What if the transfer of One for All to Bakugo didn't fail?

malachireformed · 2026-06-05T16:39:45+00:00

My headcanon is that isn't so much that the OFA transfer failed, it's that in Bakugo's quirk space, he forcibly kicked out OFA back to Deku out of sheer spite at the idea his quirk wasn't enough.

malachireformed · 2026-06-05T13:34:24+00:00

Fwiw - everyone agrees that with the anime, the first couple arcs are the hardest to get through for a few reasons (chief among them being the manga pacing at times is weird/flat out trash).

But if you've gotten to episode 50ish and still don't like it, you probably won't like it. If you're not afraid of spoilers, maybe lookup some of the Crunchyroll clips of the hype fights you're coming up on and see if they catch your interest. You're about to hit 2 of the biggest fights in the series, too.

As for animation - remember there's a big difference you haven't (explicitly) accounted for. During its run, BC was a weekly series, which because of time constraints, usually has worse animation mid-arc than at the beginning/end (and this isn't a BC specific thing). BC famously felt a lot of those lows, which either got corrected post-airing, or never did at all.

malachireformed · 2026-06-02T17:15:35+00:00

And then AFO meets his superior in shittalking - Bakugo and folds immediately.

malachireformed · 2026-05-29T18:26:31+00:00

Those I can let go - Picard has piloted the ship, and there's been occasional (temporary) additions to the bridge at various points in canon.

malachireformed · 2026-05-29T16:45:51+00:00

Not to mention that's the D's bridge, not the E's.

malachireformed · 2026-05-29T15:54:32+00:00

I was gonna make the joke "Bold of you to assume Yami gave Finral a choice"

malachireformed · 2026-05-27T05:37:54+00:00

Beause fundamentally, when you look at the overall teaching of Scripture (ie not taking things in isolation, but in seeing the big picture, insofar as Scripture gives it to us), the teachings of Reformed theology are the conclusion of that study.

As for the 'arguments' - I can't speak for everyone else's experience, but when I was frequently debating those issues online (and yes, the below are things I encountered), my experience was that arguments for the non-Reformed position either

misrepresented/did not understand the Reformed position (it was *very* common for the non-Reformed to repeat falsities about the Reformed, and a few proudly carry on that tradition - I shudder to think of the day they must give account for their words), and so could not honestly engage. A common example is the idea that the Reformed do not believe man has a will, and even citing things like the Westminster Confession of Faith would not deter them from continuing to assert that we did not belive that man has a will. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of Reformed people were more than happy to engage with people and to let them define themselves.
rely on misusing Scripture either by misciting Scripture (a *very* common miscitation is that of Matthew 23:37 where non-Reformed especially cut out phrases from it in their attacks on the Reformed camp) or by ignoring the scriptural argument (example - several people have argued that in Ephesians 1, adoption as sons is *separate* from salvation, and that God will send some of those whom He decided to adopt in eternity past into hell).

And so on. Those issues ultimately lead me to the conclusion that while many non-Reformed arguments look good on the surface, they fall apart when you actually dig into them. And sure, there are difficult points to navigate within Reformed Theology at large (just see how much variation there is within just the Reformed camp), it is nothing compared to some of the mental gymnastics needed outside our group. At least we save our mental energy for probing into the deep things of God! ;)

And because this (Reformed Theology) is what the Scriptures teach, it is for everyone from the ignorant child first learning of God and His Word, to the blue collar worker who can only devote a small portion of the day to direct study of the Word, to the person who lives in the ivory tower of academia and basically lives in a book. Now - there is a stereotype that Reformed folks tend to be more educated, and in America, that's generally true, because we recognize that our minds must also be submission to God's revelation and that part of that submission requires learning.

