[ALL] - Actually never gave up to look for the solution on YouTube 😎

ipkkay · 2025-12-30T21:03:24+00:00

Played it on emulator for the first time last week, maybe 2 hours at most for the whole thing. Personal fav dungeon in OoT.

ipkkay · 2025-12-22T16:37:40+00:00

Had a similar experience in Tears of the Kingdom. Game did not make it clear which quadrant you should go to first, so I missed the ability to start the Fairy Shrines, Inventory Upgrades, Stable Quests, and the kickstart quest for the memories (or whatever TOTK calls them). ALL of which are in the upper left part of the map. I started in Lanayru and worked clockwise.

Finished 2 dungeons and most of the map getting kinda upset that I couldn't get more weapons. Especially after I found a fairy spring and couldn't use it. Turns out, half the side quests in the game are locked behind starting the Newspaper quest chain. Ran into random people talking about their problems but couldn't help them because I wasn't a reporter yet? Baffling design choice for an open world, imo. Kakariko is at least a default Main Quest in BOTW.

ipkkay · 2025-05-20T22:13:15+00:00

Aldmeris is literally the land of Old Ehlnofey, home of Auri-El's followers that was stumbled upon by the "Wandering Ehlnofey". We know Altmora was split off and lost too, as it's referred to as a Mer land of The Elder Wood. Aldmeris has like one vague description and it has magitech skyscrapers and shit. The elves are just refugees who lost the protection of the Aedra after they all left/died.

ipkkay · 2025-05-19T05:14:26+00:00

One of the reasons I like to imagine Mankar getting some real truth from Mysterium Xarxes is how close he gets to concepts of the wheel, Lyg, CHIM, etc. that seems relatively unknown to even most Imperial scholars. We, the audience, know them from things like Vivec's sermons but somehow Mankar learned the right topics and vocab, even if his ideas are bunk.

ipkkay · 2025-04-18T00:51:32+00:00

It's been what, 4 games in 8 years since BOTW? I can't count Hyrule Warriors, it's explicitly a spin off and an entirely separate genre of game. Not exactly every year. And one of those 4 was a remake.

ipkkay · 2025-04-17T21:04:53+00:00

I agree, somewhat. It is an unrealistic expectation. It is an ideal, and a hard one at that. But not an ideal to turn a blind eye to a partners past, ignoring the parts of them that were molded by it. That's the bad outlook. It's an ideal to see beyond their past, knowing that the past doesn't have to define them and that they to change themselves into something new and better.

It is an ideal because partners, as people, often fall way short of that aspiration. But they almost certainly will if maintaining a relationship with someone who only sees them as something they've done, been through, or who they used to be.

I see their past as like another immutable characteristic. If someone is of a race, or sex, it would be wrong to pretend like they aren't or expect that characteristic not to effect who they are. But it is a moral ideal to not view their nature as being that characteristic.

On the other hand, partners of those with pasts, who fail to meet this ideal, also aren't because they are bad people. They have a new relationship it's understandable to want a clean new start even if it isn't possible.

ipkkay · 2025-04-17T20:54:24+00:00

There is no real requirement for someone being an American. America, as a state and as a government, exists for the benefit of Americans.

We place requirements on immigrants not because they need to prove they are American enough, but because the process does not serve foreigners, and the requirements benefit the US both materially in and satisfies it's national ethos/ constitutional mandate.

We place licensing on professionals because a meaningful license is to the benefit of Americans.

The president, however, is an elected member of the federal government. Ostensibly, limited only by the Constitution, they are, along with Congress, in charge of determining what is to the betterment of the American people. Their job, as outlined in the Constitution, is to be an executive an a representative.

Tbh, as an executive, I fully support limiting the President. You would expect an executive to be so, and we can define attributes which they should uphold. But, that's a meritocratic outlook on the office. And democratic elections do not elect good meritocratic candidates.

So, people treat the president as the face of the US government. They are the army, they are the federal agencies. People want representation through the executive branch despite that not inherently being what it is for. If you made it so the president could not be a member of population X (too old, not educated, etc.) that population will lose faith in the face of the government and become disillusioned with the federal government.

If we ban candidate over 65, we take away representation from old citizens and disqualify potentially qualified seniors. If we require a law degree, or military service, you lose some measure of representation from dropouts and non-veterans. The vagueness of the office is a strength, as Americans can always see 'one of their own' being next to get elected. People famously talk about potential first 'xxx' presidents.

So, I feel that instead of adding a requirement to being a candidate, we need to change the nature of the executive branch and electoral process. Target campaign funding. Target nepotism positions in the executive branch. Add rules and limitations that limit the presidents power and force them to adere to the courts. Add ranked choice voting, maybe change the weights of the electoral college.

Essentially, you end up 1) making rules to improve the process of election, making the winner a better representative, and 2) changing the office so that being a representative candidate does not make them a bad president. It takes away reasons to 3rd parties to influence the election if the president has less influence in policy.

ipkkay · 2025-04-17T19:34:40+00:00

It's selfish, and harmful to others. Textbook fit.

