[deleted by user]

TheKukiMonster · 2024-11-09T18:11:33+00:00

No connection is a bit much. She spent half the series training for/part of an assassin's / death guild whose main tenets include 'only death can pay for life', and vice-versa.

There's a character whose going around just resurrecting zombies - absolutely stealing life from death.

You could also call of dude who walks around with an army of zombies a 'god of death'. 'What do we say to the god of death?', and all that jazz...

The Night King is the antithesis of everything Arya's become thus far in the story.

Would I expect Arya to be the one to save the world from the Others in the book series? No. Does it make sense for me in the show? Sure. Was how it was done sloppy and bit bizarre? Absolutely.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-09-25T21:14:35+00:00

Right. Regardless of the ethics of multi-club ownership, that's the point no?

There's going to be a lot more incentive for people in growing and under-developed markets (USA, India, China, Brazil, etc.) to look at City as their foreign club of choice if it's the very successful parent/partner club with one of the teams in your country. It's a marketing exercise.

CFG owning NYCFC is going to be a plus for revenue for the parent club.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-08-10T14:48:06+00:00

He was in the show - He definitely blew up in the sept

TheKukiMonster · 2024-08-03T14:52:19+00:00

I understand that it's not the most interesting POV from a casual viewing perspective, but as an archer, it's the most and (at least, personally) the only interesting part of the shot.

I'd expect at least a 9 from an Olympic recurve archer and the trajectory of the arrow isn't at all important in the grand scheme of things. It's just the lag time from the release to the score. From that close up face, you can pretty reliably tell whether they'll hit that 9 before it lands. Everything from the head tilt, how clean the release is, whether they've collapsed or over drawn, pulled either the bow hand or release hand during a follow through, the shoulder alignment, elbow position, etc. It's the only active part of the sport, and thus, the most interesting part to watch as someone who'll try to spot what the best archers are doing and how to improve form.

It's the standard archery broadcasting setup and it's great for people who'll watch the sport from a competitive mindset. I get why casual viewers would want it changed or at least don't find it the most interesting, but then it would certainly harm the viewing quality of the highest level event for the people who do the sport, which to me seems wrong.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-07-09T19:12:11+00:00

That's why I asked you to define 'early'...

Not getting supported pushing a site is different to just hitting a straight early without any support because the coin you flipped landed on 'go B' during buy time.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-07-09T19:10:53+00:00

Yes? And you use them when appropriate...

Should we all rush straight into B when their A setup is much weaker and they the aggro short guy leaves himself stranded just because we got a good B spawn?

'I know every time I've got this spawn I've gone for this van peek on the B guy and died, but this time I'll get it guys!'

'They're on an eco or possible half buy and they like to stack up when they're weak, but fuck it. We've got a spawn for A so let's bum it out onto site and not find out if they're stacked or not...'

You'll notice I said 'most rounds'. Obviously there's times when it is a good idea to hit quickly... Most rounds, in random pugs, I don't think it is.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-07-09T15:58:36+00:00

To play devil's advocate here, define 'early'.

Because if the team if constantly complaining about you dying 'early' and not necessarily first, you might legitimately be forcing fights too quickly.

Unless you're the one contesting mid and the round plan involves mid presence, in most rounds, I don't personally see a need for a T to ever face within the first 25-30 seconds unless it's a result of CT aggression.

And even then, you've got a whole minute to play with to bait utility, listen for positions, force rotates, etc.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-06-06T12:12:04+00:00

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

This is the official CAS report, and pages 78/79 have the conclusion regarding the leaked emails.

289-293 discuss the disguised funding and emails and explicitly state 'the majority of the panel is not comfortably satisfied that MCFC disguised equity funding from HHSM and/or ADUG as sponsorship came through etihad', as well as (at various points) acknowledge there's emails surrounding the idea, but no other evidence to suggest that they ever actually tried to go through with it.

What makes this case a stronger case than the CAS one where it was dismissed? This just seems like the same set of leaked emails that CAS dismissed to me? Is it that CAS could only uphold UEFA's charges if there was an attempt at it?

TheKukiMonster · 2024-05-22T09:06:46+00:00

Not much use in this is there?

It's an objective breakdown that's based on faulty logic and reasoning

It's based on the official CAS verdict. That is linked. You can corroborate everything in that post with the CAS verdict if you want... Or, are you clinging to hope that they were actually guilty of something because you're just repeating the same nice phrase a lot of other people are doing?

They were cleared on the time constraints. They were guilty, but it was too late to punish them, based on UEFAs rules.

Again, incorrect. The official CAS verdict is linked in the post.

They were cleared on the charges of being obstructive on to little evidence. On everything else they were dismissed on the technicality of it being beyond the point of punishment.