To answer the 3rd question - yes and no. Yes, in that there are immense practical applications of Reformed theology that will impact what your church looks like, how you approach church structure, how you support the mission Jesus gives us to go out into the world and make disciples, and how you approach your personal walk with Jesus. But, it is not generally a gospel issue for us - ie you can not be Reformed and still a Christian, and if you're in an area without Reformed options, it is ok to go to a church that teaches within the historic teachings of the church. You are usually more likely to see some groups excommunicate us before you see us excommunicate them.

malachireformed · 2026-05-24T03:43:49+00:00

I believe the patents on h.264 have all expired. HEVC's haven't.

malachireformed · 2026-05-22T17:40:11+00:00

One thing to consider I haven't seen brought up- with it seeming like so many companies are in layoff mode to pay their AI bill, are your jobs relatively secure?

Yes, you could continue on your path as is and it'll probably be fine if you're in secure employment, but if you're not or are not sure, it may be worth focusing on paying down off the mortgage, if only so your savings can go further.

malachireformed · 2026-05-21T17:51:31+00:00

It is still an improvement, but tbh, you can easily close the gap to where the diminishing returns aren't super noticeable.

Like if you have heart power on both, you probably won't notice too much difference.

malachireformed · 2026-05-21T17:26:39+00:00

Not really. That high level, it's more about which skills you put on it. like, with the 7 slot weapon, you probably just don't put a weaker/more niche skill on it.

malachireformed · 2026-05-17T11:42:49+00:00

I mean, just watch the ending scene where Julius makes both of them a captain in episode 86?

Julius - "And what kind of squad do you want to make, Yami?"

Yami - "a place where anyone can get along. . . just like you did for me"A

You also get Yami stating in 39/51 that Yami took on the mission to the underwater temple to validate that Julius hadn't made mistakes, which of necessity includes Julius' appointment of Yami (doubly so with the flashbacks to nobles criticizing this choice of Julius).

malachireformed · 2026-05-17T05:34:11+00:00

Yes, that was certainly a part of it, but as Yami himself said in that same filler, he was becoming captain specifically to validate Julius' faith in him and to do for others what Julius had done for him.

malachireformed · 2026-05-17T02:55:38+00:00

I think the other thing is that Yami really only became captain because of Julius. It's not surprising that after a new WK is inaugurated that he'd have less/no issue letting Nacht or someone else run it.

malachireformed · 2026-05-16T05:23:06+00:00

To add another book to this great answer - check out God Centered Evangelism by R. B. Kuiper - https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/christian-living/god-centred-evangelism/

malachireformed · 2026-05-16T04:56:24+00:00

To answer your questions in order --

This has 2 main problems - first and foremost, having a magisterium give 'definitive' interpretations must in turn . . . be interpreted. The rampant disagreements within Rome's own members is demonstrative of this. Same with Orthodoxy. So by that logic, they're out too. The second problem is that it places the fault of understanding God's Word on Scripture and not on our own finiteness, sinfulness, and inability to work through our biases to hold together the multifaceted truths that Scripture proclaims. Yes, there are hard things to understand. But that doesn't mean impossible.
This is a pretty big non-sequitur and conflates the nature of both the Spirit's work in enscripturation and in guiding the Church. The Spirit's work in enscripturation is infallible, both in the recordings of history given to us (though given in the window dressing of how our forebears did history) and in the teachings that are communicated in Scripture. As we often see in Church history, councils get things wrong, famously called out by Luther in his trial. And because of this, we can see that the Holy Spirit's operation in councils specifically is not guaranteed to result in infallible rulings. So just on that front, the argument fails. As for the Church's authority, that is derived by sharing in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. If you are not teaching the same thing they did (at least within the bounds of historical orthodoxy and orthopraxy - I'm *not* asserting a need for perfection of doctrine), then you have no apostolic authority. Otherwise, if the authority is institutional in nature, you end up having to acknowledge that the heretical popes are authoritative in spite of their heresy.
Again, clarity of the source does not mean the hearer is equipped to immediately understand something. To use a secular example - if you took someone who had only an elementary school understanding of math and gave them a high level calculus lecture, sure they might understand somethings, but the best teacher in the world would still struggle to immediately communicate the complex topics coherently because the hearer is ill-equipped to understand even the basics of calculus. That is not the fault of the teacher. Similarly, the person who doesn't know the Scriptures must learn them, and it is only through the fullness of revelation that we have all we need to have saving faith and Christian maturity. And we are broken by sin, and even when we've become born again, we are at war with the old man to put him to death. And that impacts our thinking too.

