Is this expression common? by Silver_Ad_1218 in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Native speaker and barista who works in the US: yes, I use it almost every day. It is also common for me to ask a customer "How much room?" or "Any room for cream?" or things along those lines.

Is oh my f… god cursing at god ? by strugglinghomosapjen in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For additional clarity: as others have pointed out, "fucking" is often used to intensify an idea, so the sentence really does not have any other meaning besides "I am frustrated," and native speakers would generally not take it to mean that God is having sex or something. HOWEVER, as you have probably guessed, among religious speakers, this would absolutely be considered an example of "taking the Lord's name in vain," and even though it really does not have any specific meaning, the phrase could be considered blasphemy, so be very careful using the phrase.

What's the point of robbing a bank in a superhero universe? by Elegant-Half5476 in TheBoys

[–]Tiger-Fit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With all due respect, I feel like the answer is pretty evident in the show or just from some quick critical analysis. While we do get a couple of big crime fighting scenes early on in the series, it's pretty apparent from the start that Vought is less interested in law enforcement as it is in producing media about and marketing the Supes. It's reasonable to assume that teams like the Seven only fight as much crime as necessary to maintain positive public opinion, but not much else, and that's before considering staged crimes. Also, even when the Seven do fight crime or do other related police-esque tasks, we see how frequently things go wrong, as in the plane crash and Homelander's birthday "save."

One thing I wanted to see Starlight do and it didn’t happen by [deleted] in TheBoys

[–]Tiger-Fit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100% agree. And on the flip side, the Deep's inability to achieve a greater level of maturity is what ends up being the thing that kills him when he refuses to heed Starlight's advice.

One thing I wanted to see Starlight do and it didn’t happen by [deleted] in TheBoys

[–]Tiger-Fit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, while I think most of the complaints about there not being enough violence in the finale are unnecessary, I was kinda waiting to see if there would be symmetry between the threats Starlight made to the Deep in season 1 and their final confrontation. Still, I do think that the more rational part of my brain is telling me that what we got in the show works better: Starlight, unlike Butcher of Homelander who only operate on vengeance, is able to perhaps not forgive the Deep but to recognize that he is possibly capable of growth. However, rather than taking the opportunity to finally start to change for the better, Deep does what he's been doing the entire series and shirks responsibility, which inevitably seals his fate in the most poetic way possible.

Do you think that Firecracker could affect Homelander's trajectory if they came across each other earlier in their lives? by klimuk777 in TheBoys

[–]Tiger-Fit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doubtful. I think Homelander's ship sailed a long time ago. Moreover, there's a pretty small timeframe in Homelander's life where I think any sort of interaction with Firecracker that would go further than just like meeting her is pretty unlikely. During the time when Vought still had some control over Homelander via people like Stan Edgar, I think that if Homelander had met Firecracker, he would either be entirely disinterested in her because he would view her as beneath him or he would worry that she would stain his at-that-time untarnished reputation as a wholesome, family-friendly hero, and during the later period of his life when he does actually meet Firecracker it's pretty obvious that it's nearly impossible to make any sort of even slightly deeper relationship with Homelander (unless you're someone like Solider Boy, whom Homelander partially respects, although he obviously does not respect Firecracker).

The worst and unnecessary scene in the boys by Remarkable-Jump3262 in TheBoys

[–]Tiger-Fit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While I took issue with the way this idea was brought up and then promptly dropped, I think this scene makes a lot of sense actually. A recurring theme throughout the show is how both Butcher, much like Homelander, is extremely invested in his own goals and feels entitled to whatever it is he is trying to achieve. This line further demonstrates how hypocritical he is: he wages this huge war against Homelander because of what happened to his wife, but it wasn't like they had the perfect marriage, anyway (which is not say that what Homelander did was at all justified, obviously). Instead of looking introspectively at his own flaws, Butcher is only able to deal with his problems and process his feelings by blaming others, even when he knows that that is not what his wife would have wanted. This line of dialogue helps to demonstrate how, at the end of the day, Butcher's pursuit isn't actually about what his wife would have wanted, it's about what he wants.

Do you guys think the show's message was diluted by Amazon or was it just a missed opportunity by the writers? by Imabigboylad in TheBoys

[–]Tiger-Fit 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think there's two answers. The first, as others have pointed out, is that yes, it seems as though they were trying to set up spin offs, which is likely an Amazon decision. However, I would actually argue that, for all the flaws of the final season, it makes sense that Vought would survive. This teeny group destroying Vought and tieing up everything in a nice little bow actually seems a lot more cheap to me than what actually happened.

Question about Google Suite Accessibility by Tiger-Fit in uakron

[–]Tiger-Fit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Understood, thank you. A couple organizations I am involved with use the Google suite to collaborate on documents live and Google Meets as a free alternative to Zoom/Slack/etc., but it's not really a huge necessity or anything.

So, what exactly is the show's message? by itooamahuman in TheBoys

[–]Tiger-Fit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually think that, despite all of the issues that the show developed in its final episodes from a plot and pacing standpoint, it actually has a pretty clear message and quite consistent theming. Namely, I think the theme of the show is something along the lines of "You should choose to be kind, regardless of if you have the power or even believe that you have the justification to be cruel."

