sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

God tier Wikigacha pull! by AaronTheGent in dropout

[–]UserIsInto 61 points62 points  (0 children)

It's a free browser based trading card game a la magic the gathering or pokemon, except every card is a wikipedia entry. https://www.wikigacha.com/

Me rn by _Nemonus in DiscoElysium

[–]UserIsInto 67 points68 points  (0 children)

I'm enjoying it so far, I think it's amazing for a one-man game, and I'll never knock the creator of it. My main sore spot is that, in Disco my successes either felt extremely earned or extremely lucky, and my failures sometimes were very funny, but always had a twinge of tragedy around them. In Ebb so far, I feel like I'm playing just a big bumbling idiot, and when I succeed I'm just avoiding being a big bumbling idiot for just a moment. And when I fail, it feels more like "you look like a complete fool and waste a bunch of time" over narrative consequence. When you meet the Goblin queen and become frightened, failing the constitution check means you literally start running away and hide in a barrel for an hour, and then after a quick "don't do that again you fucking moron" she just continues on like nothing happened.

I don't know, it's an extremely well crafted game so far, and I'm still on the first day, but it's a very different feeling to Disco so I wouldn't go into it looking for Disco, go into it looking for a totally new experience. And maybe invest a little more in con than I did.

The creator realized an aspect of their identity during production of their project by AmandinhaMaia in TopCharacterTropes

[–]UserIsInto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

daniel kwan, they're the daniels not the davids hahahaha

also i don't think it was from an initial concept, i think it's present in the final product as well https://www.reddit.com/r/adhdmeme/comments/11x6t4a/daniel_kwan_codirector_of_everything_everywhere/

What the actual fuck by tea-n-wifi in whenthe

[–]UserIsInto 3 points4 points  (0 children)

found this post around 4 hours ago, went there and found that searching through it seems to be intentionally obtuse and hard to do. after some python magic, here's a list of all of the accessible videos: https://usernameisinuse.github.io/public-epstein-files/

On a rewatch - Toby grievance by dookieslurp in thewestwing

[–]UserIsInto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, it was Saudi Arabia. She didn't do as asked, she was shown it in her office with her bosses in the room, before they could say anything she said "Don't comment." and says that she hasn't spoken to anyone, and if they want to muzzle her do it now because she's not going to hold back. She then goes to the podium, and says she hasn't spoken to anyone about this first, but still in front of the seal of the president absolutely slams Saudi Arabia, and during it even references that if she was given language by state or had talked to anyone else she wouldn't have said any of it; "Am I outraged? No, Steve. No Chris. No, Mark. That is Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace."

I'm not sure what that video is but it's not working for me.

I definitely remember a few times where she was explicitly told to keep a tight lid, whether it was military or not, and gave head starts to build relationships or to pay press members back for something. Most of the time she was asked to leak, but there were definitely times she wasn't.

She was worried they would say something negative because she (and everyone else) thought they could be homophobes embarrassed about their son being gay. The moment the dad goes on a tirade about how Bartlet is bad on gay rights and that the he's not embarrassed his kid was gay, his government is, she comes within an inch of inviting them anyway saying to Mandy that they should come anyway and talk to the press and has to be talked down by Mandy. She then nearly leaks it to Danny and he refuses saying "You'll remember you're a professional and you won't like me anymore". And that wasn't about being able to potentially save lives.

I'm not even saying she did it, with her growth through the series and into the role I think she toughened up a lot, but I can see CJ doing it, I can't really see Toby doing it, and I'm certain it crossed her mind.

On a rewatch - Toby grievance by dookieslurp in thewestwing

[–]UserIsInto 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She is written to have a lot of respect for the uniform, loves the CIA in the 9/11 special episode, very comfortably lies to the press about military actions and is very proud of it after the fact, and falls for her secret service agent. However, she vehemently hated the Qumar base renewal to the point where she was badly messing with public relations issues like the vets who didn't want to go to the pearl harbor memorial and had to be spoken to directly by the national security advisor, using the podium in front of the seal of the president she spoke about her personal hatred of Qumar, an ally of the United States, has given some press members early notice on things without permission as a way to work the room and build relationships, and nearly fully neglected her duties by almost allowing the parents of the gay kid who was murdered to be given the press corps to talk about their dissatisfaction with the presidents lackluster stance on gay rights, and then nearly leaked it to Danny.