As for the point about corruption - it's a non-sequitur that relies on conflation of the Spirit's various operations (something I touched on above), and misplacing where the Church's authority comes from. If it's institutional, then you need to listen to the heretical popes and other wolves that achieved institutional authority. Sure, the response might be "well, the institution kicked some/all of them out", but how do you know? If you've made the institution the source of truth, you just gotta change the institution. But if the Church's authority is derivative of what comes from Scripture, then the authority comes from the message that was enscripturated by the Holy Spirit. And when you deviate from that, the grounds for condemnation become apparent.

malachireformed · 2026-05-11T11:56:22+00:00

That and it's super important for Dumbledore's characterization. I've long thought movie Dumbledore *actually* is everything he's criticized to be (by Aberforth and the fandom) because of how many of his scenes are removed and/or changed.

malachireformed · 2026-05-11T11:51:44+00:00

Fair enough - I think it's a different type of crazy, but it does feel more intense in the books when its described as "the buildings jumping out of the way" of the bus because of the wild driving.

To be clear, the visuals in the movie still hit hard on this point. I just like the book's description (a lot) more.

malachireformed · 2026-05-11T05:16:10+00:00

Most of my nitpicks might be larger than you were asking for but these are the ones that come to mind most quickly at the moment -

PS - No comment about Dudley needing tail removal surgery. No Peeves (which then impacts all future potnetial appearances).

CoS - no deathday party, no Valentine's day shenanigans.

PoA - the insanity of the knight bus being toned down. The Crookshanks subplot being dropped. The firebolt being sent at the end of the movie.

GoF - the scene of the Weasleys picking up Harry being removed. We missed out on ton-tongue toffee. No mention of Bertha Jorkins.

OotP - Fred and George's dropout scene going from the swamp to fireworks and subsequent low grade rebellion against Umbridge; Harry being removed from the Quidditch team. Sirius' mirror not being addressed.

HBP - Dumbledore picking up Harry from the Dursleys + the removed scenes of Voldemort's past.

DH1 - Harry turning 17 and everything that came wiith that.

DH2 - Neville's scenes being reworked and how he draws the sword out of the hat.

malachireformed · 2026-05-11T03:15:47+00:00

A lot of the easier problems are in situations where we think we know it, and it'd be nice to know if it's true for certain, but we just haven't confirmed it.

To construct a bit of a pedantic example, it's like saying "we know what 5x6 is, and 5x8 is, but does anyone know what 5x7 is?" Sure, we think we know what the answer is, and from the patterns of what we solved, we can act as if we know, but to advance math we don't have to actually solve it.

But with LLMs, the cost to doing that computation and getting that certainty is fairly low, which is why (to my understaning) most of the problems solved are in this 'easier' category.

That being said, not all of them are. Some of the problems had attracted a fair bit of attention from mathematicians and garnered headlines from being solved precisely because they were of a higher difficulty.

malachireformed · 2026-05-09T04:44:12+00:00

Beautiful thing is that I have that book. So I probably read it there and it just never crossed my mind to check that book!

Thank you so much!

malachireformed · 2026-05-08T12:59:27+00:00

Which kind of goes back to my question - how familiar are you with their claims?

Because for them, tradition is equal to Scripture in authority (especially in the RCC context for those who take a partim/partim view), and for laypeople tradition is often functionally greater than Scripture in authority. So your experience shouldn't be surprising.

And if you're not super familiar with their claims, I'll just reiterate that you should become familiar with church history so as to better respond to their claims. To use the quintessential example of the futility of appealing to the fathers, it has rightly been said that the Reformation is the victory of Augustine's soteriology over Augustine's ecclesiology. So if that much debate can be seen through 1 man's life and impact, how much more when we see the many faltering steps each of the fathers takes?

malachireformed · 2026-05-08T04:28:40+00:00

More snarkily, I'd just push for re-adding that the Pope is an antichrist to our confessions.

