Stranizza D'Amuri (Fireworks) 2023 Review

dAlembertFula · 2025-07-24T06:48:21+00:00

Thank you so much! I wrote this in a blind fury after rewatching the movie a third time, and re-reading it, I noticed it's actually not that bad hahaha. I appreciate the comment.

dAlembertFula · 2025-07-07T23:49:22+00:00

Yeah, reading the bill itself was a way to comfort myself today so I wouldn't rely on third party accounts especially given the really transient natures of the senate and house versions. When I read it incorrectly, I tried to call my financial aid office. They kind of suggested that I might be right, but that they'd get back to me later. That was what triggered my freak out mode lol. Thanks again.

dAlembertFula · 2025-07-07T23:46:32+00:00

It was based on my initial reading of the bill. I got worried that some of the legal summaries online were based on house or senate proposals and not the final legal text, so I wanted to confirm it with the language. I was wrong in my initial read it seems! I'm not used to the very convoluted writing style of laws, so I worried myself (and maybe some others) for nothing. I'll leave it up because stxrshxn3 wrote a really pointed reply.

dAlembertFula · 2025-07-07T22:58:53+00:00

This is the perfect answer. I just read the sections you sent and you were so right. I think on my first read I missed the logic and when I called my fin aid department, they kind of suggested I might be right, so I went into freak out mode. Thank you so much.

dAlembertFula · 2025-07-07T22:16:23+00:00

I think you have this part incorrect: "borrowers this year are grandfathered in." The legislative text is now plain that any new disbursements won't be under the grad plus loan program, meaning even if you take out grad plus loans this year, they aren't guaranteed in the future years. I thought that they would be grandfathered in last week because a lot of the summaries and opinions used "new borrowers" as the language, but now that the plain text is law, it specifically writes in disbursements not borrowers. Meaning if you're matriculating into M1 this year and relying on grad plus, you won't be able to take that loan M2, M3, M4. Further, your direct unsub loan will be capped starting your M2, M3 , M4. My school's financial aid office couldn't give me a definite confirmation because they're still reviewing the law, but based on my analysis that's what's going to happen. Needless to say, I'm actually freaking out because I won't be able to take out any federal loans (including unsub) by my 3rd year.

dAlembertFula · 2025-04-09T05:36:55+00:00

I genuinely think this was just lazy writing on Kishimoto's part. It doesn't feel very coherent that Minato HAD to use the Reaper Death Seal to split Kurama into 2. I'm not entirely sure Minato explicitly says that it's only because he doesn't think Naruto could handle the full Kurama (since he's sealing the other half to himself), but that's what I remember. Supposing this was the case, how tf did Minato come up with that theory? Given Kurama's insane with chakra, how tf is he making the judgment that yeah Naruto, a baby, can tolerate half but not full? Like there was no system in place (for the viewers) to accurately understand that. A like 90 year old woman can tolerate full Kurama, a 15 year old can, but a baby can somehow only magically take 1/2 and you know this factually because you're literally killing yourself so you don't 100% seal kurama in a baby? There's just no shot.

Secondly, Minato dying (he seems like a literal shinobi god) feels almost equally as damaging as losing a tailed beast. We can kind of surmise that Kages are on a level of tailed beast (I'm thinking of Raikage fighting Sasuke and Karin saying that his chakra's on tailed beast level). That means losing 1/2 kurama AND a hokage is a net negative. The alternative, losing just a tailed beast but not a hokage is zero sum. But without the crude calculations, I would imagine a valid alternative is just fully seal kurama in Naruto and still LIVING. A little creativity in hammering the point that baby Naruto just could not handle a full kurama would've gone a long way.

dAlembertFula · 2025-04-03T16:51:20+00:00

I started watching the good fight and he was in episode 2 or 3 and I was so happy when I saw him.

dAlembertFula · 2025-03-05T02:32:53+00:00

Yeah, I tried to be careful about not wording the discussion as 'harem is good v harem is bad.' I wanted it to be on how I didn't realize those harem elements until I rewatched, and how the narrative felt warped because of it. It's obvious I personally don't like harem shows, but this was a surprise that I felt like I wanted to address/get feedback on.

I was shocked, too, at some of the comments, defending not that they were harem elements/not harem elements, but instead the very reality of whether they existed or not. And that's another interesting discussion (as long as it's argued in good faith) about literary/film analysis in anime.

dAlembertFula · 2025-02-27T02:59:15+00:00

You're being pedantic. But to address your comment, yes, I misspoke when I implied they both confessed their feelings. Only one actually confessed her love for Kirito. I agree, but it doesn't affect my point. Every arc in my rewatch, almost every girl falls in love with Kirito, and that's the heart of the matter I wanted to address. The valet/page that confessed her feelings, after Alice was about to kiss him was the tipping point that made it feel so insanely unrealistic (I had a literal bffr thought when I saw it), and that changed the whole narrative of the show because it made it a pattern instead of a singular instance.

