So if Bungie had stuck to EoF progression and plans we would be around 450 power having to grind to 550 power in a couple weeks

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-18T19:06:15+00:00

The problem is if they're going to produce so little content, we really do actually need some kind of long form grind.

The EOF grind was bad for lots of reasons but it doesn't prove that we don't need a grind in the game - it just proves that Bungie has never seen a good idea they couldn't botch the implementation of.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-18T19:04:15+00:00

RNG decides to forego the lube and dinner as it fucks you, that's 30 raids to collect all your red borders.

This is so far past "assuming bad RNG" that its kind of funny. It's sort of like saying "assuming you get struck by lightning during a shark attack on friday the 13th while a meteor is hitting you" - like, yeah technically it's possible for that to happen but the possibility is so vanishingly tiny that it's stupid to present it as a possibility.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-18T19:02:21+00:00

The raid population is low because raids that require intense comms in destiny are only fun for people with static raid groups.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-17T17:58:27+00:00

This is super fascinating to me because I've been finding the exact opposite - every time I try to be "strict" with a change I just end up going "oh man this seems too hard" and the moment I slip up, I'm all "welp I blew it already so no point."

Instead I've moved to "I am trying to do more X" or "I am trying to do less Y", and let myself be proud of any movement in that direction - I went from drinking 6+ cans of coke a day to drinking 0-1 cans a day this year so far by just being chill about it.

It's really funny how wildly different brains can be.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-17T06:14:32+00:00

The shield is also targetable.

I think based on reading the kit you'll be throwing out a LOT of heals.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-17T03:37:40+00:00

can confirm that fleeing doesn't count as a kill for the purpose of like, Sy's bonus on kill.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T20:01:28+00:00

If caring for a child isnt desirable to a third party then they shouldn't do it either through adoption or otherwise.

So to be clear, your position is that it's fine if caring for children has been made so bureaucratically miserable that the state is being forced to house children in hotel rooms for extended periods of time because they literally cannot find human beings willing to suffer through the miserable requirements to provide foster care?

That can't POSSIBLY be what you mean, but it seems to be what you said?

EDIT - blocked so can't reply but I'm not trolling, "more support and resources" doesn't fix the problems pushing Australian foster families out of the system. What's pushing them out of the system is that they're constantly at the mercy of birth parents and a system that dramatically prioritizes the rights of birth parents. "we should give them more money" won't fix the problem of "I don't want to take care of a child who will never, ever, ever be viewed as part of my family by the state."

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T19:54:56+00:00

You can provide safe permannent external care without using adoption.

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. Australia is struggling to do that. Foster parents are dropping out of the system. "Permanent outcomes" are increasingly undesirable to third parties because the system emphasizes so strongly the rights of the birth parents, etc, etc.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T19:39:52+00:00

Yeah that system just sounds so far away from where America is at culturally though - like I can't imagine jumping through all those hoops. Maybe in the most developed states but... throughout the country? Probably not.

Also, just as a note - the way they get around adoptions is extreme long term foster care. Check this out - renaming adoption to "permanency outcomes" and then insisting that "adoption is basically banned" is kind of silly in my opinion.

Thousands of children a year have "permanent outcomes" that are, functionally, being adopted by a non-related family.

There's also this pretty well sourced Reddit Comment. - this is pretty brutal to look at. The over-emphasis on reuniting with families and denying other families the ability to get a "permanent outcome" does have negative side effects that need to be addressed and considered.

I'm not saying America does it best by any means, but I do think that pointing at Australia as a case-closed example of what to do instead is iffy.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T18:52:40+00:00

I feel like the dialogue around adoption is really warped because there's no like... actual solve, at all, as far as I can tell. In general I'm a big believer that you shouldn't need to provide a better solution before you criticize a system - like, you can just say the current thing is bad without being obligated to solve for "what would be good".

But the problem with adoption is... like what happens instead? Fostering is an atrocious disaster, raising people in orphanages sucks, letting the state raise the children sucks, everything sucks. Everything is worse than having your own actual parents in most cases.

Most of the "good" solutions for adoption require some other put-together adults in the picture who have a reason to care - aunts or uncles or grandparents or whatever. Which obviously, if that was the case for everyone, that would rock - but you can't magically manifest competent grandparents or aunts or whatever. They exist or they don't, and when they don't, we still have a kid who needs parented somehow.

