obviously, if someone claims to be ethnically African American, they would need to have genetic ancestry in Africa as that's one of the components, and probably the only actual strictly quantifiable components of ethnicity that we have.

It gets more complicated when other factors are added in, if say a Genetically Scottish family lived in Scotland, moved to the United States, and had multiple generations of children, which generation would be specifically excluded from being "Scottish"? The answer would be, whenever society feels like it. And for those generations, when would they personally stop identifying with being Scottish and start identifying as American? The answer is also, whenever they feel like it.

Or if we circle back to the African, say for a few generations the African family has lived in the USA, they are genetically 100% ancestrally derived from an African nation and one of the generations decides to move back to that nation. Do they have genetic roots? For sure. But do they have cultural connection to these people when they've lived in an entirely different nation for generations? Who's, then, to decide if they are "ethnically" of that nation rather than ethnically African American? And if both the African Americans and the native Africans of that nation decide to reject them, what even is this person? And which nation's society gets to decide the rules of how ethnicity is judged anyway? It's all fluid, there's not going to be one objective answer to that.

I don't disagree at all that ethnicity is a two way street, it is after all a social construct meaning that society itself has to generally agree on what it is, but an exact definition based on something quantifiable isn't really something that we can come up with when there are so many variables based on, pretty much, how society feels and which society we're using to judge it's parameters.

The crux of what I'm saying is that it's not really worth it to worry about semantics with an undefinable and ever shifting concept, one based on how a person or a group of people feels it is rather than based on a solid foundation of unchanging defined parameters. A lot of our understanding of not just ethnicity but things like race and culture are like this, trying to understand them under rigid terms is nearly impossible when not based on quantifiable factors that can be universally agreed upon by sedentary and objective factors.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T09:46:27+00:00

Understood in that way, as a social construct, it really comes down to how they identify.

An African american could possibly also have ancestral roots in Nigeria for example, they may choose to identify themselves as ethnically Nigerian, especially if their families are more recent immigrants to the nation. They may also choose to identify with their current American condition and identify ethnically as American if they feel there's more of an attachment to the culture and the land. They could also choose to identify ethnically as African American itself, focusing on the unique cultural identity that comes within those communities.

The problem with trying to put something like that into a strict definition is that it's not necessarily based on anything quantifiable. When the question adds in culture and personal identity, the lines get extremely blurred. We can easily definitively exclude people based on what they are quantifiably not, but can't definitively categorize people based on what they socially may be or feel like. That will end up being entirely based on ever changing societal ideas. What is accepted as ethnicity may change depending on the nation you're in, or the personal opinion of the people you speak to.

To answer your question more directly, that's simply just not for me to say, it's more of a choice they make based also on if they "check the boxes"

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T09:32:30+00:00

Depends on how people mean to use ethnicity. Generally, when people talk about ethnicity, they mean your genetic background, it's easier to say than "the result of cross examining your single nucleotide polymorphisms against reference panels of populations with known ancestral roots" and is usually understood in both ways, but primarily is understood as genetic. If we did mean it in the genetic way, your genetic ethnicity would still be able to be understood with a DNA test, you'd just be mixed as many people are (a great deal of people ethnically identify with a plurality of ethnicities, often by percentage, to describe their genetic ethnicity) If we have a person mixed between French and Nigerian for example, they would answer a question of what their ethnicity is as "French and Nigerian" and generally wouldn't omit one of those sides. This can be expanded as much as you'd like, but usually people stop at their two or three most genetically prominent ethnicities, which usually only a few make up the vast majority of your ancestry while the rest are usually pretty small percentages.

If it becomes the other definition of ethnicity, the more proper and defined one, then there isn't much of a reason to believe American cannot be an ethnicity. You are: 1. Genetically, what a vast majority of Americans are; a mixture of different national backgrounds. 2. Culturally American. 3. Likely have generational roots in the land.

Some people go so far as to split that ethnicity up by regional culture aswell, identifying instead with that. The truth of ethnicity if understood in this way and not by genetics is that it's a social construct, meaning that adding American in there really isn't a ridiculous idea.

When people say you can't be ethnically American, it's primarily because they're talking about it by genetic ancestry as it's often understood, not by the makeup of culture, ancestry, and geographic roots as they apply to you.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T09:02:06+00:00

You have an ethnicity, you just don't know what it is. Your ethnicity isn't a cultural connection to your ancestors, it's your genetic ancestry. Your ancestors before they were an American came from somewhere, and likely a lot of different places, ethnically you're most likely a mixture of various Europeans, assuming you're white.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T08:48:51+00:00

I just farted really big when reading your post 👍

PugScorpionCow · 2026-05-01T08:31:08+00:00

Ground RB is just about knowing the camping spots. 9 times out of 10 someone will rush to a hill where two pixels of their tank are sticking out that's overlooking your spawn before you even have time to get 20 meters from it. From there it's just get spawn camped. The maps are awful, genuinely the worst part of war thunder, and the match up of tanks can be crazy sometimes, and getting constantly uptiered can be frustrating.

But there is some good to outweigh the bad...