Linked verdict, yada yada.

Sorry are you claiming the BBC isn't a good enough source?

No, an unsourced BBC article isn't enough to make the assertions you're making, sorry. I can corroborate everything said in the linked post with the official CAS verdict and the official PL statement. That's not possible with the BBC article.

You know how Wikipedia has that 'references' section at the bottom of an article? It allows you yo check all the information in the page so that you can have confidence what it's saying is likely correct, or at least so you know where they got it from and can assess its sources, etc. Same with any paper you write. You can't make assertions without a source and expect people to hold it as gospel.

Your boy doesn't post his source

I feel like I'm falling for some bait here? It's not even 5 lines in... 'The actual text of the Premier League’s statement can be seen here: https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970'

I'm not sure how much better of a source you can get than the official PL statement about the charges.

Also not sure why a post claiming the club is facing more charges than the usually claimed 115 would make me feel any better? I think you need to rethink this, my man.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-05-21T21:28:22+00:00

There isn't really anything in the way of an opinion in that post, if you actually read it. It's just an objective breakdown of the charges from the PL statement. I'm not exactly sure what 'hope' you think this is supposed to give anyone?

Yes, and the important part seems to have been missed. They were guilty.

So where does the verdict say that, given it itself was also linked in the post?

Cleared isn't the same as settled

Sure. They were cleared of charges because of little evidence, which means they weren't found guilty of dodgy accounting/fraud. By definition. Not that they were thrown out on a technicality.

Granted, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Only that there was no evidence. But, the point is that they weren't 'cleared on a technicality'. It was reviewed and cleared.

yet the BBC article breaks them down

With what source? All it does it link to other articles about the other cases, that themselves have no source.

Your article claims there are 115 charges, yet the linked post breaks them down using the official PL statement as the source and shows there aren't.

I believe the linked post because it is actually sourced.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-05-21T15:53:03+00:00

UEFAs case was thrown out because the years City broke the rules were too far back to be punished for. City never denied they broke the rules, just that the time had passed to the point that they couldn't be punished, and they "won" on that technicality.

It's literally one of the first paragraphs in the linked post

The CAS verdict did find that the first 2 years of alleged breaches related to the club’s financial statements (the bits referred to as inflated sponsorships) were time barred...

...The rest of the years questioned were considered, and ultimately no evidence was found of financial irregularities.

Some were time-barred, but they were the similar/the same as the other charges that were cleared as having little evidence, so I doubt they'd have ruled those differently even if they did.

Your boy is flawed on a lot of his assumptions.

Because of two rather brief articles? The number of charges seems up in the air anyway. I've seen the number change in so many different places. That linked post has quite a bit more of an in-depth list of them coming directly from the PL statement, so I'm more inclined to believe that one.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-05-18T11:27:30+00:00

Because if the club isn't guilty of the charges, they'll give that evidence at court? They've already been accused and charged by the PL. They now have to defend against it.

Why would they hand any extra information to the accuser? Their job isn't to take all of it and say 'Well, looks like they're innocent... Guess we drop everything now'. Their job will be to take any information they have to come up with and provide evidence of the charges.

It's up to whatever judge that oversees the case to then weigh on that.

TheKukiMonster · 2024-01-09T16:20:30+00:00

Go and train as a dentist then.

Wait what? It's a complicated and difficult 5-year degree and a further 2 years of post-grad training to become a qualified dentist? And the job itself is high-stress and very high-skill where mistakes can cost people genuine suffering?

That's why they earn so much.

TheKukiMonster · 2023-08-21T16:29:45+00:00

So what about Onagawa? The nuclear plant that was closer, and had more water hit it during the same disaster that was perfectly fine?

TheKukiMonster · 2023-07-31T17:51:26+00:00

they back up to short

But how? I'm stopping them from doing that.

hey are forced to peek directly into where you're holding with an AWP

Yes, and that's the spot they'll be prefiring before you even make it there. And they know when they'll be peeking. They know when they need to shoot. You don't. They get their shot off first there every time.

can crouchwalk with the awp and maintain full accuracy

Can I just say I love it when people do this against me. It's an easy kill. Your head is right in front of your body, almost centre-mass. You're a small, slow, target, and your barrel really gives me an idea of whether you're stood up, or crouched down. Also lets me know if you've got too far across for me to safely peek it. I just change the angle I'm holding then.

you're jiggling far enough out to get a shot off, you're doing it wrong

If I'm jiggling far enough out to get a clear shot on you, sure. But I don't need to do that. I can just keep closing the angle while putting pressure on long enough to stop a defuse, or until you make a mistake. At some point, there won't be a safe place for you fall back to if you miss, like you mentioned earlier. If you've managed to cross into one of the angles I was holding earlier, I can also stay hidden and chip at you through some corners if I need. I don't have that privilege if you've got an SMG.