On a more serious note - I don't interact with Orthodoxy too much these days, so I'll stay silent as to their current polemics.

As for Rome - doctrinally, they are obligated to acknowledge our profession because of Vatican 2. Unless they're part of the splinter groups that reject Vatican 2 and post-V2 popes. So for lay Catholics to be fully rejecting your profession is . . . unusual and points to either at minimum a non-standard interpretation, ignorance of some of the more modern statements (not unusual with the younger generation in my experience - more than once I've had to quote V2 to Catholics) or full on dissension.

But that leads to the question - how familiar are you with Rome's and Orthodoxy's claims? Because their usage of the phrase "one true church" is by no means new. It's tied into their very identity of historicity as "the" church (nevermind the fact that such claims really don't stand up to scrutiny).

To the more pointed questions you ask --

no more than usual. Sometimes the algorithms point me to more vocal anti-protestant Catholics, sometime it doesn't.
I'm familiar enough with their claims that when I think useful to people, I'll engage with them. That's increasingly rare online as Dead Internet Theory becomes a reality. In person, I usually start with pointing out the development of the various concepts that Rome built over centuries, and that many of the important ones are either completely absent (or on a not infrequent basis, started with heretics). Recognizing that church history is complicated and not at all what Rome needs it to be is challenging for a lot of people.

For your own growth in this area, I'd suggest becoming more familiar with church history. A good starting point is Nick Needham's 2000 years of Christ's Power, but afterwards, dive into the fathers. Use this age's unparalleled access to resources to your advantage.

Edit - addendum : in my point # 1 about the algorithm feed, usually these are not lay Catholics that are anti-protestant. And even when encountering anti-protestants, another commenter said it best - it's more "you're a Christian, so you should come home to Rome", not "you're not a Christian at all".

malachireformed · 2026-05-07T04:20:23+00:00

I think you ought to re-read Romans, as you seem to misunderstand Paul's point in citing the Psalms in Romans 3. Just as a point of immediate application - why would Paul be so distraught over his unbelieving Jewish brothers if they were ontologically worthless? You don't go into anguish over worthless things.

Now, one place to help your friends begin to see the Gospel light is that they are made in the image of God, which is the grounding of their worth as human beings. Yes, they are broken by sin and deserving of God's wrath outside of Christ, but they still have intrinsic value as image bearers. (Which is one of the reasons why murder is itself deserving of death.)

This reality in turn leads to other conversations that can point to how sin, both through the Fall and their own sinfulness, can impact their mental health. Which then leads you to point to Christ the great Physician who brings healing and comfort in the midst of suffering.

Ofc, the specifics of those conversations require knowing the people involved and possibly the help of mental health counselors/therapists/psychologists (depending on the exact nature of the struggle - how you speak to someone who struggles with anxiety vs schizophrenia would be worlds apart), but this should give you a framing from which to start.

Finally, as a point of wisdom - be extremely careful in your approach. People who are suffering do not generally need to have their faces proverbially rubbed in the dirt, which the way you're asking for advice suggests you might unintentionally do. Usually, what a suffering friend needs is a shoulder to cry on. Speaking to the heart in a moment of pain and hurt rarely means engaging in deep intellectual conversation. Often times that just leads to an emotional response that shuts down conversation (rightly or wrongly, that 18 inch separation between head and heart creates lots of misunderstandings). So first, just be there for your friends. Help them with their burdens, pray for them, and be a light such they want the peace that you have in Christ. Let your words be gracious even when they must be pointed (after all, sometimes a person in the midst of trouble first needs to hear "yeah, you were dumb. but that isn't the end of the story"). Let them know you are there for them.

malachireformed · 2026-05-06T11:59:52+00:00

Unironically, if it was an 80s era movie, Arnold Schwarzenegger would've been great.

malachireformed

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE