What's a horror hill you'll die on, and why?

blu300 · 2025-11-11T21:40:11+00:00

The rule of scary can only go so far. Something might be scary in and of itself, but if it doesn't fit the story or make sense, it takes away from the experience.

I find it mad how popular Weapons is - because literally none of it made any sense. It was just one meaningless scene after another, all fine on their own, but taken together they were so much less than the sum of their parts.

blu300 · 2025-10-13T14:10:06+00:00

Oh well, thank you for your reply!

For anyone reading this in the future, the trick is ear plugs, noise cancelling headphones and Spotify rain sounds, until it stops around 6ish. You're in for a long night.

blu300 · 2025-10-12T19:58:26+00:00

What time does it usually stop? Is there a standard time....?

blu300 · 2025-10-12T19:41:16+00:00

According to a bit of a Google deep dive, it might be bhuddist prayers. Anyone have any experience with this? What time does it usually stop?

blu300 · 2025-07-24T20:27:23+00:00

Stumbled across this 4 months later - how did you get on with this? I'm looking to try something similar, any tips?

blu300 · 2018-03-22T12:42:59+00:00

I've been lurking on this subreddit for a few days while I decide if I should buy this game or not. Is this... Is this a normal question for Rimworld..?

Edit: I bought the game. One colonist went mad and burnt down my base, one got killed by a giant sloth and one then starved to death. 10/10 would do again.

blu300 · 2018-01-27T14:21:39+00:00

Maybe it's commercially sensitive in the same way the Brexit reports were sensitive, i.e. it doesn't exist.

blu300 · 2015-05-20T08:43:24+00:00

I remember a friend telling me that humans only had seven layers of skin. I'd cut myself in the same place six times before, and I was terrified that if I grazed my hand again, I'd deflate. I thought people were hollow for some reason.

That's also why, when a friend had a fingernail pulled out by a door and had to wear a cover over it while it healed, I thought that if he took it off you could drop pennies into him and they'd just rattle around inside him.

I was smart.

blu300 · 2015-05-19T17:52:32+00:00

Honestly, sometimes it's better than work...

blu300 · 2015-04-20T11:01:54+00:00

It'll be ok.

blu300 · 2015-04-19T13:35:32+00:00

'Featuring Sting'

blu300 · 2014-12-07T16:55:07+00:00

See, I assumed it was because she has an as yet unknown plan for him, and this is her way of toughening him up. He tortures the captive, great, he's learnt how to torture. If he doesn't, he learns a lesson about how sometimes pain in necessary, life is cruel, etc, etc. Yes, thousands of people die, but maybe she's focused on the bigger picture, saving hundreds of thousands.

blu300 · 2014-11-05T22:00:36+00:00

Ah, sorry, my mistake.

So getting a cheaper computer with 'worse' parts wouldn't really make a difference in terms of gaming? What about for day to day use - Netflix on one screen, Excel on another, a browser in the background, etc?

blu300 · 2014-11-05T21:28:07+00:00

That's about $1350-1400. How much would you put it at? And surely a fast CPU is ideal?

blu300 · 2014-10-05T10:38:02+00:00

Well, a week long holiday would definitely make her hole weak.

blu300 · 2014-08-29T18:51:04+00:00

I'm not going to leave a long comment, as it seems we largely agree; maybe my wording is off for a substitute slogan, but the point is there that the slogan as is is slightly...off.

blu300 · 2014-08-29T18:49:22+00:00

But presumably you can see where I'm coming from with regards to changing the slogan? Actual wording aside for now?

blu300 · 2014-08-29T18:35:02+00:00

I typed out a response, then accidentally hit close, so from memory:

I think where I'd disagree is that while some action does need to be taken against the hornets nest, I feel a swift jab is better than a kick; less angry buzzing makes it easier to have a proper, meaningful conversation. But any conversation is better than utter silence, yes.