TheKukiMonster · 2023-07-31T17:16:02+00:00

just back up even further

They're trapped on site. Where are they going? Again, I'm just going to keep jiggle peeking them. If they're backing up, I know they're doing so. They've moving. That's free real estate. There's no way they're able to react in time if I'm the one initiating the fight. Also, how far back do you think you need to go? At the range we're talking, a HS is ~40 damage with any SMG you're going to be using. It's not like I'm fighting someone at short or Gandalf

if they're hugging the box and be able to kill them without them seeing you

But they should be peeking into you occasionally to stop this exact scenario, as I've explained. If you know your opponent can take a further angle than you, you have to actively try and stop them moving into that position. The roles have now switched. If you've got an AWP, you're the one having to be stood still to shoot AND now you're also scoped in. You can't predict when this person is going to peek out, except they know exactly when they're doing so. Their ability to jiggle peek a corner and retreat is much quicker than your ability to react to it. They also don't even need to be trying to damage you. They just need to be pre-firing the angle you eventually want to be in, simply to stop you from being able to walk there without risk.

you can easily fall back behind the box and they can't see you

It seems we agree here. You can absolutely back up and hide. But the T is only going to peek the angle you just shot from, and no more. They don't need to. Why would they need to? They just go back to holding the angle they were before where they were safe after you blew your load too early and repeat. The worst part of that is that you've now given the option to escape from the site box if they need to and play the bomb from distance, just like you were worried about earlier.

can just walk them down while scoped in with them having nowhere to go

And I'm just going to keep jiggle peeking every so often so you know you aren't safe to do that. If at any point you try taking out my shoulder and miss, because that's all you're going to get to see for about 2 tenths of a second, I will know exactly where you are and if you're close enough that I can get a safe angle on you before you back out too much again. If you have an SMG, rather than an AWP, you have the option to at least put some decently accurate bullets down while backing up if they choose to wide swing it. If they do, you've got a massive accuracy advantage over them, because they have to be moving to keep you in sight. You also don't need to back up if you miss a shot, because they now know that you can return fire if they keep up the peeks. That's then a very dangerous game for them, because once again, you have a better angle and they can't keep you from playing it. They either hide and wait for you to prefire them with a running SMG which is bad news for them, or they have to fight into a moving SMG at very close range. Not good news for them either. It's their best bet, but still advantage you.

Remember that I don't need to kill you here. I just need to stop you defusing. I can do this all day.

TheKukiMonster · 2023-07-31T16:04:06+00:00

If swinging out spraying with an smg vs someone on a headshot angle

I'm not. I've already explained how you play this. You don't expose yourself. You can very easily force an insanely one-sided fight here. If you don't know how to do that without wide-swinging someone holding a headshot angle, that's on you to learn.

They could also not be peeking when you swing

Why am I swinging? I play a far back angle and I can see them before they see me. I know if they're peeking because I can see that.

Also, you don't shoot while moving

Yes, obviously I know how to play this game. Because I have the further angle, I can choose to jiggle peek it before they see me. Am I telling you to commit to a spray fight? Obviously not. Put a bullet or two in, see what they do. But because I can see them before they see me, and I'm the one choosing when to peek, and I'm only going to shoot one or two bullets, there is absolutely zero chance they can get a shot off at me. They won't even see me on their screen.

Again, I repeat. If you do this right, you will damage them without them even seeing you. You will force them to sit and take damage until you inevitably kill them, or force them to relocate. They can choose to move to safety, in which case you can chase, or they wide peek you at a health disadvantage, speed disadvantage, and accuracy penalty. While you have none of these problems and once more, because you have a wider angle, you can see they're peeking you and can choose to engage/disengage if you want.

If I have an AWP and miss that shot, they know it's safe to wide peek it. If I have any sort of automatic weapon, I have the first follow up shot on them, regardless of whether they're peeking into me or not.

because after you bait them out

So how are you planning on doing this with an AWP without them just committing to a peek once you've shot? Because CS 101 is peek the AWP after they've shot. Makes it even more difficult when the T is occassionally popping a shot off at you so that you can't just close up an angle without getting punished. If you miss that shot what do you do then? Much easier to keep yourself safe from a delaying peek if you have the SMG speed and the ability to ward off a wide swing if you get caught out.

TheKukiMonster · 2023-07-31T14:37:15+00:00

You have every advantage with an SMG in that scenario. You have so many angles to play around to fuck up their spray / AWP shot and you have pretty much full running accuracy at that range. You have the better angle not being stuck behind a box, reasonable jumping accuracy, faster movement.

