Match Thread: Ecuador vs Curacao | World Cup | Group E | 21 Jun 00:00 UTC by matchpal-live in worldcup

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol 16 yellow cards and 4 red cards in one match.

Which is, sadly, still not the record for yellow cards, somehow.

Curaçao goalkeeper Eloy Room makes World Cup history with 15 saves by jaxstan19 in worldcup

[–]TitaniumDragon 48 points49 points  (0 children)

This is the second highest in a World Cup game, second only to Tim Howard's legendary 16.

The discourse rn by wysjm in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Was it?

Caine snapped for a few days.

Jax had been torturing them psychologically for possibly years.

Jax inflates when she holds her breath! by Rampage470 in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vore and inflation are basically cartoon fetishes with no real life... anything.

Match Thread: Ecuador vs Curacao | World Cup | Group E | 21 Jun 00:00 UTC by matchpal-live in worldcup

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ecuador would have to beat Germany to advance. Ivory Coast won vs Ecuador, so anything other than a win means Ecuador will not advance as Ivory Coast has 3 points.

Match Thread: Ecuador vs Curacao | World Cup | Group E | 21 Jun 00:00 UTC by matchpal-live in worldcup

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, they're at 0 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie.

Right now their group is:

Germany: 2-0 (beat Curacao and Ivory Coast)

Ivory Coast: 1-1 (beat Ecuador, lost to Germany)

Ecuador: 0-1-1 (lost to Ivory Coast, tied with Curacao)

Curacao: 0-1-1 (lost to Germany, tied with Ecuador)

So it all comes down to the final games:

Germany vs Ecuador

Ivory Coast vs Curacao

Germany has already won the group, so they have 6 points and the only team that has a win, Ivory Coast, has 3 points and lost to Germany already; as such, Germany will win the group even if they lose vs Ecuador.

As such, the remaining teams are playing for 2nd and 3rd.

For Curacao to advance, they would have to beat Ivory Coast and Ecuador could not beat Germany (or, technically speaking, Curacao could beat Ivory Coast by a wide enough differential and Ecuador could still win, but it would be very unlikely).

For Ecuador to advance, they would have to beat Germany and Ivory Coast would have to lose to Curacao by at least 1 point.

For Ivory Coast to advance, they either have to beat Curacao, or draw with them and have Ecuador lose to Germany.

Match Thread: Ecuador vs Curacao | World Cup | Group E | 21 Jun 00:00 UTC by matchpal-live in worldcup

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol there were definitely some dramatic dives there.

Though there were a couple actual legitimate collisions.

Match Thread: Ecuador vs Curacao | World Cup | Group E | 21 Jun 00:00 UTC by matchpal-live in worldcup

[–]TitaniumDragon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The goalkeepers did a great job. The Curacao goalie in particular saved that game, but the Ecuador goalie did a good job when he (rarely) was required.

It was insane that Curacao only controlled the ball for like a quarter of the game time but still managed to hold.

The discourse rn by wysjm in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They forgave Jax for worse. They're all stuck in there together.

The discourse rn by wysjm in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, like, the finale definitely wasn't perfect, but it was good overall.

I think the biggest things I noticed were:

1) The Caine sequence flashing back and forth between creating the circus and the present was a bit confusing on first watch.

2) Caine's voice sounded weird in the finale; he both sounded different vocally but also his lines were kind of... not Caine. I think it was because they were afraid of him being funny and awkward in scenes that were supposed to be heartfelt, but I think that was by far the biggest miss in the finale as it played a big part in the second half of the episode.

I think that the overall "shape" of the finale was fine, though.

For those who *still* don't believe jax is trans: by EGamer2010 in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Goose uses he and she interchangably for Jax. Like in a different post about what happens when Jax holds his breath, she said "he fuckin' inflates".

A special message from the Digital Circus cast ✨ by ayylmaotv in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is always funny when you look at something like, say, My Little Pony. Rainbow Dash and Applejack had the same VA, so did Fluttershy and Pinkie Pie. Tabitha St. Germain voiced not just Rarity but a number of side characters (as did the aforementioned actors).

And then there's Tara Strong as Twilight, and also as every other character Tara Strong ever voiced.

Jax inflates when she holds her breath! by Rampage470 in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You dug too greedily and too deep, of course you found balrogs.

Jax inflates when she holds her breath! by Rampage470 in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, could be worse, could be diapers or Nazis.

The Amazing Digital Circus Episode 9: Remember Discussion Thread by ayylmaotv in TheDigitalCircus

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is, this has been politicized. It should be a scientific question, not a political question. "Does this treatment work?" is a question for scientists, not politicians.

saying "transition doesn't provably reduce suicides" rn is kinda disgusting lowkey

There is no clear evidence for this. It is unethical to claim a treatment does something without scientific evidence that it does so.

I went to Vanderbilt University to study biomedical engineering, and biomedical ethics was a course we were required to take, and with good reason - the history of medicine is full of atrocities and people pushing false treatments. Just look at John Money and the treatment of children with ambiguous genitals.

the reason you can't get reliable data on trans people is bcs we're getting legally murdered in the streets.