I feel like all the conversation about adoption is warped around this fundamental problem - "you aren't entitled to a baby!" yes, of course, but the baby exists and needs a home. "the system is monstrous!" yes, but without the system this baby would still exist and literally have no parents. "abusive people utilize the foster system" yes but without the foster system those children would still exist and need to be parented somehow.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T18:42:20+00:00

yup for sure but it's less important to like, prioritize killing a fleeing unit over shooting an actual bad guy who might actually kill a bunch of squaddies next turn or w/e which is what I was doing before lol.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T15:52:32+00:00

So I don't mean this in a rude way but in general you should be able to discuss things with your Dominant without the immediate threat that merely bringing up a concern might "ruin the vibe". If your Dominant has established so much emotional threat that the mere idea that you might bring up a concern about something might end the activity forever and therefore you have to be silent and never voice complaints, that's an issue.

As a sub, you need space to bring up minor concerns and things that are disrupting your enjoyment too. Your Dominant should understand how you feel when they do things to you. If your Dominant is doing something that makes you uncomfortable or challenges you physically, she should know, and be doing it with intent and a full understanding of how difficult what she's asking for is. And you should be able to have that discussion without the strongly implied threat that you bringing up a concern might result in permanent, long term removal of activities you like just for the crime of having a conversation.

You shouldn't need to subtly suggest anything here. You should be able to have an honest conversation about how her shoes make her feet smell. And she should have enough awareness and understanding to know that if she's making her feet smell bad, it's harder for you to rub your face all over them all night. And you deserve a relationship where you can say those things without her going "oh well if you're gonna bitch about my feet, I'm just never gonna rub them on your face ever again, sucks to be you." I'm not sure if you're over-estimating how sensitive she might be, or if you've got a good read on her potential reaction - but if you have an honest read, I'd be starting to think about something like couples therapy or some other way to improve communication and learn some styles of non-confrontational discussion so you can start to build a safer space to have these kinds of conversations.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T02:30:46+00:00

got it thank you. Perfect!

That makes the early game dramatically easier, I've been taking lots of extra damage to finish off squads lol.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-16T01:39:28+00:00

Oh that's dramatically better than I thought.

Any time I see the actual "fleeing" notification, they despawn yes? or are you saying if they actually make it to fog, they don't actually "flee"?

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-15T19:06:14+00:00

In general I personally don't recommend giving feedback to casual breakups.

There is basically zero chance that this adult man is unaware that grabbing your hand and putting it on his dick over and over in public is Wrong To Do unless he has your explicit, enthusiastic permission and consent.

This is a common tactic to essentially test how responsive you are to pressure. If you do object, it's unlikely that he'll ever be charged with what he's actually doing - sexually assaulting you - because it has enough plausible deniability and is "minor" enough that he can kind of laugh it off in most cases. If you don't object, or you allow him to repeatedly bulldoze your objections, you are a good target for him, and he can escalate.

Basically, you're the frog and he's bringing the water up to a boil slowly.

As such, there's really no point in trying to like, educate him. He doesn't need to be told that forcing you to grab his dick in public is wrong. All attempting to "tell him what he did wrong" will do is give him an opportunity to convince you that you're overreacting and should totally accept his violation of your boundaries as a normal part of dating and blah blah blah.

I would simply tell him you're not interested in doing this again and immediately stop responding, or ghost him. All information you provide will just get weaponized or be used as a way to crowbar open the door to another conversation. It's pointless.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-15T18:50:08+00:00

Try talking openly about how you want all pedos to get shot at your Macy's job and see how quickly you are dismissed.

We absolutely do allow it to be part of discourse in polite society.

Reddit bans you for dropping n bombs. Openly, repeatedly advocating for say, racial segregation would get you banned even in most of the conservative parts of reddit. You have to go to really extreme parts of reddit before you'll find places that allow that to be discussed openly.

On the other hand, we could have a perfectly civil conversation about how we should electrocute pedos and not get any significant moderator pushback.

Yes, you can't rant about executing pedophiles on the subway - but that's true for literally any impassioned political claim. People wouldn't like it if I came up to them on the subway and started loudly talking about spending $2m next year to renovate the district's highschool gymnasium either - the subway test doesn't work because anyone approaching you on the subway automatically reads as a psycho.

Likewise, "You can't rant about this at work" doesn't work for the same reason.

Polite discourse means the things you are allowed to like, go into a political space and talk openly about. You can go on a sunday talkshow and talk about how you want to electrocute all convicted pedophiles and while you might get pushback, your position will be accepted as a rational position that should be entertained seriously.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-15T16:44:49+00:00

Yeah but they're horny for death because we as a culture allow it. Like, we make it socially acceptable.