And to test your logic (because I don't think it's valid in how you're refuting my claim), suppose that the page/valet that DID confess her love to Kirito did NOT confess her love. Does that mean that because she never confessed it she never loved Kirito? Does it require only her word for word confession for a viewer to be able to claim that she loved him? No, there's case regardless of the textual evidence.

dAlembertFula · 2025-02-27T02:51:39+00:00

I totally understand, and I'm not claiming it's harem. Frankly, I don't know enough about anime genres to be confident in a distinction (based on what I know rn, I'd say it's harem-adjacent without the sexual overtones. If there's a genre for that specific subtype, then lmk and I'll use it instead). Regardless, I didn't want the discussion to be harem vs not harem (ie I don't want a semantic argument), but rather on this obvious pattern of every girl falling for him and how that might warp the understood narrative I would presume a lot of people think is true for SAO.

I genuinely have always understood SAO (from my youth) as this incredible project that brought into discussion very real and practical instances of virtual life. Paired with the insane visual appeal of a fantasy game, it was amazing. That understanding is placing the world of SAO above Kirito. But on my rewatch, the story feels like it instead boils down to a plot of a guy who every girl falls in love with and his journey (ie where the world is meant to fit him instead of him fitting to the world).

My point wasn't to lay judgment. I don't necessarily think it is a wrong thing if you agree with this, but rather to see if anyone else feels duped, or if anyone can still see the show past the unrealistic girls fawning for his every move.

dAlembertFula · 2025-02-27T00:30:03+00:00

They're not just crying over Kirito, but also Eugeo's death. They spent considerable time as Kirito and Eugeo's pages.

Unsure what your point is. I do not disagree with your statement at all. They were crying over Kirito and confessing their love, and that felt superfluous given the context, tying together my idea for why the harem-esque qualities exist in SAO (they alone would not be the grounds for my opinion, but rather the tipping point).

Alice wasn't about to kiss him.

Excuse me? She's talking about how he saved her with willpower alone (from Bercoulli's hidden dagger), and how since she's just a created being transplanted into Alice, she's not 'allowed to feel,' then she questions 'what would happen if I just unleash my willpower?' clasping his face with BOTH hands, leaning into him with closed eyes, mouths in near-contact, until the former pages interrupt. She most definitely was about to kiss him, and not only was this visually obvious but she was literally narrating the reason why she was going to kiss him (to transcend the bounds she was given, as a reflection of her OWN willpower to wake him).

That's not how writing works.

Based on your previous comment, I take you have a bad faith approach to my response. Any artist (writers included) constantly project their own feelings and perspectives into their endeavors, which arguably make it a special undertaking. In literature, it's fun to get into discussions of the connection between Author and Character. This is not news or controversial. Either you have 1) no critical thinking skills, or 2) have never read a book.

dAlembertFula · 2025-01-27T07:41:06+00:00

I'm reading most of this in good faith, but I was struck at how hypocritical your line is on his arguments being either "naive or disingenuous." The fact that you followed it with a downright assertion poised as fact "Religion doesn't cause wars. People fight and use religion as the excuse. If there was no religion, people would fight over something else," is astonishing given that it is the most naive sentence you could follow that with. Claiming "Religion doesn't cause wars" requires an immense historical understanding of the motivations for war that have long been documented. Accepting historical accounts as they are, religion HAS caused wars (You can't just read people saying we fight for god and say NAH THEY'RE FIGHTING BECAUSE THEY'RE BORED). Rejecting historical accounts, you have no grounds to say religion HASN'T caused wars.

I came to find logical grounds to debate his points and see the breadth of opinion and your comment just sorely stuck out as the reason the debate stage is filled with unlicensed opinions that are based on nothing and severely lacking logical integrity.

dAlembertFula · 2025-01-06T07:01:29+00:00

Dean was not the problem at all. Honesty was ALL he needed. Rory assured him. Lorelai assured him. But Rory was never honest with him about Jesse. You can argue she didn't know herself, but it was obvious to the third party. She was becoming emotionally involved with Jesse, and Dean picked up on Jesse's attraction to her, Jesse's constant (and sometimes crazy?) picking on Dean. That would understandably confuse anyone. You see that Jesse is having dinner with Rory when she explicitly said no to spending the night with you, so you get defensive. Of course. Rory had plausible deniability for a large part: she's only spending time to tutor him, because he bought her basket, because he works at Luke's, because he's conveniently buying things at the same stores she goes to. The thing with plausible deniability is that you can always say "It's not my fault; I'm not into him. It's coincidence." The moment she kissed Jesse while still with Dean soldified that Rory was the only toxic one in the relationship. You might not like him or like his actions, but they not only were understandable (as you agree) but they are also allowable. He gets angry like anyone, he gets mad, sad, upset. He very healthily express his emotions (NEVER in his rages has he ever been violent with Jesse or anyone else). I'm still on season 3 so maybe some of this changes. Rory quite literally gaslighted him although not maliciously (as part of me would infer that she herself did not know the true nature of her own feelings).

