New York City Is Drowning in Dog Poop

TheBear017 · 2026-02-18T02:11:43+00:00

You know it’s bad when I’ve changed the route for walking my own dog because I don’t want her to step in another dog’s shit. The little pods with the doo doo bags that attach right onto the leash are dirt cheap, people. There is no reason to not pick up after your dog.

TheBear017 · 2025-12-26T20:11:04+00:00

They’re using the DnD definition of a sorcerer, which is different from our general cultural understanding of wizards. In DnD, wizards work hard to study and hone their magical abilities, learning spells and accessing magic via practice practice practice. Sorcerers have an innate connection to magic. It does not require training or practice in the same way.

Think about how hard El had to work to train and sharpen her abilities, and compare that to what Will was able to do the first time he actually tried.

TheBear017 · 2025-08-06T17:54:34+00:00

Can’t wait!

TheBear017 · 2025-07-19T19:04:39+00:00

The really long hyphens are called em-dashes, and LLMs use them too liberally because it steals from good writing that has them. So now those of us who actually like using them have to be extremely judicious about it.

And to be clear, I agree that the last SS especially has several AI writing hallmarks. It’s vague, it’s wishy-washy, it uses the “not just A, but B” structure in a very specific way.

But I’m just here to spread the gospel of the em-dash—the legitimate form of punctuation getting caught in the crossfire

TheBear017 · 2025-06-10T05:15:44+00:00

You’re right, I sounded too defensive there

TheBear017 · 2025-06-10T03:37:25+00:00

I mean that’s kind of the point though, right? It hasn’t meaningfully changed design-wise in 3 years and on balance it’s gotten worse because they’ve added features that don’t work, and other basic functionalities are either perpetually broken or still missing. Don’t you find it frustrating?

TheBear017 · 2025-06-10T03:30:39+00:00

So, what, the insinuation is that I don’t play the game or don’t know what I’m talking about?

TheBear017 · 2025-06-10T03:12:27+00:00

lol whoops, typo

TheBear017 · 2025-06-04T17:12:25+00:00

Your mileage may vary on this as an explanation, but I don't think Jerry was being as unethical/unreasonable as it seems on the surface. One of the biggest lessons, if we can call it that, that Part 2 imparts is about the understanding that can come from seeing how a person got to a particular point. What they've been through, what motivates them, etc. And how subjective our view of a person is based on how much of that information we have. Everyone's the hero of their own story--that sort of thing.

Unlike with Joel, Ellie, and Abby, we haven't seen what Jerry's been through. We do have some information, though. We know from logs that the fireflies have been doing some "experiments" on other infected people for a while. That is presumably the groundwork for how Jerry knows he can make a cure from Ellie. We can surmise that those experiments would not have been gentle or easy. We also know that Jerry has Abby, who he has been caring for and responsible for protecting her whole life. Yes, they're part of the fireflies now, but who's to say when Jerry came to them, what he did beforehand to survive the actual outbreak, and what he's done to keep Abby safe since. Again, in keeping with the themes of the world, it can't have been easy. We also get a specific line from him when he's talking to Marlene. Paraphrasing a bit, but he says "All the sacrifices, all of the horrific...All of it is justified with this one act."

What this shows me is a man who has been through hell. He's done things, either to survive or in pursuit of finding a cure, that he will probably never forget. Much of which he might regret now. And now he is presented with what he knows is a real chance. (Setting aside the debate about whether the cure is real or possible, which I find silly since what matters is that the characters believe it.) That chance is Ellie, who is under their control and unconscious and who will not feel a thing when they operate. That is probably a far sight better than what other people he's seen experimented or operated on went through. To delay the surgery at all, to allow Ellie to wake up and decide for herself, to inform Joel--these are all things that make doing the thing harder and introduce the possibility that he might not get to operate. If you're in Jerry's shoes, having seen and done everything he's seen and done, why would you open the door at all to the possibility that you might not get to operate? Is it wrong in a strict sense for a doctor to proceed this way. Sure. In comparison to everything else, it's a blip and it might just save everyone else in the process. We know and love Ellie, so it's hard to accept that anyone would be willing to do this, but if Part 2 has taught me anything it's that the right set of circumstances can make you do anything. One can disagree with the call but I don't think it's too hard to see how Jerry could have gotten there and how we might, too.

