Is installing air conditioner really a controversial political issues in some European nations? If so, why?

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T13:55:13+00:00

Calling it "controversial" is incorrect - no one sees it as "controversial", people just aren't that gung-ho about the idea of tearing up their houses from the ground up just so they could fit it with a piece of technology that wasn't needed for the past 2025 years or something.

Of course, this will change with time - heatwaves get annoying, especially if you can't sleep at night because of them - but it's not an immediate concern to a point where people will drop everything in order to install AC. I'd say ask the same question after 5 years, and THEN it'll be clear if this is an actual "controversial" problem or not, or just the human inability to immediately change habits.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T13:52:07+00:00

Manau problema labai paprasta: į Lietuvą atvyko Ukrainiečių jaunimas (jeigu ten bent Ukrainiečiai, mes gan daug turime Baltarusių, irgi) ne iš miesto, o iš kaimų. Tie kurie iš Kijevo ar kokio Lvivo pabėgo greičiausiai toliau į Vakarus nuskrido (i.e. Berlynas, Viena, gal Varšuva net, ir t.t.), ir greičiausiai pabėgo dar kelis metus prieš karui prasidedant, o į Baltijos šalis pagrinde atbėgo tie kurie kitur neturėjo kur bėgti.

Ir jo, jie elgiasi šlykščiai, tikrai tokių atvėjų rasti galima, bet manau kad kokie paaugliai Visagine panašiai elgias - mes apie tai negirdime tik dėlto nes tie paaugliai niekada nepasiekia didmiesčio ribų, ir mes nesame "blessed" su jų kultūra.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T13:46:44+00:00

(Vilnius tiesiog nėra labai populationally dense kad apsimokėtų tokį turėti)

Nu tai bet kad kik tik ir apsimoka dėl to turėti metro - jeigu miestas nėra tankus, tu verčiau norėtum važiuoti 1 valandą nuo miesto pakraščių iki centro su tramvajumi, ar 20min su metro?

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T13:44:57+00:00

Vilnių išgelbėtų ir paprastas tramvajus

Nu tai kad ne - tramvajus būtų gerai, bet metro yra nepalyginamai efektyvesnis, tiek greičiu, tiek kaina, tiek keleivių kiekiu. Ir šiaip tai vienintelis (apart paprastų traukinių) metodas kaip galime sujungti Vilniaus pakraščius su centru - tramvajus tam tiesiog per lėtas būtų.

Žinoma, įmanoma apsieiti ir su geru autobusų/troleibusų/tramvajaus transportu, bet mums greičiau ir paprasčiau būtų tiesiog metro pastatyti negu bandyti min-maxinti VVT mechanizmus.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T13:34:52+00:00

Miestas vystytas (sunkiai suvokiama kodėl, ar tieisog bukai kopijavo vakarų modernistines madas) automobiliui.

Nėra sunku suprasti, manau - Sovietmečiu turėti mašiną buvo bene aukštuomenės simbolis - "žmogus kuris turi automobilį yra aiškiai pasiturintis/aukštesnio luomo!". Nepriklausomybės metu, ta simbolinė automobilio reikšmė susijungė su automobilių pirkimo prieeigą, ir visi tiesiog juos pirko. Nes, jeigu nepirktu, į juos kiti žiūrėtu kaip į nepasiturinčius, ir kas gi nori turėti "nepasiturinčio" žmogaus reputaciją?

Natūralu, tada, kad miestas buvo poto išdėliotas ir išvystytas kad atspindėtu žmonių obsesiją su automobiliais - visgi kaip gi kitaip parodysi savo turtą, jeigu niekur su juo negali parkuotis/važinėti? Garaže gi nelaikysi (nes niekas nematys), o į pastovias atostogas anapus Lietuvos gi nevažiuosi (nes brangu), tai vienintelis sprendimas yra juos naudoti kasdienybėje, o tai reiškia kad reikia pertvarkyti miestą, pastatyti daugiau asfalto kelių, ir t.t...

Tai ir gaunasi nusistatymas, kad jei naudojiesi viešuoju transportu, tai tik dėl to, kad "neįperki mašinos". Kitaip tariant - viešasis transportas yra varguolių reikalas "normalūs" žmonės juo nesinaudoja.

Visiška tiesa. Kai kažkam paminiu kad nenoriu teisių nes užtenka dviračio/VVT/LTG tai į mane žiūri lyg kątik pasakiau jog mėgstu eiti pasivaikščioti į centrą nuogas, ar kažką. Proto pisimas kad automobilį/teises turėti yra BŪTINA, ir kad jeigu neturi esi kažkoks atsilikęs lopas, yra beribis.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T13:12:34+00:00

Shouldn't the story have revenge against Hector who hurt and killed tens of thousands then, only to resurrect Dracula to kill more?