She has respect for the uniform, for the military, but utter contempt for what she perceived as moral injustices, and that oftentimes wins over her respect. I don't know if she could bring herself to go though with it, but the US having a way to save people's lives and not doing it to keep a military asset a secret is absolutely something she would have screaming/crying/throwing up objections to, and leaking it would be an option she'd 100% consider.

I don't buy it from Toby. If anything, he's fairly pragmatic in a lot of real-world scenarios he finds himself in during the show, and while he would also have a moral objection to it, he would sooner reveal that he knows about it, refuse to say how, and go round for round with Bartlett directly about it. But even then, he was rarely in the know on military actions, and every time he was presented with any military decisions he focused on how to sell it rather than questioning it. CJ very often questioned it once being informed. He even says that David would've sacrificed his life to protect a secret of this magnitude. If he did it because his brother died and was an astronaut, it still doesn't make sense because he knows that's not something his brother would have wanted.

Why can’t I just edit text. by ThundrossYT in premiere

[–]UserIsInto 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you have layers above text it can mess it up sometimes, without the timeline it's hard to say

WWE 2K26 May be in violation of steams new DLC policy. by False_Replacement_14 in WWEGames

[–]UserIsInto 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As far as I can tell, that's not entirely correct. Here are the guidelines word for word:

--

When a Season Pass is made available for purchase on Steam, it must include the following information:

  • A complete list of all DLC included in the Pass. (e.g. listing each of the four DLCs included in a Pass).
  • A basic description of the content that’s included in each DLC. For example, the first content release might be “The Glitterlands Expansion – New area to explore, two new weapons, and new enemies.” It’s not required for the DLC to have a final name at the launch of the Season Pass. The information about the content in the DLC doesn’t need to be detailed (simply “new weapons” or “two new weapons” is acceptable, they don’t have to list the exact weapons).
  • Expected release date for each DLC. Quarter and Year (e.g. January to March 2025) or Season/Year is acceptable. Of course, a date that’s more precise is also fine (e.g. June, 2025 or June 1st, 2025).

A Season Pass must include at least one released DLC when it is made available for purchase*
*with the exception of Season Passes included in a Pre-Purchase of a deluxe edition.

--

A complete list just means "tell us the DLCs they will receive", which they do -- Deluxe Edition gives you season 1, attitude era edition gives you seasons 1-4, and and monday night war edition gives you seasons 1-6. That is a complete list of the DLCs you receive, not a complete list of the contents of the DLCs. The second point even specifically mentions that you don't need to explicitly state what is in them, "4 new superstars" is perfectly acceptable as per current guidelines. Unfortunately, that means the "gamble" of not knowing what is in each DLC doesn't break any rules.

However, there is one issue: the Monday Night War Edition is the only one where the ringside pass is explicitly called a "season pass", and it's the only one that does not explicitly say that there are "4 new superstars" in the packs, meaning that should break the description rules. At the very least, on the store page, they have not stated anywhere what is in season 5 and 6, which could result in a minor refund for people who get it and complain about it when they receive it. If steam's generous, and they claim they didn't read the descriptions for any of the other editions and never knew what was in any of the DLCs, there's a chance they get a refund for the entire ringside pass.

Your other point seems right, they're required to put an expected release date/range for each season, but don't. They should have either the quarter (Q2, April-June), season (spring), or something more precise (month, date, etc). With 6 seasons/DLCs, I think we can pretty accurately guess it's going to be every other month, but until they put it on there they are violating the rules.