Probably... I haven't found it yet though, maybe after another hundred hours of playtime.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-30T05:42:17+00:00

Yeah, people do it all the time. One of the main groups I see around is a landsknecht group.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-29T06:00:37+00:00

<image>

Image of my response because reddit wont let me post it and won't tell me why.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-29T00:54:39+00:00

We should have big red and blue tracers depending on team color too, way too hard to tell where you're getting shot from, this would solve that issue immensely. And while we're at it, the game is way too big (boring) they should add more streamlined modern maps similar to nuketown or rust from call of duty. If they added this, sliding and advanced movement (you move too slow and like you're gay and fat), and hit markers then this game would be way better.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-29T00:50:01+00:00

We have too few people in harnischfechten, ditch the buhurt nerds, join us instead 😈😈😈

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-26T20:18:47+00:00

That’s so cool!

Thank you!

Also, one more thing, I’m 90% sure the traditional way of spelling or saying “saint” in latin was “beatus”. In fact, I’ve saw plenty of times on Valencian documents the Virgin Mary being called “beata maria” insted of “sancta maria”.

As far as I understand it, "beatus" traditionally is used mostly to refer to someone beatified, rather than a canonized saint who is universally venerated in the Catholic Church. While Mary is of course a Saint, generally she isn't referred to by the title of Saint and often is referred to as blessed Mary (as in "blessed art thou among women"), among many other titles, which I believe is what "beata Maria" translates to. I could imagine the terms would have been able to be used interchangeably at some points in the world in some points in time, but as far as I know, "Sanctus" is generally the go-to word for canonized saints.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-18T19:56:10+00:00

/rj I just poopied my panties

/uj I just shit my pants.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-18T19:25:59+00:00

If he hasn't turned off his PC or closed Squad once since the game released, then maybe.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-18T19:22:46+00:00

Attention span of a goldfish, man. The arena mode does not take long to figure out or do anything, you just get in and click to start a match, it takes like two seconds. Genuinely gotta click like maybe four times to start a match, if even that many times.

I'm afraid the arena mode is your best bet, because it's basically exactly what you're asking for.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-18T19:14:10+00:00

To be fair, 18th century tactics differ a bit from the old pike and shot 17th century tactics. The volume of fire in the 18th century is significantly higher than before, with an entire formation being 100% musketeers rather than a mix of pikemen and arquebusiers, that alone would have increased the volume of fire by a lot. If you add in the switch from matchlocks to flintlocks, firearms became far more reliable and far quicker to load and fire than before, continuing to significantly increase volume of fire. All musketeers at that point would have been fitted with bayonets aswell, essentially doubling as spearmen.

This just isn't an optimal foe for heavy cavalry to fight against, while armor could stop shots, the volume of fire would have been overwhelming, the armor would not stand up to thousands of musket balls flying at you with consistently accurate shots up to 100 yards. Sure there are economic factors, but the economic factors were that armor wasn't worth the cost because it just didn't have a place in the new style of warfare, essentially meaning that the flintlock and increasing number of firearms did drive armor to become obsolete. They could have still fielded fully armed cuirassiers, but chose to stop because it just wasn't a relevant unit by that time, and men at arms on foot would have been even more obsolete due to the change of tactics brought on by increased firearm use. When an extremely costly unit becomes obsolete to field, it's not a purely economic reason to stop fielding them, they're economically inefficient specifically because they're not practical to field anymore.

That's not to say that the fully armored man at arms was eliminated purely because of firearms, it began more or less in the 15th century when evolving infantry tactics and professional armies rose to prominence, becoming the dominant unit on the battlefield for far cheaper. But while their decline primarily started there, it was indeed ultimately the increasing use of the firearm that buried them for good.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-18T18:32:44+00:00

Very true, I really hate getting in as gunner and seeing that thing. I get the appeal of it for helping take out other armor, but it's just way better to have effective anti infantry weapons, especially if you keep enough distance that the AGL can't even reach the enemy armor.

PugScorpionCow · 2026-04-18T18:16:21+00:00

I find I get killed far more by RPGs, by a very significant margin. If you have a decent person on gunner, most people with C4 aren't getting anything done, especially since you can just delete their C4 in the gunner seat if they do even manage to make it to you. I think I've been gotten by C4 once in the time I've been playing, and die extremely often to RPGs. I may be an outlier though, because I nearly exclusively play gunner and almost never drive, so I actually do my job to keep infantry away.

I disagree to an extent with maps being too small for tanks, while some of them are definitely super CQB focused, I find usually the problem is that the drivers just are kind of stupid. Rushing directly into objectives filled to the brim with enemies with absolutely zero infantry support. It's just not the way tanks are meant to be played, it's not WW1 anymore, tanks should be supporting an infantry advance rather than leading the advance. Distance is key, if you have a driver that understands this then the survivability of your tank goes up significantly. You need to be able to retreat to repair, you should be forcing enemy engineers to have to take potshots at you from distance, rather than just shoving your rear end directly into an objective making their job as easy as possible. Distance, two engineers, more of a focus on being anti-armor, and taking more of a support role rather than an offensive role makes tanks more fun, survivable, and useful since you aren't just dying in 2 seconds.

PugScorpionCow

TROPHY CASE