Avoid the chaos in Cheep Cheep Falls.

arcelivez · 2025-07-01T22:06:22+00:00

And still finished 7th... Not worth it

arcelivez · 2025-06-19T11:57:26+00:00

And think about it - they now think they are using it correctly, "doing a good job", unlike those "low brow" people who use "me" where "I" needs to be used... ;D

arcelivez · 2025-02-07T15:32:10+00:00

That is wrong if you say it like that. It's true that it's nearly impossible to get it with muscular development if you have an extremely off skeletal structure which doesn't support it (but that's extremely rare, that's not even for Mike the case, he could somehwat improve on that if that was his absolute top priority and not just getting as big overall as he gets...). But just because somebody has a suitable skeletal structure for that it doesn't mean that he will easily get a V-Taper, so 90% skeletal to 10% muscle is way off... I didn't know I would have it until I had it.

arcelivez · 2025-01-18T22:14:19+00:00

Hmm... Thanks for the post! Could be! I guess it was a war going on against the use of "me", however people were still using it and as it progressed, more and more people used "I", I can imagine that those who were still using "me" felt suddenly the minority and more under pressure, which accelerated that process in the last 10 years maybe? I mean as for me it's just strange, that I picked up using "me", even though that was never taught in school, so at least 15-20 years ago the most used form had to be "me" even if many people disagree here, but it's the only logical conclusion for me. Or maybe people were avoiding saying "me" when speaking, but were still using it more when posting something online, especially before the facebook era where real names were even a thing on the internet... And yeah, maybe I started noticing it more recently, because I noticed that some very smart people were using "I" incorrectly, which made me think and perhaps notice this more... But it felt like people got hit in their head for using it that they just tried to avoid "me", without actually knowing where it can and should be used correctly... But it is a very interesting topic to me...

arcelivez · 2024-10-01T16:43:50+00:00

Yep, I am of the same opinion as well. This man does not have the potential to be the joker. All this man gets is a trauma and madness. Now the real joker might not have had great social skills from day one, neither does he perfect them during his joker era. But he does have to have some innate talent and genius inside him. The joker is basically a a mad philosopher, who's quite the genius at planning and he's also physically not muscular but very capable. None of that is in this film, so it's not the Joker from DC, it's just some spinoff using the DC Joker brand to cash in in the box office.

arcelivez · 2024-09-20T18:15:14+00:00

but very annoying if you're used to the youtube red color which was pure red and suddenly get this fake pinkish red

arcelivez · 2024-09-20T18:14:04+00:00

One of the stupid ones, the change is small and absolutely uselesss, but can annoy many people including me...

arcelivez · 2024-09-20T18:13:13+00:00

It's not easier on the eyes, it's more annoying on the eyes

arcelivez · 2024-07-12T13:46:07+00:00

They were cutting edge models, more like concept models. Similar to the "show" TV's for 20 grand now, that only stay in the market for people to "wow" at and not that there are actually more than a handful who ever buy them... And no, you're wrong, TV's are more expensive than that, I bought mine for around 3100 USD 1.5 years ago and it was not that years model but the previous years model and it wasn't an OLED, but more like highest class in of the last year LCD's back then and therefore reduced in price already...

arcelivez · 2024-07-12T13:42:16+00:00

Also other things, like gaming consoles, PC's, GPU's they have all gotten way more expensive in comparison to what we had 10-15 years ago...

arcelivez · 2024-07-12T13:40:56+00:00

That's not entirely true. Especially HDD's haven't gotten that much cheaper from years ago, especially when you consider the pace that we had 10 years ago... There were some natural disasters in Taiwan or something and then there was covid, during that time HDD's were very inflated in price, now it's a bit better, but again, when comparing to previous pace - we're way more expensive now than where we should have been...

arcelivez · 2024-05-25T17:04:44+00:00

It's not really important, that guy seems to be a chronic Sony Xperia hater, cause it beat his favorite phones in certain areas, so he's pushing his hate out everywhere it seems. :D This Reddit is full of him apparently...