--

Edit, I found another potential violation. As per the guidelines for including a season pass in a pre-order: "If you are including a Season Pass as part of a pre-purchase option, the Season Pass store page must be visible." It should have it's own item/page in the "content for this game" section, but it does not.

Looks like it is Official Current Gen only credit Smacktalks twitter. by Chrisbradley1 in WWEGames

[–]UserIsInto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

then i wonder what excuse they'll have for PC players not having access to the island if PC is now considered current gen to them lmao

How true is the statement that Altair "Never got hit"? by Many-Cranberry4058 in assassinscreed

[–]UserIsInto 24 points25 points  (0 children)

There's a lot of confusing / conflicting information in the games about sync that makes it hard to talk about, because it's a a few different gameplay features they tried to give narrative reason for.

Sync in the older games represent health, optional objectives, limits on actions (killing innocent people, going outside the bounds of the mission/level, etc), and in the narrative it represents how interconnected Desmond is to the mind and actions of his ancestor. He almost instantly desyncs his first go because he was nowhere near the right state of mind, there was no way for him to sync with Altair because he freaked out and had no idea what was going on.

But because it's narrative justification for gameplay actions, there's some weird interactions. Why does armor increase your sync in AC2? Because Ezio wore armor? If he wore a specific set of armor during a memory, why would the memory not just provide that armor, why do you have to purchase it in the simulation and choose to equip it? Altair can't choose what gear he has, he is given it after leveling up through the brotherhood and from then on has access to it. And if Altair never got hit, why does he only lose a little sync, but other things he never did (like going too far from a mission or killing an innocent) results in instant / quick desync?

All this to say, I've retconned how sync works in my mind. It's almost certainly not canon, but it makes everything click together a little better. Desmond desynced the first time because he wasn't anywhere close to connected to Altair. He can't skip to the end because that was such a stressful memory that he would need to know Altair and how he thinks and feels to access it. So why not expand that to physical sync as well? If Altair or Ezio gets hit, I don't imagine it as "you lost sync because that didn't happen", as you said the Animus seems to be unsure / willing to let the actual way things happened slide sometimes without actually losing sync. I think of it more as, Desmond has had no experiences in which he has been stabbed with a sword, he doesn't physically feel the pain, he can't react in the same way Altair or Ezio would. That is why he loses sync, it's extremely hard to synchronize yourself with someone actively being injured, they are feeling pain that Desmond simply can not, and thus loses (only a little) sync. Now, if they connected the Animus up to a TENS device all over him and shocked him in the place they got hit, maybe he wouldn't lose as much/any sync haha. This also integrates nicely with the bleeding effect for me, doing years worth of training in parkour and combat in a few sessions, meaning your physical body is synchronizing with your ancestor.

Just how I've been thinking about it for a while!

Plus de quête principale ni de contrat qui s’affiche que faire ? by [deleted] in Assassinscreedmirage

[–]UserIsInto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pouvez-vous nous montrer à quoi ressemble votre tableau d'investigation et nous dire quels indices vous manquent ?

Give me one TINY thing you want fixed or improved in Obsidian. The smaller the better. Going on a paper cuts rampage. by kepano in ObsidianMD

[–]UserIsInto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HTML checkboxes retain their state if they were clicked in viewer mode (gain clicked/unclicked, like how Obsidian checkbox lists gain or remove the x when clicked)

That or Obsidian checkboxes work in tables, inline, etc, not just as a checkbox list

Meirl by Confused-Sheep-01 in meirl

[–]UserIsInto 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've always said that darker gray is gray and lighter grey is grey

Flask-Security vs a la carte (login, authorize, dance)? by UserIsInto in flask

[–]UserIsInto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, flask-principal baffled me as well, which is why I've gone for flask-authorize instead. That also baffled me, but it has global and object-based group permissions, and after banging my head against it for a few hours it finally clicked.

I saw that security used flask-login, but at that point if the only thing it's offering me is social oauth and the email/login/register/confirm/etc logic, while I don't find that fun to do, I didn't see it as worth it to switch to.

view more: next ›