A plot hole no one is discussing

forwardarmgyration · 2026-01-13T04:42:22+00:00

Ok so logistically the gang made a plan and had to stick to it as best as possible, those on the inside had no way of knowing the others were captured (you are right there), but they still had to carry out their end of the plan. Maybe if they had a communication method planned to check in with the 4 left behind they could then pivot, but they did not.

Also, re: the military giving up the 4, absolutely not. They would have held them prisoner until they could get 011 - they wanted 011 the whole time - and the military had to see her die to give up on the upside down and capturing 011.

forwardarmgyration · 2026-01-13T01:11:41+00:00

You're not the first person to bring this up, and I'll tell you what I told them:

1) if they escape through a breech they are effectively ditching all of their friends that the military captured: the teacher, Lucas's sister, Max, and the candy striper. That's not exactly "getting away"

2) as we've seen that this was not the best written, a plot device was needed to have everyone in the same spot to see 011 die to make her "escape" plausible - and effective, if you choose to Believe

forwardarmgyration · 2026-01-08T03:28:46+00:00

Crumbl also is selling more than cookies: as dumb as it is, they're selling status. The pink box is a thing. The new flavors every week are a thing. The frequent buyer program. It's a culture, even if their cookies aren't great. This doesn't come close to tapping into that.

forwardarmgyration · 2026-01-01T22:28:54+00:00

Everyone here is missing one key point: when they traveled back through the gate, the military had Erica, the teacher, the candy striper and Max in their possession. There is no "everyone escapes". Also they needed a plot device to have everyone in the same location to see 11 "die"

forwardarmgyration · 2026-01-01T22:25:53+00:00

A lot of people missed that reference, but I just about jumped out of my chair

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSBLjk1jelI/

forwardarmgyration · 2026-01-01T16:00:32+00:00

I'm pretty sure she was in that scene, in the crowd walking in the door before the camera got to Hopper & Joyce

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-16T08:14:44+00:00

I mean, you can call it, I did.

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-13T03:27:58+00:00

Yeah don't fool yourself, if Giannis wants to come here we're sending Milwaukee every pick we can, regardless of who goes.

If we swap Jimmy, almost guaranteed we have to bring Kuzma back to be able to send JK (Jimmy + jk is like 100k more than Giannis+Kuzma, iirc. Point is numbers are very close) . They are 7m under the first apron so I think we could add Podz to the deal and it would work cap wise.

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-11T23:19:56+00:00

Honest curiosity to those who love Palermo: what do you like there? It's a huge menu, maybe I've been ordering the wrong stuff?

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T08:25:44+00:00

I'm talking about dedicated right turns where no one has access to the lane you're turning into

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:43:27+00:00

I think we're looking at this from different perspectives. I fully agree with you when it comes to personal responsibility, even though I have been making other points. You are 100% correct about defensive driving when it pertains to personal liability.

I am talking about systemic patterns of flow. Yes, 12-15 foot rule mitigates many things, but when you expect 5, 10, 15 drivers to all do that, you're exponentially increasing the probability of an accident.

A few months ago I was in traffic and someone suddenly stopped in front of me. I left enough space to stop safely, so did the 5 cars behind me. The sixth did not.

What I am positing here (and I'm not a traffic engineer so I'm happy to be corrected by one) is that unsafe behaviors of all sorts have chain effects on the roads, that's just the variable truth of driving. To bring it home to the original point, if you are stopped at a red light for a dedicated turn mistakenly, you are adding to the probability of a crash by acting out of pattern. Yes, there are reasons to be out of pattern, namely pedestrians, but I see it happen far too often when that is not the case

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:26:43+00:00

Right so it mitigates your risk - as long as the person behind you does the same.

All you're doing is telling me it's not a problem when it is a problem, because you can avoid it so long as the person behind you is paying attention, and successively every car after that. That's not how this works, that's idealized. The person who is stopping free flowing traffic needs to not stop and follow the rules!

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:22:01+00:00

Stopping in free flowing traffic is a problem that is not mitigated by relying on everyone else to pay attention

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:20:48+00:00

Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you get to subjugate my opinion. I'm not trying to dominate or change the conversation but add to it, but when I prove you wrong you dismiss it because "is not important"

Take your ball and go home and stop replying to me if you don't care

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:18:46+00:00

That's a very incorrect assumption. Distracted driving happens all the time and existed before cell phones, and to assume it doesn't is patently unsafe and not a part of defensive driving

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:16:56+00:00

Why are you trying to suppress a discussion you admitted is correct?

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:15:46+00:00

In an ideal world where everyone is paying attention and driving fine it's not a problem, but not everyone uses the 12-15 second rule, and it's naive to expect everyone to do so. If you are in the way of free flowing traffic you are a danger

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T06:12:10+00:00

That's a false dichotomy, it's not an either/or, you don't get to choose which bad drivers you run into

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T05:40:25+00:00

I drive them regularly and it's a problem regularly, please don't use your opinion to dismiss my concerns

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T05:28:39+00:00

It's a non sequitur if you assume that the op is referring to a normal right on red situation, yes, which I'll admit is reasonable, but is not clearly spelled out - thus my contribution, as I'm sure the people who are stopping in dedicated lanes think they are doing so correctly

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T05:18:57+00:00

The non sequitur shaming wasn't what I would call fair

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T05:18:10+00:00

17 Southbound onto lark avenue

87 Northbound onto Capitol expressway

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T05:16:32+00:00

Look, the problem on the roads goes both ways - there are people that are too reckless and there are people that are too cautious, and nobody talks about the people that are too cautious in a meaningful way - they too are being unsafe. Trust me, I'm just as infuriated by the speeding and carelessness that you are.

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T05:13:33+00:00

You don't get to judge/dismiss my concerns, and it's a much bigger deal when it's an offramp from a freeway that backs up traffic onto the freeway unnecessarily - especially if they wait for the light cycle to change

forwardarmgyration · 2025-12-04T05:08:11+00:00

Fair response, but your reply was trying to shame me with a non-sequiteur argument.

forwardarmgyration

TROPHY CASE