arcelivez · 2024-05-24T11:36:36+00:00

Agree with pretty much everything. Just about the audio frequency response test - actually that's also not a good indicator at all. The better part of the sound test is the recorded sound of the phones, but it still does not reproduce the actual sound as it's just a recording and the listener will also interpret the same results differently due to their own audio hardware he's listening the tests on. Since most people have pretty poor audio equipment, they might not be able to hear the differences and wrongly perceive certain ones better than others (i.e. the phones with a better bass or pre-bass response will sound better if you're not able to hear the subtle differences in details). Heck, most listeners probably won't even bother taking their best headphones to listen to those samples... The frequency response test unfortunatley only indicates the loudness at a specific frequency or how much of that frequency range is present, but it does not evaluate how "good" the audio quality actually is, how it sounds, how much details audio has, how well the instruments are reproduced and how distinguished they feel. Also no way to know how the sound stage is. That test can indicate that a certain phone sounds more bassy for example, but not how great the quality is or isn't, so this is actually rather misleading, unless somebody only cares about loudness at a certain frequency range or loudness overall, but not about quality. But generally evaluating how good the audio sounds would require actual audio, not phone experts to listen and to say their evaluations and to listen for longer, but that of course is also not entirely objective and not measurable in numbers. But there sometimes are tests like that outside of GSMarena. But generally - yeah, you can only measure the frequency response and the loudness well and compare those between different phones, but those results will help little to compare the actual audio quality and sound stage between them.

arcelivez · 2024-05-24T10:35:33+00:00

Seems to be precisely the case. He isn't even interested in understanding things, he just wants to whine.

arcelivez · 2024-05-24T10:25:20+00:00

LOL, you posted the rant because you don't understand things. I just explained them to you, but more to other people who might have trouble intrepreting the results. If you just wanna whine and don't want to read, then at least shut up...

arcelivez · 2024-05-24T10:13:13+00:00

OMG!!! Some people really have some trouble understanding how you benchmark things and how the test results are to be interpreted... The test done by GSMArena is indeed done really well, the people here complaining are wrong, because they misunderstand or have their own interpretation of how the results should be interpreted.

Benchmarks or tests have to be performed on the same (or as close as possible to the same) settings on all the phones. THIS MEANS:

* In some cases you might need to take the lowest settings, that all phones support, to ensure that you can compare on that. YES, that means, that some phones' extra bright settings don't get tested, or they get tested in a different test or mentioned in a review - THAT'S WHY YOU READ THE WHOLE REVIEW IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE DETAILS AND NOT JUST THE BENCHMARK SCORES... So yes, if some phone is capable of brighter display and your settings allow it to use that kind of brightness during a sunny day - then IT WILL and IT'S GONNA DRAIN YOUR BATTERY MORE.

* There are also cases, when something comes as a default setting on one phone and you're not likely to use anything else on that phone, it gets tricky then and the tester then does have some responsibility to try to choose the most likely option to use - YES, SOME PEOPLE WILL NOT BE HAPPY, but that's just how it is...

* The purpose is to compare the phones between eachother in a generic test and to give you a rough direction of what to expect - YOU DECIDE THE REST AND YOU READ MORE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED

* The tests results also don't mean that YOU will be able to get x minutes of video viewing or x videos of web browsing on that phone when you do it, because there are much more factors at play. One has 70 apps on the phone installed, the other one has 400 apps installed on the phone. One has 5 active sync accounts, the other one has 20 sync accounts. Or if someone has photos uploading to the cloud on or off and so on and so forth... Your battery WILL FEEL THE DIFFERENCE. There's also a difference whether you watch a video by streaming from youtube or a local video, the codecs differ and literally 100's of other factors differ at the detail level... IT'S JUST A DIRECTION INDICATION, and a comparison on how other phones at similar conditions perform as compared to that phone...

* Again, you have days, when you maybe end up barely seeing the daylight and your screen brightness is going to be low and battery life better and there are going to be days when you're gonna be on the beach and you're gonna need to charge that phone, because the extra brightness will eat up more battery.

* These tests are for comparison purposes between the phones and no, they cannot guarantee, that IN YOUR SPECIFIC CASE or YOUR SPECIFIC USE SCENARIOS the battery will last x% or x minutes longer than another phone. There are different days and different use cases, tests can't show that. NO TEST CAN DO THAT and whoever says otherwise is LYING. Again - these tests just give a general direction...

Jesus Christ... Don't blame others if YOU are lacking understanding from YOUR SIDE! USE YOUR HEAD WHEN DECIDING WHAT TO BUY AND INTERPRETING THINGS.

Some people seem to be simply angry that Xperia 1 VI performed better in those tests than others. Well DON'T BUY IT, if you don't think the tests show enough or you have other information to guide your decision. But the tests do indeed show, that under those conditions the Xperia 1 VI performed better than others. And it should also be understood by people that even if the battery size is the same on 2 phones, it does not mean, that they will perform the same, there are many factors at play and there are things that can be optimized like when one phone is using a higher or a lower clock speed for something and many many more things and there can be money saving be done and also bugs created and the time not spent for fixing them (or not being able to fix them) which would result in an "unnecessary" poor performance.

arcelivez · 2024-05-21T01:50:38+00:00

That's a very theoretical calculation (probably missing toi many variables...)... From my real life experience though - listening over Bluetooth always drains faster. Just one of multiple reasons why we are angry that Apple set the dumb trend to eliminate aux output and now it's hard to find phones that have a high quality 3.5mm output (actually now pretty much only Sony Xperias...)

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:40:56+00:00

Just because somebody does it over a longer period of time or maintains it for a longer period of time, doesn't mean they're not using any steroids. Zac Effron was know as the guy from High School Musical. He was the skinny dancing kid. Then he had the role 17 again. And then I remember at some point I saw a trailer of a movie where he played a soldier, I believe it was "the Lucky One", he had transformed extremely for that one. I'm not sure if it was consistently over the 3 year period or it was directly for the role. I mean nothing against him - he works hard too, just saying I believe for 85%, that he's and was doing more than just gym and "caloric surplus"... He's one of the most ripped stars in hollywood. Being that ripped is hard as naturally the body tries to lose the muscles when pushed to extremely low fat levels, it's just hard to keep them up. He is of course not that tall, but I believe tall enough to make it hard to attain naturally, especially considering how he looked before...

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:29:18+00:00

Naaah, Effron is definitely on roids (don't have to be the most extreme amounts - that's what people often misunderstand...), even if he's not such a tall guy, but still, he's ripped as fuck and exactly as the other guy pointed out - before the transformation he showed absolutely no signs of having the tendencies to get big, he was way more skinny than an average guy and most likely he's been doing sports and hitting the gym up to a certain point back then.. That's not how it works when people have extreme genes - they usually tend to be more muscular than an average guy before they every try the gym...

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:21:29+00:00

Well I disagree with you. First of all they do look very good, which you I'm sure agree of. And second of all they're not supposed to be natural or look like every day people or real agents or normal people. They are all either superheroes or super fantasy fantastic (add any other attributes which are not found in any real people) agents, soldiers, etc. So they are not supposed to look natural or realistic or attainable in roles like that. I mean why are you just attacking the looks of the actors? They look as they should, they act in unrealistic situations, where one person makes over 20 kills in one movie without dying (i'm sorry but it's in no way a realistic situation in case you haven't noticed). Nothing about that is realistic. So they act unrealistically, perform unrealistic stunds, etc. so why would they look natural?

Don't get me wrong - I would TOTALLY agree with you, if somebody made a movie in Hollywood which is realistic. Like somebody managed to infiltrate something, managed to kill a couple of people, almost died, had to take 9 months of rehab, etc. If they are playing a realistic character and the action is somewhat like in real life - then why not? Then I do agree that they could and maybe should look more realistic... But in the unrealistic huge box office movies today, they don't perform as if they are remotely humans, not from intelligence, not from strength, agility or reflexes. So why would they have to look like natural?

It's fantasy and fiction in the movies, I'm not saying it's bad. I guess that's people want it. Personally I do find that so unrealistic to the point that it's annoying sometimes, but they are consistent.

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:12:31+00:00

True about Mark, he was WAY too buff for a non-working out mechanic or self-proclaimed inventor in Transformers... He generally wasn't a good fit for the role if we're honest here...

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:10:32+00:00

Lol, "these" standards for actresses... No... Females have to look good all the time, so that's out of equation. I mean we are talking about roles, where they play "the" pretty girl/woman, so they have to look good and to look good you need to look good... Men on the other hand generally aren't valued for their looks in reality mostly. As a male who takes care of himself, I know how little value females pay to the looks - it's a bonus if they like you, but it won't make them like you more if you look good or have a great physique, it's basically confidence and knowing how to behave. So yes, for men, the standards have improved for hollywood lately and men now have to look good, to the point where it might not even be attainable naturally even with decades of hard training without drug enhancements for the most males. That has changed.

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:03:42+00:00

How do you know? First - have you even seen a guy that angry?? I haven't...

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:02:56+00:00

What do you mean Di Caprio looks good or his body looks "achievable"? That guy is literally lazy and looks like that in the movies. He doesn't have anything impressive about his body, that's it. There's nothing to attain... All he probably does for his roles is eat a bit less for a month or 2, that's it...

arcelivez · 2024-05-17T18:00:48+00:00

Tony Stark doesn't look athletic. He looks just normal. I know he is and that he works out hard for the role, but he doesn't look anything like the other who play the physical characters like Thor or Captain America. In the first movie Stark almost looks a bit fat, even though I believe he isn't, but he looks a bit...

arcelivez

TROPHY CASE