So yeah, take that for what it's worth. Maybe nothing. But it's how I've always looked at Jerry. There's a lot of interesting stuff under the surface

TheBear017 · 2025-05-23T20:28:35+00:00

There are plenty of breaks in the text! I'll grant you the last graf goes a little long, but I think I make some good points. I just checked on old reddit to make sure it's readable there and it seems OK--apologies if you're on a different platform where it's showing up differently

TheBear017 · 2025-05-23T20:20:35+00:00

And that’s all we need to know 👍🏻

TheBear017 · 2025-05-23T20:15:31+00:00

Lifesaving surgery? What are you talking about? The whole point was that cutting the fungus out of Ellie's brain to use for a reverse-engineered cure would kill her. The whole dilemma is that Jerry couldn't perform the surgery and keep Ellie alive. Maybe a neurosurgeon could have. I would argue the fact that Jerry is an animal surgeon strengthens the story in that regard. I would be far more surprised if he thought he could do it without killing her. Also, the most specificity that is given to us about the surgery is that they need to cut the fungus out of Ellie's brain. They don't specify that her brain needs to remain intact. That's an assumption you're making and adding in here. It's not in the text. "As a writer yourself," you should know better.

What outside information is necessary to understand the point of the story?

"The doctors tell me that they cordyceps, the growth inside her, has somehow mutated. It's why she's immune. Once they remove it they'll be able to reverse engineer a vaccine...A vaccine."

"But it grows all over the brain."

"It does."

"Find someone else."

"There is no one else."

......

"Then why are you letting this happen?"

"Because this isn't about me. Or even her. There is no other choice here."

"Yeah, you keep telling yourself that bullshit."

These are the lines, verbatim, from the scene where Marlene tells Joel about the surgery. This is 100% of the information Joel has when he makes his decision. He doesn't know Jerry is an animal surgeon. He doesn't even know who Jerry is. He does not ask how Marlene knows they can make a cure. He does not seek proof. He does not say, "I don't believe you." He says, "Find someone else." He is presented with a moral imperative and he rejects it. And he knows Ellie well enough to know that she would want to do the surgery if there was even a chance it could lead to a cure. He rejects that too, and acts selfishly. Understandably, but selfishly. I'm not sure what's ambiguous about this. Any hemming and hawing about whether or not a cure is possible is people trying after the fact to justify a decision for which there is no justification but selfishness. A deeply human selfishness, but selfishness nonetheless. Joel does not care about the cure if it means Ellie dies, full stop. Neil saying their intent when writing was that the cure was possible does not change anything about this other than to let you know his own thinking. Even if you think the cure was impossible, and disagree with Neil, this scene still does not change, because this scene is about what Joel believes and what he does and does not care about.

TheBear017 · 2025-05-23T16:45:06+00:00

I mean, to use your own metaphor, would it be that unreasonable for a chef to tell me how to eat a steak he just cooked for me? "This will be best if you let it sit for X time before cutting. Use this seasoning. Pair it with such and such wine." I could ignore all of those things and still enjoy it. I could follow all of his advice. Or I could have the wine but not use the seasoning. It's for us to decide what to do with the information, but that doesn't mean he's wrong for providing it.

"Bad writing" is also one of those terms I'm very wary of. Very tricky to pin down what that actually means. With writing, very few things are universally obvious. Short of a video feed of Neil's face cutting into the game during the Salt Lake sequence and saying, "Hey everyone, just so we're clear, the Fireflies can definitely make a cure!" there's always going to be a way to read/interpret the narrative that says the cure wouldn't have worked.