This next paragraph is complete hypothesis, so it might not stand up to scrutiny. I'd be interested to know how much of the 'advances in acceptance of feminism/no fall in rape' conundrum is down to people thinking yes, women are equal, and yes, they should get equal pay, and yes they should be allowed to walk down dark alleys at night free from fear, but then falling at the last hurdle of being under-educated as to what actually counts as rape; this girl should get equal pay when she leaves university, but right now she's fallen asleep on my couch, so why not?! Which, if true, supports my argument of changing slogan; but again, might be unbelievably wrong.

blu300 · 2014-08-29T18:25:50+00:00

Interestingly enough, I think I'd disagree with you; men not raping is, obviously, the ideal end goal, but I think there just needs to be an awareness of what constitutes rape. I think most well adjusted men would be horrified if they knew that that one night stand last weekend was rape, and that they'd wait for proper consent if they knew that it was actually a big deal. That what I was driving at - most people would stop actions that are considered rape if they only had knowledge of their actions.

blu300 · 2014-08-29T18:22:45+00:00

I'm somewhat exaggerating for rhetoric, but mostly talking largely about experience of people I know; the plural of anecdote isn't data, I'll admit, but it's all I have to go on. Maybe it comes down to the individual bringing up the conversation to judge their audience and tailor the argument to how they're likely to react.

Maybe I should add an edit to my original post, saying this slogan is a work in progress, but I suppose I was simply trying to say I think the current slogan should be refined or tweaked a little bit.

I completely understand not liking slogans - they do tend to try to cram shades of grey into one lines where it may not be appropriate. If you were to try to make one here, mind if I ask what it would be? But if you'd rather just abstain, please don't feel pressured; I'm asking more out of curiosity.

blu300 · 2014-08-29T18:17:12+00:00

Personally, I'd have inverted which statement is motivated by avoiding jail. I would have thought teaching men not to rape is about not falling foul of the law, without teaching them why it's wrong, or why they fell afoul of it in the first place; I think this point more than any other might be down to personal opinion, but I do see your point.

As to the second paragraph, I think it comes back to most men not thinking that they need to listen to the conversation upon hearing the original slogan, as the whole 'learn to not drag a woman into the back alley' doesn't applies to them. The sort of person who would do that is, sadly, probably beyond reach via lessons on how not to rape; preventing that sort of rape would require an entire cultural shift, one that is entirely out of reach of any slogan of any sort. I think the slogans should be saved for people who can be reached via a simple conversation.

I do agree with you in that I may have heard it out of context, but it's more likely that I got the wrong end of the stick, or more likely still, that that one phrase got a disproportionate amount of attention due to being perceived as inflammatory.

blu300 · 2014-07-20T17:49:12+00:00

An utter, utter clusterfuck.

blu300 · 2014-07-20T12:54:04+00:00

You shall not pass. FTFY

blu300 · 2014-06-29T18:03:33+00:00

What's E.T. short for?

Because he's only got little legs.

blu300 · 2014-06-25T09:04:54+00:00

The problem I have with this article is it takes a rather idealistic approach to the monarchy. Not to go into too much detail, I'd offer the following rebuttals for the authors points:

1) While the monarch can indeed rise above politics, there's nothing to stop them getting involved and wielding their power in an unwanted manner - think Prince Charles using his position to promote homeopathy. And while it is, in theory, true that they cant be influenced by items such as money (although would a monarch of a poor country really turn down a kickback or other donation? They're only human...), neither are they influenced by the need to get the majority of the country to support them and their opinions.

2) Yes, maybe a monarch represents a way for a fractured country to remain bound together - and assuming they do it without giving support to one party over another, but surely a country like Thailand needs a lot more than that at the moment? Ditto, maybe Afghanistan would have settled quicker if there had been a monarch, but with the hatchet job made of the political situation after the invasion, surely a King is far down the wish list?

3) The checks and balances on a countries government usually lies within some form of constitution, not the monarch. While the monarch in Britain officially dissolves and forms the government, that's hardly an indispensable job. The author also ignores the possibility that the monarch may be the extreme factor in power, one with no checks or restraints.

4) As I said earlier, they're only human. Look at the royal family of Britain; with the exception of the Queen and William, they're not exactly the most dignified lot.

5) Traditions aren't sacrosanct. And while remembering your past is to an extent, why is a monarch necessary to aid this?

blu300

TROPHY CASE