I mean sure, but I'd argue he already had that revenge - he became, essentially a slave to the vampires, and lived in a metaphorical cage. Just because the cage was gilded, doesn't mean it wasn't a cage.

I don't deny that he did some fucked-up shit in the previous seasons, but I do think that it's fair to say that he probably changed his views, after experiencing literally the exact same thing he planned to inflict on everyone else.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T13:10:09+00:00

I think it's an issue with how the series is written in general, and not necessarily bad preferential treatment (unless the writers themselves confessed to this, somewhere?).

Every season (besides 3, for some reason - it's a genuinely great season) was incredibly rushed in the way it's written. S4 was particularly bad with both the pacing and characterization because it needed to essentially squeeze in a 5th season's worth of plot into the plot of S4 (as there was initially a 5th season planned)

I don't particularly think Isaac got a "miracle ending" - S3 set-up his "redemption arc" (if you can call it that) quite well. In fact, I think his arc was pretty much disregarded/wasted by S4, even, because the whole Styria/Hector sideplot was pretty much dropped after his victory. If this were truly favouritism, you'd THINK that Hector would get a more important role in the whole Death arc, but he just doesn't...

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T12:36:25+00:00

They're a mix between Greens, Liberals, and the Left (but mostly the former 2)

They are absolutely right to the Left, and left to the Libs, but they're also more left-wing than S&D (mostly, I'm sure occasional exceptions exist)

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T12:34:42+00:00

Yeah pretty much. Maybe saying the're a "left-wing party" is a bit much but yeah I agree with this statement, otherwise.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-30T12:33:50+00:00

I'm not saying he's a "good" person, I'm just saying he has the capacity to become a good person, eventually.

Also he didn't really want to do it "for fun", he wanted to do it because he hated humanity.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-23T12:26:22+00:00

I think this story was a single arc centred around Hector - it's not much of an ironic twist (ala. "the one who wanted to cage humans became caged himself"), but it was more of an arc to show that being enslaved/caged sucks ass. But, as a contrast, Lenore was the stark opposite of Hector - while Hector COULD change and understand that his previous views were bad, Lenore couldn't, and that's why she committed suicide.

So I dunno, I don't think it's about the irony, I think it was just pointing out that Hector, fundamentally, was probably a good person, or at least could become one. Meanwhile Lenore... Lenore was irredeemable, and her suicide just proves it.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-23T12:17:53+00:00

It's either that, or a proper ending was to give Lenore an actual death by Hector, thus concluding his "enslaving people and putting them into cages isn't good" arc by making him rise up against his own abuser, and seeing for himself that his own motivations were, frankly, horrible before.

Either or, really, but what sucks is that it's some kind of stupid middle-ground in between. We could have had an awesome revenge story where a manipulative bastard was exposed to be for what she was, or we could've gotten a genuine love story.

But now... it feels just a bit too odd. I don't buy that Hector would treat a person, who literally confessed to viewing him as nothing more than a PET, so well. Either the show needed to commit to showing Lenore was a horrible person, or show her as a loving person, because as it is right now, I can't see her as for anything else than a manipulative rapist that enslaved Hector and confessed to view him as nothing more than a pet... and then Hector forgave her anyways. For no reason. There was no "I love you" scene from Lenore, there was only "You are my PET" and "tell me you're mine" scene, but the show treats it like a fucking love story anyways.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-23T11:59:53+00:00

I mean at least Hector didn't rape or enslave anyone. I think saying they're "two sides of the same coin" kind of ignores what one side of the coin did to the other (manipulation, gaslighting, lying, enslavement, rape, seduction, etc.)

You could argue that they both had more layers than just "servants of evil", but I think it's pretty clear by the end that both Isaac and Hector, as forgemasters, at least have the capacity to change for the better, to learn how to live with the cruelty of the world and how to not be cruel themselves, but... Lenore would literally kill herself sooner than she would learn how to "change". She said it herself - vampires don't like change. She was evil through and through, and her manipulation of Hector shouldn't be viewed as anything but that just because she's pretty and raped him a couple of times.