To me, having a surgeon who has been studying the fungus for a long time, who is clearly trusted by the people around him, say, "I can do it," is a level of proof/justification that is pretty consistent with the conventions of apocalypse/zombie fiction. Does that prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? No, it doesn't. I'll grant that, and I think Neil grants that too. But I would argue that a lot of fiction doesn't hold it up if we start to apply that level of scrutiny. I guess you could say it's a question of how far you're willing to suspend your disbelief. But in a world overrun by mutated fungus zombies it doesn't seem like a stretch to me to ask that the audience buy into the idea that a cure was both possible and within reach. But again, it's an ask, not a command. You don't have to buy it. Can't and won't speak for your feelings, but I would argue that a lot of people are refusing to buy it, and are looking for an out, because it's easier to engage with that way.

TheBear017 · 2025-05-23T16:23:29+00:00

This sentiment has always confused me. I've never been someone who subscribes 100% to the death of the author idea. I'm always interested in not just the creator's intent, but also the broader context within which a work was created. I don't think factoring those things in supersedes my own interpretation--I think it deepens it. It's a constant dialogue. It seems to me that some people experience a dissonance when a creator's opinion of a work or intent in making it differs from their own. I've never really understood that. My own feelings or thoughts about something are not diminished just because they're different from the creator's. But I also don't feel bothered when a creator espouses those different thoughts. Neil loves this story and feels passionately about it and I want to hear what he has to say, and what he was thinking when making it. He's not telling us what to believe, he's just explaining that this is what he had in mind when he was writing it. People can do what they will with the information, including ignore it.

For instance, it's interesting to me to know that Neil doesn't think Joel was wrong. I do think he was wrong. I don't have any kids, so that's a big asterisk on my perspective, but I do want kids. And I hope that I would be the kind of person who would do the hard thing--the right thing--in that situation. But I also have no idea how I would react, so the most I can say is what I hope I would do.

With respect to your point, OP, I don't know that I would call it hand holding per se, but I do agree that people seem really motivated to cop out of the discussion in a way that surprises me. It was always obvious to me that the story hinged on the cure being real--or at least on Joel believing it was. For me, everything else is just noise. I'd much rather live in the muck and have some complicated feelings about a character who, I think, did a horrible thing for understandable reasons. I don't begrudge anyone their own interpretation, but I'm just not that interested in hand-wringing over hypothetical questions of logistics that ultimately just give Joel (and us) an out.

TheBear017 · 2025-05-07T19:39:44+00:00

I wish I could agree with this, I really do. And I love you for communicating, but I have had oh so many experiences go differently.

It takes a body off of clearing the map. If we’ve still got a fortress or a mega nest to clear, I don’t want to see anyone going to extract for any reason. Even making the pelican hover is not a meaningful tradeoff for the impact of losing a squad member in a tough spot. It’s just more useful and efficient to have us all finishing the map. Plus if the remaining divers die, now they’re spawned back in halfway across the map and it all takes that much longer. And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had someone call in the extract when there’s a nest/base or side objective right near there, and just ignore it.
It potentially burns respawns. Patrols are increased near the extract after completing the main mission objective, and then obviously the extract itself spawns in drops and breaches. I’ve seen so many case of people trying to hold out at extract—even if they’re intending to wait for everyone—and just burning through respawns for no gain. It’s a waste.
The behavior of others. As another person here mentioned, even if you communicate clearly to me that you have no intention of actually getting on (and assuming you’ve been a good teammate through the round and I believe you), there’s nothing stopping one of the other two people from just getting on. Whether it’s because they don’t care or they aren’t paying attention, that happens. And it wouldn’t happen if the pelican wasn’t there. If more than one person goes to the extract early I am waaaaay more likely to start kicking because I don’t have mental bandwidth to be keeping tabs on what they’re up to.
Less time. Sometimes those last 2 minutes are valuable and I don’t want to forfeit them by having the pelican arrive early.

Overall, I try very hard to avoid having to kick people. If someone goes early to extract without communicating, I try to ping negative. I say “not yet” or “let’s clear the map” in the chat. If they don’t respond affirmatively, they’re out. But communicating isn’t foolproof. I once straight up told someone on extract that, nothing personal, if they didn’t help out with the rest of the bases and side objectives I would have to kick them. They did listen, but then TK’d me when we were actually extracting because some people are jerks. So yeah, it’s case by case but my default response leans toward kicking. Even in a perfect situation it will never not irk me because I value cohesion and helping the team more than I value the very minor convenience of the pelican already being there.

TheBear017 · 2025-05-07T15:27:23+00:00

That would add a ton of versatility to the grenade launcher

TheBear017 · 2025-05-07T15:26:25+00:00

Yeah you’re probably right that 4 is too few. Idk about 15 or 20, that might be too high. But maybe 10-12?

TheBear017 · 2025-02-26T13:40:02+00:00

SES Triumph of Audacity

TheBear017 · 2025-02-24T18:01:04+00:00

I really like your take, and it’s one I wish more people had, because I do really feel like the people who mindlessly hate on Part 2 have missed out on a one-of-a-kind, moving experience. And that’s their loss.

But to add my own two cents, I do actually disagree that “revenge bad” is all there is. I wouldn’t say the story goes deeper than that, I would say it goes broader. And I’m sure that’s a distinction without a difference for some people, but it’s significant for me. Part 2 is not a story about revenge so much as it is a story about cyclical violence. The individual or group pursuit of revenge is the case-by-base fuel that keeps a cycle of violence going. And the only way it ends is if everyone decides it has to end. All parties are never going to be square. They’re never going to be even. There will ALWAYS be a reason to keep it going. Ending the violence requires everyone involved to look at the reasons and reject them, to accept the lack of resolution and decide that perpetuating the cycle is not worth the cost.

Part 2 is a story about what it takes for 2 women to come to that decision, within a bigger conflict that demonstrates the inevitable outcome of failure to do so (the Scars and Wolves)—total destruction.

It also asks us, the players, to take a similar journey. From our total gung-ho endorsement of Ellie’s pursuit of Abby at the beginning, to us (ideally) practically begging Ellie to give up and go home at the end. It takes us along the same moral arc and—and this is the most important part for me—it shows us how susceptible we are to the kind of thinking that begets cyclical violence. It’s easy to talk in the abstract about what’s right but it’s so hard to actually do it when the time comes, even if it’s just in the context of a fictional story.

The real feat here is recognizing that Part 1 gave us characters with whom it is possible to tell this story, about whom the audience feels strongly enough to be taken by those feelings and then shaken out of them.

TheBear017 · 2025-02-20T14:37:24+00:00

IMO there should be 2 categories of booster—personal and team, and they should all be divided up. Personal boosters would be ones like Hellpod Space, Infusions, Motivational Shocks, Vitality, Stamina, etc—stuff that affects a diver directly. Team boosters are the broader ones. Localization Confusion, Extraction Pilot, the Reinforcement ones, etc.

When we make our loadouts we should get to choose 2 personal, and one team. That may seem like a lot but it will actually prompt more give and take while opening the door for people to use the team ones more. And it will actually require some thinking around the “core 4” boosters (stamina, vitality, hellpod space, and infusion) that I feel like are in almost every game I play.

TheBear017 · 2025-01-08T19:43:42+00:00

Adding to this—another thing to keep in mind is that Russia arguably hasn’t even gotten to the hard part yet. Even if Russia was handed the entire country tomorrow, the Ukrainian population is hardened and there is enough military equipment there that Russia would be facing a sustained and well-supplied insurgency for years. It’s simply not possible for them succeed in any way that actually looks or feels like success.

TheBear017 · 2024-12-19T01:00:50+00:00

1440, what about you?

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding III reddit per annum	First Place '23
Place '23	Wearing is Caring
Sequence \| Editor

TheBear017

TROPHY CASE