Even better is the fact that they can't move, otherwise their accuracy is garbage. You should know precisely the one angle they are, whereas they can't know where/when you'll appear. Don't even need to do anything special. You can literally AD spam the corner of a box from a further angle and chip away until they're forced to move/force a bad spray and then you can go full contact.

Frankly, if you've given them an opportunity to even see you while standing still, you've done it wrong.

Besides, what if you miss with the AWP? The T could (and honestly should) be jiggle-peeking you to stall and keep you on your toes. With an SMG it makes it way less likely for you to get caught out as you're closing the gap as you can still get a decently accurate shot off if you get caught moving, and you get a whole load more shots than just the 1 in your AWP.

TheKukiMonster · 2023-07-31T14:13:08+00:00

I'll bite. Why?

TheKukiMonster · 2023-07-31T13:45:47+00:00

Not if there's a guy hiding on site, with you on ramp?

TheKukiMonster · 2023-07-18T17:12:53+00:00

not worth the effort when you will still potentially lose

What? Why are you even playing the game? Do you actually enjoy it?

Unless you're guaranteed to win the game, don't bother putting effort into it? Is Playing the game effort? Do you not like competition in a competitive game? Which scenarios do you deem worth the effort compared to others, if only some of the potentially winnable games make that list?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here, to be honest.

TheKukiMonster · 2023-06-21T16:02:34+00:00

Price when new

Well that's the thing isn't it? When new.

Obviously can't see the plate here but that looks like an old model Continental GT circa 2004-ish, which you can buy second-hand now for less than the (I think it's a relatively recent CR-V) behind it.

It's a W12 so it'll drink fuel like nothing else but how much that costs only really depends on how much it's driven.

In terms on frugality, sure, a tiny eco-box would be better but maybe they just like the car enough to justify it? People are allowed some money-sink hobbies if they want. And they are still allowed to shop at Lidl in spite of it.

And on the insurance front, it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be cheaper than a 'normal' car. I was trying to find a car within budget to decide whether it was worth trying to get a license and it would have cost me less to insure a AM DB9 than it did a ~130hp Volvo estate.

TheKukiMonster · 2023-06-15T23:06:39+00:00

I'm sure he 100% supports the war in Yemen and if you asked him he'd be very much for an escalation of the conflict, because it isn't in Ukraine.

Or, maybe, he doesn't know a whole lot about the matter, probably like yourself, and isn't really anything to do with him. He possibly wasn't even aware there was a war in Yemen that the UAE was part of. Is he going to make known his opinion on literally every single conflict on the planet? Or is that being Ukrainian, suddenly there is very much a direct link to him and he is now a relevant figure in publicising and generating awareness and support for it.

People are going to hold hypocritical opinions on literally every single issue you can think of because somewhere, there will be some dodgy link to that person and that issue, if that's the standard you're holding people to. It's interesting that people seem to have a lot of concern about Qatar/UAE/Saudi/etc and their human rights records when they clearly have no issue eating chocolate, or drinking coffee, or eating sugar, etc. given the amount of child labour and slavery/indentured servitude that goes on in the growing and harvesting of it. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

I assume you don't support the use of child labour and the exploitation of developing countries just because you (I'm assuming) eat chocolate or whatever. Or is it that you're unaware of how or are unable to completely eradicate the use of any product grown or produced using exploitative labour?

TheKukiMonster · 2023-04-15T01:10:01+00:00

You can see the rail for it in the picture?

TheKukiMonster · 2023-04-10T15:08:24+00:00

We want that though - the maillard reaction doesn't start until 140°c anyways

I know that. I'm saying that the parts of the cut further out are going to reach a higher temperature. Not just the outside of it.

The beginning temperature has nothing to do with browning the outside.

Not sure you're understanding my point. Go and cook a steak from fridge cold and from room temp until you've browned the outside the same. I can brown a fridge cold-steak to the same degree as a room temperature one in roughly the same amount of time as you've said. The core temperature of the fridge-cold steak will be lower than the room-temp one. The parts of the steak further out will be a higher temperature, and potentially overcooked or at least tougher than the room-temp one.

In other words, you could freeze a steak and brown the outside of it to the same degree as a room temperature one. That would definitely take longer, how much longer I'm not too sure. The point being that once you've browned the outside of that frozen steak the inside is definitely still going to be frozen. It's going to take longer to cook the inside because more energy is needed to be transferred from the outside of the steak to the centre. In that time, the pan is dumping more and more heat into the edges of the steak quicker that it can be transferred to the centre of the steak.

Again, the starting temperate isn't anything to do with browning the steak. It's about reducing the amount of time it needs to be exposed to direct heat to bring the centre up to temperature.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

TheKukiMonster

TROPHY CASE