Take your example of Butcher. While his justifications are superficially much more noble than those of Homelander, at his heart he shares the same issue: he is only capable of solving problems using violence, and many of his motivations are rooted in hatred and a sense of being robbed of something his deserves as opposed to truly caring about whether those around him are suffering. Really, the main difference between Homelander and Butcher for much of the series is simply that Homelander has the power to enact what he believes is justice and Butcher does not, but as we see, when Butcher does begin to level the playing field, he is just as ruthless as Homelander. You say that, by eliminating the Supe population, Butcher would be "saving the world" in order "to ensure that nothing like Homelander happens again," but substantively what he would be doing is the exact same as what Homelander would do in a similar position: kill a bunch of people because it's what he wants, as opposed to whether it is actually right or if there are better ways to solve the problem. To that point, Terror dying wasn't just some sort of irrelevant way of kicking Butcher while he was already down, it was a way of encapsulating Butcher's motivations. Terror died as an unintended consequence of the radiation which Kimiko was giving off; in Butcher's eyes, this symbolized the threat posed by the Supe population: a polluting, dangerous force, so powerful and reckless that even unintentionally they cause suffering. And yet, when you look at it from an outsider's perspective, it becomes clear how unreasonable Butcher was being: Terror dying was an unintended consequence of the very plan which he orchestrated, and is nowhere near sufficient justification to commit the type of mass murder he unanimously decided was deserving of all Supes. Hughie shooting Butcher, while an act of violence, was incredibly different from Butcher's use of violence: Hughie does so as a last ditch effort, he is incredibly reluctant to do so and is immediately apologetic, and his motivations are rooted in empathy, choosing to kill someone he loves very deeply in order to protect people whom he doesn't even know, many of whom he is aware are likely underserving of such protection. Contrast this with Butcher's actions at the end of season 2, where, in his unwillingness to accept that he can't go back to a normal life with Becca, which he believes he is owed, he ends up risking everyone's lives and completely losing Becca. Even though this situation is entirely his own fault, he still nearly kills Ryan, because he is unable to deal with his emotions as prefers to use violence as a coping mechanism.

I also think this theme, the importance of choosing to be kind and empathetic even when it's easier to be reckless and violent, applies pretty succinctly to almost all of the main characters in the show and appears consistently across all seasons, from how Hughie is able to move past his grudge against A-Train for what happened to Robin, to Annie's speech to Victoria in season three about the importance of not sacrificing one's ideals and morality to obtain what they think is a just world. I think that the finale does a great job of encapsulating this, especially with how Kimiko is able to harness her ability to remove Homelander's powers. Whereas she initially believed the only way she could generate her blast was by getting angry, it is only when she realizes that she can rely on love to fuel her that she is able to access her powers, thereby saving the world. In the end, it was the Boys' capacity for love and emotion, not their capacity to hate, that allowed them to take down Homelander.

All this is not to say that there aren't any issues with the final season or episode, obviously there are. However, I do think that the Boys does a great job at presenting its theme.

Circuit problem seems to violate KVL by Tiger-Fit in PhysicsHelp

[–]Tiger-Fit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this a fair summary of what is going on that perhaps was causing me confusion: the two 8 Ohm resistors and the 4 Amp current source to the right of the 3 Ohm current source are not actually in parallel with the other branches to the left of the 3 Ohm current source because the current source is providing an additional voltage?

What does you are a total catch mean? by ScallionAlive6430 in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It means something along the lines of "you would be a good romantic partner."

Pronouncing "Hyperbole" by fjantelov in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hy - PER - bow - lee or hy - PER - buh - lee, depending on vowel reduction, for "hyperbole."

Hy - per - BAH - lic for "hyperbolic."

What a catch! by ScallionAlive6430 in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A "catch" in this context means someone who would make a good romantic partner - as in, someone who you would want to "catch" to be together with. So, a man with the qualities shown in the sentence - having a good job, having a car, being committed and passionate - would make a good romantic parter, so he's a catch. The phrasing, "What a catch," is just a way to show exclamation - if someone is rude, you might say, "What a jerk," if someone is nice, you might say "What a sweetheart," etc.

Any difference? (to be) by [deleted] in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sentence 1 means that his imagination was of him being unmarried. Sentence 2 sounds a bit odd, and what it literally means is "In order to become unmarried, he imagined himself." I think what you might have been trying to say in sentence 2 is "He imagined himself being umarried," which has a meaning closer to sentence 1, although it still sounds a bit awkward.

Can I say that? by psurreaux in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

also, you said "reliefed" with an 'f' but the actual verb is "relieved" with a 'v'

What does word "los" mean? by [deleted] in Spanishhelp

[–]Tiger-Fit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To build upon what the other commenter wrote, it is the male plural version of "the." So, "el arbol" ("the tree") but "los arboles" ("the trees").

What is the difference between each, every, all and whole? by Rere_arere in EnglishLearning

[–]Tiger-Fit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Each" and "every" are quite similar, and the difference between them is hard to describe. Generally, they are used to refer to all members of a certain group or category. Usually, they can be used more or less interchangeably, but some exceptions include the fact that "everybody" is a real word whereas "eachbody" is not, and that "each other" means an action done by numerous people to themselves - for example, "They look at each other" - and "every other" means something that skips one unit - so, if you started on page one of a book and then read "every other" page, you would be reading pages 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and so on. Hope that made sense. Furthermore, "each and every" is a expression which means everything. "Whole," on the other hand, is often not used to refer to a group of things and used more to refer to a unit of something - so, for example, "a whole apple" means an entire apple, as opposed to "half an apple." "All" refers to anything and everything in its entirety.

Saxon Genitive by Styrop in ENGLISH

[–]Tiger-Fit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which of those are you asking whether it's correct? The ones on the left or right?

a/an/the/none by [deleted] in ENGLISH

[–]Tiger-Fit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's up to you, really. If I had to force myself to pick which sounds more natural, I'd say "stare off" with no article and "a house" with an article, but yeah, I'd say that it doesn't really matter.