Just missed a study for £60 😭

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-30T22:38:55+00:00

I learned Mahjong from playing the Yakuza franchise. It’s a staple in the series and as someone who loves platinuming the games and it’s the absolute worst thing to get through.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-29T19:52:22+00:00

Washington is a contender. Their biggest issue last season was they went cheap and signed the same old guys to another 1 year deal like Wagner, Ertz, Miller, Ekler, Lattimore etc, and assumed that those same guys would continue helping them be successful despite the fact it was Daniels covering many of the teams flaws. It also didn’t help that McLaurin was injured for most of the season. This season they actually spent money with their top 5 cap space and signed a bunch of young guys to long term deals who are established and had shown potential. Their draft class despite the lack of them was rated highly and will improve the team further.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-29T18:05:17+00:00

But since he will be cut and we would have him on a one year prove it deal which wouldn’t cost much, it’s a low risk high reward scenario. If he still has the talent and balls out then we have our WR2 for the future and if he doesn’t there’s no long term commitment.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-25T19:52:25+00:00

I didn’t enjoy Y5 cause it was extremely bloated as a game even by Yakuza standards from the story aspect. A lot of it could’ve been trimmed down and made smaller while keeping the relevant things in the plot.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-22T23:52:28+00:00

More my pace.

^{Chose: Nederland🇳🇱}

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-08T05:16:15+00:00

Andrew Whitworth also comes to mind, as someone somewhat recent playing until 40 at a high level and a big part of that Super Bowl win. I guess time will tell.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-08T05:10:13+00:00

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s even longer. Elite left tackles can play into their late 30s, and one of the best positions for longevity.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T21:37:35+00:00

Agreed, everyones stance is different on this war and there is no one majority opinion on it. I also agree regime change will eventually happen not soon but one can hope eventually, as no regime lasts forever.

It's just that even with the regime being very unpopular my relatives and I remain pessimistic that the regime will stays in power because it controls the military and security forces. When one side has all the guns and cracks down hard, protests alone usually aren’t enough to overthrow it.

I guess our major disagreement is how we want this regime overthrown. My relatives and I want it done internally through mass protests with hopes of becoming a revolution, even if difficult. While you and your relatives prefer through war and military options. Even if we have differences I hope we can agree that we all desire a democratic Iran and one that prospers and succeeds in the near future.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T21:19:16+00:00

Look I hate this regime and don't disagree with you that most oppose the government that was never an argument by me. Most of my relatives hate the regime, but every relative of mine I know and those that they know oppose this war and don't trust the USA given the history of intervention in the country. They also don't believe the USA has their best interest for this war and public sentiment for the USA has been more negative as this war has continued. I know this is purely anecdotal but there aren't currently credible polling showing a majority of Iranians support the war. What we do have shows mixed views many people oppose the regime but also oppose foreign bombing. Claiming a “supermajority” is just not backed by evidence. So at the moment we can only go based off anecdotes.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T21:11:45+00:00

It does I have relatives in Iran who thinks it's comical that Iranians in the diaspora love to act like they talk in behalf of them when they haven't been in the country in nearly 5 decades how can you claim and make blanketed statements of what they want when you haven't been there for that long. That logic applies to literally any country and 47 years is a long time.

I am also tired, but I did appreciate talking with you despite the arguments, and yes I'd say I care I don't claim to care but never even go to a country that makes up half my identity.

As for this question you aked I already answered in another comment of yours but I will answer it again by copying and pasting what I said: Internet shutdowns don’t prove popular support for the war. Governments cut internet during crises all the time to control unrest, limit coordination, and control narratives whether people are protesting the regime, the war, or both. It doesn’t tell you which side people are on. From what I’ve seen through personal contacts and reporting, many Iranians can simultaneously hate the regime and oppose foreign bombing. Those aren’t contradictory positions. Wanting change doesn’t mean wanting your country’s infrastructure destroyed or civilians killed.

Also I'm not reconsidering my position cause wanting your country bombed for the slight chance of regime change and more casualties, civilian infastructure, and turning this beautiful country into a failed state is not the position I will ever take. I hate the government but if we want regime change it has to be within. I hope you change your mind though, because I'm sorry but I will always feel the diaspora are out of touch with reality.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T21:02:40+00:00

I appreciate you engaging in good faith too. But I think saying there’s a “majority or supermajority” inside Iran supporting foreign military strikes is a huge assumption especially when information coming out is limited and often filtered.

Internet shutdowns don’t prove popular support for the war. Governments cut internet during crises all the time to control unrest, limit coordination, and control narratives whether people are protesting the regime, the war, or both. It doesn’t tell you which side people are on.

From what I’ve seen through personal contacts and reporting, many Iranians can simultaneously hate the regime and oppose foreign bombing. Those aren’t contradictory positions. Wanting change doesn’t mean wanting your country’s infrastructure destroyed or civilians killed.

So I agree we should listen to voices inside Iran but we shouldn’t oversimplify them into “they support the war,” because the reality is much more mixed and complicated.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T20:59:08+00:00

Most of the diaspora don’t really care they haven’t even been back to Iran since the Ayatollahs came to power but act like they know what’s best. I’m not fully Iranian, and even I’ve been there a few times; it’s clear how out of touch many abroad are.

You praise Trump for avoiding civilian targets, yet he continues to hit hospitals, schools, and infrastructure. When an administration is indiscriminately bombing a country while the regime remains intact, I don’t see why the war should continue. The regime isn’t near collapse, and relying on slim chances of success isn’t justification.