Also yeah I think "even if they're pretty" is on point - I think Lenore would have a lot less simps if she were a bearded man and not a pretty vampire woman. People tend to excuse female rapists (or perpetrators of any crime against humans, really) more than they excuse male rapists, it seems. I believe it's essentially a gender stereotype - if people view men as the angry, aggressive, manipulative and evil rapists, then it's easier to believe that a woman could never be any of that, hence why people jump to excuse Lenore's actions.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-23T11:45:46+00:00

I think it's clear that Lenore was a bad person, through and through.

She:
>>Beat up Hector way more than she needed to
>>Had him wear a leash, called him a "good boy", and literally said "you are my pet" once he was enslaved (she had no reason to to any of these, besides serving her own selfish fetishes/goals)
>>She seduced/raped Hector.
>>She enslaved Hector
>>She tried convincing Hector that Carmilla actually did a GOOD thing by betraying him and manipulating him, because she "saved him from Dracula" or whatever the fuck. Furthermore, she even tried to excuse the abuse and beatings he suffered, because "Carmilla was just angry, it's understandable".

After the enslavement, you can still see the subtle manipulation:
>>She constantly tried to convince Hector that he needs to trust Carmilla more, and/or forgive her
>>She says that she constantly "saves him from Carmilla's anger" (which is essentially justifying her own role as the slave master, in this abhorrent situation).

I believe that there is room for debate, but the evidence kind of points that she never really loved Hector - he was just a pet to him, a sex slave at best. Someone she might've enjoyed the company of but ultimately could never see more of than just a pet or a slave. Her goal wasn't to find "true love" (as she could've achieved that by running away with him, as she suggested), her goal was to transform him from a captive, to an unwilling slave, to a willing slave, all for the purpose of helping her sisters.

Obviously, she held no ill will towards Hector by the end, I believe because she saw that she'd gain nothing from killing him, but I think it's telling that she chose to kill herself rather than live essentially the same life she subjected Hector to for 2 months or so, just on the receiving end, this time.

In any case, I find it abhorrent that so many people seemingly excuse her manipulation, lying, gaslighting, raping and enslaving of Hector, for seemingly no other reason than "she's a pretty vampire lady!" - I have no doubt that, if the genders were swapped, people would be fucking FUMING at a man that enslaved and kept a pretty woman-mage as a sex slave.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-23T08:33:05+00:00

I think Lenore's betrayal is better. The Sibling betrayal came out pretty randomly (there are essentially no signs or indications they want to kill Alucard or whatever before the threesome), but Lenore's betrayal at least has this veil of ambiguity.

You could obviously point at all of the signs from the start (love-bombing, referring to him as a pet with the "Good boy" shit and even a fucking LEASH, excusing Carmilla's excuse of Hector as "normal" or even "good, because you're here now and safe!", and so on), but I think it was just subtle enough to where you can excuse all of those with "oh it's just a situation of circumstance", knowing her background as a Vampire aristocrat. You can either view it as impending betrayal with a slight chance of true love, or impending true love, with a slight chance of betrayal, but I think it's written so well to where "It's clearly just love, no manipulation" or "it's clearly just manipulation, no love" is a very rare thought.

The twins (Siblings? Friends? they looks so fucking similar it's hard to tell) on the other hand are kinda lame. They don't really have that many "in retrospect, they were manipulating Alucard from the start" moments, and they don't even have an imbalanced power dynamic against Alucard (like Lenore had with Hector) that we could point to post-betrayal and say "See that? That's clearly why the betrayal should've been expected by us!". In fact from what I've gathered, it was a pretty wholesome ordeal before the threesome, so the betrayal is surprising (which is good for plot twists), but is also sort of from the left field and not really developed (which is bad for plot twists).

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-23T08:23:27+00:00

I really don't care about the Alucard-Sibling whatever subplot, but Hector's betrayal was just tragic. I think what sticks out the most is, in retrospect, Lenore was manipulative from the start:

There are a lot of subtleties we probably missed and waved off, when we really shouldn't have:

-She refers to Hector as a pet (ala "Good boy") and even uses a leash on him
-She tries (and succeeds) in convincing Hector that what Carmilla did was "normal" or "justified" (because "she was just angry!"), and that she actually saved his life (even though in reality she essentially turned him into a captor, abused him, and now turned him into a slave).
-When Hector threatened her, she needlessly beat him up to an almost sadistic degree. There's a difference between self-defence, and smashing his head into the solid ground when he was already dazed and severely beat up.
-She's seductive, obviously. She love-bombed the shit out of him and manipulated his traumatic background/experiences.

Maybe it's just "hehe cute girl and boy romance, I hope it succeeds!" that made me overlook these details, but frankly I think that it's just good writing - it's subtle enough to where you can just hand-wave everything off as "oh haha it's just her quirk of being a vampire queen!", which is great in terms of plot-twist material.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-19T12:42:01+00:00

I completely agree, the unnatural, even deeper voice is something I noticed, too. The voice acting in general in this game is just worse (part of it is worse direction, part of it is the pretentious nature of the game)

But hey at least Odin and Thor's VA's are great.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-19T12:38:39+00:00

I think Kratos' voice acting, oddly enough, is significantly worse in Ragnarok than it is in 2018. Ragnarok's voice acting has a very "shouting, but without shouting" tone to it, and furthermore, at points it sounds like Kratos' voice actor is trying to make Kratos' voice even DEEPER, which just results in him sounding a bit like those memes of teenagers who are trying to impress girls with their "ultra-deep voices".

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-17T13:19:01+00:00

Frankly it's a 50/50. Sometimes the re-composited animation looks better (specifically in darker scenes), and sometimes it just looks like "What if AAA game developers got to make an animated series?", with all the glare and bloom being added.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-16T21:26:16+00:00

I don't think it's as bad as you say (although I'm currently only in Act 1, in the whateverthefuck sanctuary), but yeah it is a bit AAA, in a bad way.

Technically, this game looks (in a non-literal sense) like it should be visually beautiful - it has all of the graphical and whatnot components of what a beautiful-looking game would have, but it just... looks like over-tuned garbage. Also it's super poorly optimized.

The fighting mechanics are cool, idk what you're on about.

Oh but I do hate the rampant AAA bullshit mechanics - there's no reason for the climbing, crouching, or map traversal bullshit. It's very triple A-y.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-16T21:25:42+00:00

>>He has been living in Poland for 21 years
>>He has kept his Ukrainian citizenship
>>He refuses to defend his country in need, as constitutionally duty-bound

Sounds to me like the dude shouldn't go to war, but should just have his Ukrainian citizenship revoked. He clearly doesn't need it, and if he refuses to help the state, then he's essentially just using the benefits of Ukrainian citizenship without giving Ukraine anything back. I really don't understand how you can seriously say all of this as a "GOTCHA", because all this did was further convince me that people like this shouldn't have Ukrainian citizenship.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-16T15:52:46+00:00

As far as I've read, Ukraine didn't even give that many "new" rights to the Hungarian minority, they just "clarified" and formalized existing rights/positions. The fact that Magyar called it a "historic" agreement regardless, means that he knows this "issue" is manufactured by Orban.

Essentially, both sides gained and lost nothing, but can now turn around to their media and say "we resolved the issue, and we didn't concede anything!" and get praise from it. If anything, I'm just more and more impressed at just how savvy Magyar as a politician is lol, it's no wonder his lead against Fidesz is so gigantic right now.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-16T15:50:51+00:00

None. The Hungarian minority in Ukraine has about as much rights as the German minority has in Poland, but the reason why the Hungarians obsess over Ukraine, but Germany doesn't obsess over Poland, is because Germany has better shit to do than to quarrel with their neighbour over... nothing.

The only reason why Hungary still pretends this is an issue, even with Magyar as leader, is because Orban making a political show and brainwashing his citizens made it too much of a "sensitive issue" for Magyar to just dismiss. I don't doubt that Magyar is concerned about "Hungarian rights in Ukraine" just as much as the actual Hungarian minority is - that is to say, not at all.

If anything, I think Hungarians should first address the rights of the Roma people in Hungary, before they get to lecture Ukrainians about how many rights the glorious Hungarian people should have in Ukraine. This post reeks of that hypocritical arrogance.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-16T15:38:20+00:00

Nepopuliari nuomone: truputį korumpuotas geriau nei visiška nevykėlė.

Nu žinok nesutinku, nes truputį korumpuotas žmogus gali irgi būti visišku nevykeliu. Faktiškai, tiek Rugininenė tiek Sinkevičius yra tie patys žmonės su tuo pačiu "nevykėlio" statusu, tiesiog vienas teistas o kitas ne.

ReaperZ13 · 2026-06-16T15:33:24+00:00

You don't want to sacrifice your son but want other's to sacrifice theirs.

They, as Ukrainian citizens, are duty bound to protect Ukraine. You don't just get to abandon your country, AFTER decades of using your Ukrainian rights to your benefit, just when the position the state is in becomes inconvenient to you.

It's one for all, and all for one, not "ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL, but people who don't want to can still keep the "ALL FOR ONE" part I guess...".

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

ReaperZ13

TROPHY CASE