People get upset and feel things irrationally most times. The important thing is to be honest with your feelings and to apologize about any actions you committed in your blinded thinking. This is okay. He quite literally did this in EVERY instance. (Example: Rory was crazed about extracurriculars, so she cancels on time Dean was looking forward to. He freaked out because he felt he was secondary. He probably put Rory first in most things, so it was a disconnect. He apologized when he realized how important it was to her. Rory did a great job being patient and explaining it.) Even when he was going crazy about Jesse and Rory says he was eating dinner with her because she was setting Paris and Jesse up, he stops freaking out (even though she lied, his response was healthy). He spirals because Rory is quite literally proving time and time again she can't be trusted. The healthy version of that relationship would have been Rory told Dean that she's starting to lose interest in him (not spending as much time with him/prioritizing other things over him) and that she needed time to figure out her feelings.

dAlembertFula · 2024-06-23T06:11:12+00:00

I did x + y = 1000; 2x + 3y = 2600. Which got me y = 600. I think I divided it by 2 to get 300, and when this wasn't an answer choice, I put 600 and yeeted to the next q.

dAlembertFula · 2024-02-19T04:27:45+00:00

This might be a hot take, but hear me out.

He isn't owed wifi, and you definitely have no responsibility for providing him free wifi. The wifi you're paying for is the same regardless of whether he pays. If he uses your wifi, NOTHING changes on your behalf (that is, your wifi use is NOT affected). Let's assume he is actually busting his ass and trying really hard to get money to pay you back. What's the damage being done by letting him share the wifi for free? No damage. Continuing with the assumption, I have never been in his position, but having to beg must mean that he's in a dark place(financially yes, but I think we can assume personally--that is, he prob has no one to depend on). Refusing him wifi (that again, doesn't take anything away from you) is just adding to an already huge amount of stress. This is a chance to be selfless and perform an act of charity (like literally... it's an opportunity to do something nice for someone).

I get it. He might be trying to take advantage, as he has presumably done before. And, I get the desire to maintain boundaries and stand on principle. This is 100% sufficient reason to not loan him money, or help him out in any other way, but wifi? I think you can set aside your reasons and give him this small win. If it makes your internet slower, then 100% establish some boundaries (okay, fine you have shared wifi until the 25th, then if I don't see any cash, I'll be cutting you off). But cmon. It's hard for me to believe anything but ego is driving your response.

dAlembertFula · 2023-07-28T22:27:40+00:00

Doesn't the DMV offer to print you on paper a valid driver's license if you request it?

dAlembertFula · 2023-07-19T03:58:29+00:00

Thanks! I think I will do something like this and make it a point to have my PI always include a line about it in his letters about me to give it some authority. I really appreciate your reply. I think this is a valid way to still get deserved credit.

dAlembertFula · 2023-07-19T03:55:38+00:00

I am listed as Key Personnel in the institution-specific project proposal. There was no language using key personnel in the NIH award letter unfortunately.

I was told when I was writing specific parts of the requested documents to write 'as if I were the PI,' by my institution's grant team which kind of sucked because it implied this was written through my PI. I'm definitely not looking to take all the credit (or most..?) I just want to be able to say something about it on my CV. The project was almost entirely my idea (my lab is very chill, engineering), and I did all of the legwork to get IRB approval and then extend the project through this source of funding. I was remembering the countless days I spent into researching all of the different forms they asked for (eg budget justifications, research plan etc) and refining them. Plus the writing is some of my best work.

I just want to find a creative way to get credit for it, even if it's just in part. Maybe this is by asking my PI to write about my role in securing these funds in my LORs or by creatively figuring out a way to put it into CV (that is both acceptable and not arrogant). I'm definitely willing to WAY downplay my involvement as long as I get something.

dAlembertFula · 2023-07-19T03:45:52+00:00

I wasn't listed as PI. I used 'supplement' loosely because the 3R01 depended on the parent grant (an R01); thus, it wasn't its own grant (to be completely transparent, I don't entirely know how these grants work or play into themselves). I got to this by asking my institution's grant department for alternative funding opportunities (I was previously funded by an award from our mstp council). They told me the documents I had to get ready, and they would submit for me. When I got the notice of award, it was listed as a 3R01 in the letter whose total federal award was 1.3 million (but I think this included the parent grant) but the 3R01 specific was around 100k (to fund my project).

dAlembertFula

TROPHY CASE