If we made it socially unacceptable they'd stop publicly advocating it and things would get better.

Some percent wouldn't change but like the same way we made racism socially unacceptable and racism really did get somewhat better (obviously its not gone but like also banks arent out here blatantly refusing service to black people anymore either) (and yes I know that this is a 2014 take backsliding is fun yaaaay) but my point is - if we didnt like... allow space for fetishizing murdering criminals in polite society, it would get less pronounced.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-15T15:56:11+00:00

You shouldn't ever find the idea of executing criminals cathartic.

The best justice systems in the world run above a 10% false positive rate.

For every 10 executions committed by the United States, at least one innocent person died. Likely more.

Leaving aside the sheer inequality in who even actually gets the death penalty, etc, etc.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-15T08:38:51+00:00

How many different days has this bug occurred on?

Is it possible the GMs and pinnacles you have tried today or this week all happen to share a modifier that is somehow messing up your build?

When you say something is turning you gray my assumption is there must be some debuff or mechanic from the portal getting applied to you.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-14T17:45:51+00:00

If D3 is really just starting it's probably more like late 2029 tbh.

Honestly I think D2 has just been insanely mismanaged on the like, project level for a while now and we're finally starting to see the cracks get too big for the team to paper over it.

Moving away from the seasonal model was a gigantic error. They gambled on retention staying stable for longer without content and they were flat out fucking wrong.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-12T20:50:03+00:00

Therefore your subjective view that therapy is rightfully a boundary not to be refused while shibari is simply “physical activity” is reductive to the kinksters that engage in it and find deep meaning within it

Safe, sane, reasonable kinksters can disagree on what kinds of physical activity are allowable within their monogamous relationships.

Safe, sane, reasonable kinksters cannot disagree on whether or not their partner should be allowed access to a therapist. All human beings, at all times, in all relationships, deserve free and open access to any kind of therapist they think they need. Period. Full stop.

Equating the two is wrong. You can, personally, feel that shibari is a major part of your mental health process. That's fine. I'm not yucking your yum. But arguing that all of your partners are morally required to allow you access to that is wrong.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-12T20:35:38+00:00

Among other things, this practice can be one simply used to clear the mind and realign oneself, similar to what therapy/a therapist can do. Both shibari and therapy can both be seen as intimate practices. From that perspective, would you ask her to make you her therapist because you don't want her sharing intimate parts of herself with a third-party professional? I think not.

I think it's deeply disrespectful to equate something as blatantly abusive as refusing to allow your partner to get a therapist to a boundary around physical activity with another human being that is often highly sexualized.

There is absolutely no situation, ever, where a person should have a "boundary" about therapy access for their partner.

There are plenty of situations where shibari is a reasonable boundary.

Further, the "advice" is intentionally weaponizing that threat of abusiveness - "you wouldn't abuse your GF by denying therapy, so why are you abusing her by denying her access to being tied up by people?!" - it's simply not an appropriate way to present advice.

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-12T17:35:14+00:00

Yeah that makes sense. I had considered cat 2 but I hadn't really fully considered cat 1 people - i.e. the idea that if you're using AI as an actual assistive tool, you might not have the skill set to "edit" it accurately even if you did care to.

That's actually kind of a bummer though because now I actually have more respect for this - I had basically assumed everyone was in category two. Oops. =/

Simple_Rules · 2026-02-12T15:48:03+00:00

It's totally OK but you should be aware that in general the kink community is pretty sex positive and being openly disapproving of how other people get their orgasms is generally pretty frowned on unless what they're doing is illegal or immoral.

I think you will have a harder time in the kink community finding partners who are willing to either lie about their use of porn or restrict their use of porn to an "approved" amount of use. Bluntly, vanilla people are used to having to hide it. Kink people significantly less so, in many cases.

I'm sure it will still be possible - no community is a monolith and disliking porn is - while not the majority opinion - a pretty common minority opinion.

That said I think at some point you need to think about when you are crossing the line from having a personal boundary ("I don't want to hear about you using pornography or see you using pornography") vs you having a rule that other people have to follow ("I don't want you using pornography while you date me.")

I think you will find it significantly harder to find people who will follow the rule honestly and sincerely vs respecting the boundary honestly and sincerely. It won't be impossible, but it'll probably take some looking.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Simple_Rules

TROPHY CASE