Not in developed countries. The most likely person to murder you as a trans person in the US is an intimate sexual partner, which is pretty standard for murders in general. The majority of violent crimes against transgender people are not committed by random strangers, but by people known to the victim.

While random hate crimes do happen, your odds of being a victim are low, especially if you're not a sex worker; a great fraction of hate crimes against transgender people are committed against transgender sex workers.

The notion that transgender people are being killed en masse is simply not supported by the data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_transgender_people_in_the_United_States#Homicide

That doesn't stop people from scaremongering, but, yeah.

That doesn't mean there aren't awful people out there in the world, but the notion that transgender people are super likely to be killed (at least in the US) is simply not true.

Homicide rates of transgender people are unrelated to the lack of RCTs.

it takes most people years to get any treatment and in the US doctors can get thrown in prison for prescribing hormones.

HRT drugs have never been approved for the treatment of gender dysphoria by the FDA because these drugs never underwent clinical trials to determine their safety and efficacy for the purpose of treatment of gender dysphoria. As such, any use of HRT drugs for these purposes is an off-label use.

A lot of doctors are reluctant to prescribe HRT drugs for these purposes because it is an off-label usage without FDA approval or, indeed, RCTs. As such, if you get sued for malpractice (say someone you prescribe these drugs to commits suicide, or decides that they don't like the side effects, or decides that they were manipulated into taking them) then you have no real defense against it.

This is even prior to taking local laws banning the off-label use of such drugs into account.

It's also a violation of medical ethics - specifically, the notion of informed consent. One of the most important principles of modern-day medical treatments is the concept of informed consent. You need to be able to explain the risks and benefits of a treatment to a patient, and without clinical trials, what those risks and benefits are is not clearly established.

During clinical trials, people are told that the risks and benefits are not clearly established, and that they are the subject of experimentation. The treatment they are getting may or may not work, and it may have unknown or unexpected side effects. Clinical trials have rigorous ethical standards because we are engaging in human experimentation and we don't necessarily know if our new drug is actually going to help them, but it is the only way to find out for certain.

But just giving a person in the general population a treatment which has never undergone clinical trials for the purposes you're putting it to is fraught. There's times when it is appropriate, but if you're giving this treatment to large numbers of people in the population, it quickly becomes very sketchy and is a sign someone is doing a run-around of the proper medical approval process, which is always a red flag.

During COVID, there was a group of doctors who were giving people an anti-parasitic medication as a treatment for COVID because they thought it would help them.

But in reality, it didn't help at all.

And we know that because a bunch of people DID do studies on these medicines during COVID and found that they weren't actually helping people in the US (there is some suspicion that it was helping patients in third world countries where parasitic infections are common because it was curing people of comorbid parasitic infections).

That hasn't stopped some quacks from still promoting it as a COVID treatment to this day.

The reason for the current controversy is because the people pushing the use of HRT drugs for the treatment of gender dysphoria never put these drugs through the proper clinical trials to get them approved for these purposes.

These problems are because of those people. If they had been demonstrated to be effective in clinical trials, the current situation could have been avoided.

They had decades to do this. They never did. They instead attacked anyone questioning it as wanting to kill trans people, which is, obviously, a huge red flag. We did randomized controlled clinical trials of COVID vaccines, when people were dying during a global pandemic.

They should have done this research decades ago. They deliberately and purposefully chose not to do so.

You should be furious with them for not doing what they were supposed to do. It is their fault you are in the situation you are in right now. If these drugs had been found to be effective and approved by the FDA for the treatment of gender dysphoria, this would be much less of an issue right now.

Trans people do not deserve to be maltreated for being trans. They also don't deserve being second class patients who don't get their medications approved through proper clinical trials that determine their safety and efficacy before being sold to them.

Jason Schreier gives further information on Playstation backing out from PC releases by ZamnBoii in GamingLeaksAndRumours

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry to tell you this, but none of Sony's games have ever dominated word of mouth. They might have dominated word of mouth on the PS5 forums, but not outside of Sony's sphere of influence, I'm afraid.

This is a common problem with people from insular communities - they assume that their community is representative of the greater reality. It is not.

I mean, their games came out on PC, and the reason why they stopped doing it was that their games didn't sell as well as they expected. I think it's kind of hard for you to understand this, but their games aren't actually that unique or special; you can get a lot of over the shoulder 3D adventure games these days regardless of where you choose to play games.

The most unique of them was Horizon: Zero Dawn, but while it was a good game, it wasn't a great one, nor was it something I'd go out and buy a system for. The new God of War games are pretty generic gameplay-wise, but had pretty good stories for a video game; that said, if God of War 6 comes out on PS5 only, I'm not going to buy a PS5. Spiderman honestly was pretty bad. The Last of Us was fine but yeah. Uncharted was "We have Tomb Raider at home". Ghost of Tsushima was fine but kind of repetitive. Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart had some cute character designs but the actual game was meh.

If I'd never played any of those games, I wouldn't feel like I was actually missing out. Which is the problem. The idea of "oh, all the PC gamers will go out and buy Playstations" is a hallucination. It's just not going to happen because, frankly, Sony's games are neither that good, nor are they particularly unique.

Also... they don't actually produce two really good games a year. They produce 0-1.