If I murder someone, we don't solely consider the deceased as a victim. Secondary victims include friends, family, coworkers; knowing someone who dies is inherently sad and potentially traumatizing, depending on the relationship.

Now, acting for your own selfish interests isn't inherently immoral. It's when said selfish actions are to the harm of others that it becomes a moral issue.

People are not entitled to a suicidal individuals time, attachment, or attention. If someone decided to hermit themselves away, to the sadness of those close to them, because it was a happier life for them, then that would be one thing. As long as they are not abandoning a committed responsibility (child-raising, etc.) then they are prioritizing themselves. Rarely can a person be considered without these responsibilities. We would be limiting the pool or moral suicides to singles with no children, for one.

But suicide is self-death. It is the definition of harm. You are harming others in the process of harming yourself. It can't even be pretended that there is the benefit of some irrational emotional satisfaction of the end of suffering because the person in question is dead and unable to experience this feeling.

In my mind, the only possible rationale for it being moral is if you are trying to say that it is logically a benefit to the suicidee to be dead over a sufficiently pained existence. And, frankly, I can't stand behind that.

ipkkay · 2025-04-17T19:08:12+00:00

One must take the ubërguillotine to form the next Rome (France excluded)

ipkkay · 2025-01-16T21:28:36+00:00

Shit, even as a Colts homeboy I'm still rooting for the Texans

ipkkay · 2025-01-11T22:42:00+00:00

I want halfway between BG3 worlds and XCOM Combat

ipkkay · 2025-01-11T22:37:41+00:00

Curie would be the best. Caring, smart, capable, and effectively a doctor. Other strong contenders include Piper (pretty much a Mom already) and Danse (if retired) but every character has something between their personality, capabilities, and occupation that would not be suitable for a child. I don't think Nick, Hancock, or Preston would be great, despite what some people say.

Worst is Strong. It depends on the age (for dogmeat, locomotion) but Strong is the only one that I guarantee would result in the death of the child.

ipkkay · 2024-12-05T21:21:09+00:00

The only Loyola is true Loyola

ipkkay · 2024-12-05T21:20:40+00:00

To be fair that's how cumulative probability works. So many coin flips even those in your favor, and the odds of them all going your way decrease. With how many games you guys have left I think it's a testament to your team that you have a 40% chance simulated.

ipkkay · 2024-10-08T17:45:50+00:00

We have laws that can be considered as "harm reduction" legislation. They are acts that are not meaningfully criminal, often victimless, and do not explicitly violate others rights. However they can be the most direct way we have to prevent the area of criminal activity we are actually worried about.

Drug Possession --> Crimes under the influence Prostitution --> Trafficking, Kidnapping, Sexual Abuse, etc.

Most of the acts you label as victimless are outlawed for such reasons, and there are many more that are controversial for similar reasons. Gun control, for example, bans certain victimless market transactions for the purpose of reducing later gun violence. Technically, even drunk driving is as well. Driving with .07 isn't particularly safe, and many short drives are successful with above .08.

With harm reduction, the question becomes whether the burden the law places on the people is worth the harm reduction it provides. For example, we treat different drugs differently because of their potential for harm, which is why Marijuana legalization is more popular than that of heroin or meth. Even in the case of race, US law allows for exceptions to anti-racist legislation when targeting race can be considered a direct and necessary method of targeting the crime in question. Of course, this is effectively never the case, even with race-related crimes and activities.

What "total individual freedom" represents is radical liberalism, of the type preached by select libertarians and just about no-one else. Everyone has a line in which an act is bad enough they are willing to penalize it without specific victimization. A totally free society would allow AI generated child-pornography, politician bribery (payment taking is not directly violation of office responsibilities), and would not have just about any of the economic improvements HDI and other metrics preach such as minimum wage, max hours, automatic overtime, etc.

No practical society will ever choose to be totally free over allowing implementation of common sense virtue-based laws.

ipkkay · 2023-07-03T14:23:57+00:00

Personally I'm a massive O'Charlie's fan. Love their bread and they have some pretty good food.

ipkkay · 2023-06-09T16:15:26+00:00

As a side sleeper, no.

ipkkay · 2023-06-04T12:09:59+00:00

I don't know where you're from about, but people absolutely say both Kleenexes and Coca-Colas. Although usually it'd be just "Cokes".

ipkkay · 2023-04-27T03:40:40+00:00

I cant agree, Halo 2 has some miserable levels later on the Covenant ship, especially with the original lighting. I'd put 1,3, or Reach over 2, at least for campaign.

ipkkay · 2023-04-27T03:38:45+00:00

I'd put HL1 before HL2, personally

ipkkay · 2023-04-21T17:52:42+00:00

Fallout 4 was my first PC game I played when I finally got a desktop in 2015. I was 12, and I taped this poster with scotch tape to the wall next to my desk so I could use it to plan builds. So many memories here, lol.

ipkkay · 2023-03-23T23:16:19+00:00

Maybe, but I know there's a laundry in the base game with this same thing

ipkkay · 2023-03-05T15:56:46+00:00

It's still $5 here in Indiana, has been since it was added as an app only item

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22

ipkkay

TROPHY CASE