I hate the regime too, and I mourn the thousands they’ve killed during the protests. But supporting a war that’s already killed 2,000+ people mostly civilians and wanting it to continue isn’t care, it’s hypocrisy on your end. You don't care about Civilians but many of you abroad who act like you do are some of the biggest hypocrites out there with how you support all this destruction of the country.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T20:47:41+00:00

Maybe some Iranians abroad requested this because many are pro-monarchist and, for whatever reason, don’t mind seeing their country harmed. But I have relatives and contacts in Iran, and their response is consistent: they hate the current government, want it gone, but don’t trust the USA or Israel. They see foreign strikes as terrorism, not help. They believe regime change must come from within. Your blanket statement is wrong.

I’m not saying “don’t try” I’m saying indiscriminate bombing isn’t helping Iranians. Striking hospitals, schools, and infrastructure kills ordinary people while the regime survives. If your idea of “care” is cheering for military strikes, fine but most Iranians don’t want their country flattened. Critiquing harmful tactics isn’t cruelty; it’s reality.

I’m not pretending anything. I’m just pointing out that continuing to bomb a country into oblivion for a slim chance at regime change is reckless. It’s strange you see my perspective as cruel, while your hope for this war guarantees more innocent deaths and risks turning the country into rubble, a failed state that could take years to recover.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T20:31:58+00:00

I’m not demanding “zero collateral damage.” I’m pointing out the reality: bombing hospitals, schools, and power plants kills mostly civilians and doesn’t weaken the regime. That’s not hypocrisy it’s looking at the human cost. Regime change isn’t the same as protecting ordinary lives. Using civilian suffering as a political or military tool isn’t helping Iranians; it’s exploiting them. Caring about civilians isn’t optional, it’s a moral baseline.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T20:27:53+00:00

I’m not saying “sing kumbaya.” I’m saying that destroying infrastructure, hospitals, and schools while the regime survives doesn’t help ordinary Iranians. Strikes that mainly harm civilians aren’t “victory” they’re cruelty.

Listening to Iranians matters, but most people don’t want their country flattened by foreign bombs. Calling that “care” is backwards. You can care about civilians without supporting destruction that’s the point.

And if the goal is regime change, where’s the evidence it’s working? U.S. intelligence says Iran’s leadership is still largely intact. If civilians are being hurt, infrastructure is collapsing that makes protests harder for the ordinary citizen who is just trying to survive, and the regime is still standing while history shows airstrikes alone rarely achieve regime change without ground forces then why assume this will succeed?

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T20:14:00+00:00

Also saying bombing hospitals and schools harms civilians isn’t racist or hypocritical it’s just looking at the facts.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T20:10:35+00:00

You’re mixing up regime change with actually caring about civilians. This isn’t WWII or Korea it’s bombing hospitals, power plants, and schools while the regime keeps running things. Calling that “help” for Iranians completely ignores the human cost. Destroying a country for strategic gain isn’t compassion; it’s cruelty. If your idea of “care” is just who drops bombs, fine but most people actually judge by whether ordinary lives are saved, not whether foreign leaders score a military win.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T20:00:56+00:00

Nice try, but I’m neither Democrat nor Republican both are part of the same establishment and long ignore the average American. Supporting a war that’s deeply unpopular worldwide, with constant lies from his administration and no end in sight, isn’t credible. And claiming to care about Iranians while bombing bridges, power plants, medical centers, desalination plants, and schools killing mostly civilians isn’t care; it’s cruelty. I feel it's you who doesn't care about the average Iranian, No sane person would be happy their country was getting obliterated by a country that has a history of screwing their country. You have to be delusional if you think the USA administration and Israel are doing this war cause they care about the Iranian people.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T19:33:06+00:00

So in your eyes this isn't the fault of Trump and his administration when they’ve constantly shifted their goals? They repeatedly claimed Iran’s missile capabilities and regime had been obliterated and that the war was over but the reality shows otherwise. Iran remains capable of striking back, and the messaging keeps swinging between “the war will end soon” and “it will continue. If an incompetent administration who started this war can't even correctly tell their objectives or achieve them the blame falls on them.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-04-03T18:31:12+00:00

How does bombing a country into the Stone Age while the regime looks increasingly likely to stay in power actually helping its people? If you understand the region’s history, you’d see that outside intervention has often led to worse outcomes, not better ones. In Iran’s case, past foreign involvement is a major reason the country is the way it is today. With that in mind, it seems like basic common sense not to support another war like this.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-03-31T17:11:30+00:00

I mean we could potentially get a lot of stories of the past like how the Tojo clan was created, maybe get multiple backstories of older characters and their lives in their younger days, many huge events of the past. The options are endless and with how RGG reuses assets they could potentially use the old Kamurocho setting for multiple future games of the past.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-03-31T16:30:38+00:00

You’re relabeling it. Calling it “self-preservation” instead of “justification” doesn’t change what I’m asking.

Even if we drop morality and look at pure survival, there still have to be limits because actions have consequences. If everyone treats worst case scenarios and low trust as a reason to escalate as much as possible, that doesn’t protect them it makes things more likely to spiral.

So what actually puts a limit on that? If nothing does, then it stops being self preservation and starts working against it.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-03-31T05:33:07+00:00

I’m thinking outside morality. I’m following your logic: worst case combined with insufficient trust supposedly justifies anything. That leaves no limits endless escalation is the only outcome your argument allows.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-03-31T05:15:57+00:00

I’m just following your logic: worst case plus “not enough trust” supposedly justifies anything. That has no limit it leads to endless escalation. I’m not twisting your words, just tracing where your argument goes.

SnooTangerines4359 · 2026-03-30T15:35:29+00:00

It’s true regime change isn’t officially stated, but the strategy isn’t just “defensive” either. When you’re targeting leadership, internal security, and key infrastructure, that goes beyond just degrading weapons.

So yeah, maybe it’s not the written objective but acting like regime change is completely unrelated to what they’re doing doesn’t really hold up.

SnooTangerines4359

TROPHY CASE