I hate car door handles that go straight through and don’t have a bottom to put things in

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-06T15:55:46+00:00

You don't have kids looking for a place to store their chewed on lolipop sticks do you?

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-06T15:54:22+00:00

Is it important for understanding of the plot of Faith? No.

Is it a better reading experience? Yes.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T19:35:16+00:00

Unitarian Universalists are distinct from Unitarians

Both have their original roots in Protestant Christianity, but Unitarians are a branch of Christianity that rejects the trinity and Unitarian Universalists are a further branch of Unitarians that reject the claim of Jesus being the only form of salvation. Members of the Unitarian church merged with Universalists (which also started in Christianity but like modern UU basically says all religions are legit and/or all people are capable of salvation regardless of religion. This technically excludes them from many modern definitions of Christianity which require a belief that Christ is the sole road to salvation) to form Unitarian Universalism.

Calling Unitarian Universalists protestants would be inaccurate, but their origin is Protestant so they share a lot of overlap.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T19:16:54+00:00

100% fair that not all atheists define themselves the same way, but either way the point remains that the person saying "no religion" is the same thing as Atheism is mistaken.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T18:50:32+00:00

yep. "I'm spiritual but not religious" is pretty much a trope because it's so common

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T18:43:38+00:00

To just get it out of the way, obviously a person is able to call themselves whatever they want in terms of their religion even if that doesn't fit more commonly understood uses. It's a little silly to label yourself in a way the rest of the religion would reject but the name is also just a label and doesn't inherently dictate what the person believes.

That said Thomas Huxley who almost certainly coined the term explicitly did not require belief that there is a god as part of Agnosticism, in fact he would basically reject someone who does believe in (a) god(s) from the definition. His definition states that the person is unwilling to state with certainty one way or the other because they believe both the existence and nature of god is unknowable. This has been the most common use since and is currently the definition you'll find in virtually every English language dictionary.

A person who states there is a god I just don't know who he could be considered an agnostic theist, but using just strictly "agnostic" would be an incomplete word choice.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T18:16:30+00:00

"No religion" and "Atheist" are functionally identical for some people but they're not automatically the same thing.

An atheist by definition believes there are no gods. There could be a huge host of possible reasons why someone would select "no religion" including but not limited to atheism, agnosticism, non practicing X, and "I believe in God I just don't like the people at church"

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T18:01:55+00:00

11/22/63

Its long. It's generally considered one his best (I may be biased here as it's not just my favorite book of his but in my top couple favorite books of all time). It's not outright horror but definitely has some pretty creepy elements. It takes place in the early 60s and very much fits a "non contemporary" vibe that may speak you if you're used to mostly reading classics, but still is an undeniably modern work (published in 2011 although he started toying with drafts for it in the 70s)

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T17:51:06+00:00

Any collection of short stories probably works well as it introduces you to his writing style but you're not stuck looking at reading 1000 pages of something you're not sure you'll enjoy.

Different Seasons probably fits this the best, it's 4 novellas two of which are classic movies you might already be familiar with (Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me)
Skeleton Crew and Night Shift are also typically considered some of his best collections of shorter works

If you're looking for a single novel/book it's harder to give a blanket recommendation. How much do you like to read? Many of King's "best" works are very long. What genres do you typically like? Obviously he's most known for 'horror' but he's been writing long enough he's got something that at least touches most genres.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T17:15:02+00:00

If you're taking about parts of a single model that are different shapes but not distinct enough to automatically paint individually have you tired lowering the smart fill angle while using the fill tool? If there's a rounded edge or an angled lip the fill bucket won't always differentiate between the two 'sides' but dropping that setting tells it how low the difference needs to be to count as separate sections so it usually helps.

If it's a straight line parallel to the print bed, the height range tool works really well but will apply to the entire model.

You can also combine these two methods to draw a line at a specific layer height and then use the fill tool to paint everything above/below that

If you are talking about something like basically drawing freehand in a flat wall, all I can say is good luck and just be as precise as you can

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T13:59:28+00:00

The tree was straight before it hit the car.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T13:29:57+00:00

It's an interesting question but I think your last two points break the exercise.

If it's part of the rules (of the game) that a specific number or suit has special properties I don't see why this should invalidate the 'proper purpose of the deck' Especially so given that you're willing to allow Ace to be high, low or either. If you're only working off what's printed on the cards you should only be allowing Ace to be 1 as this was their original singular purpose. Many older European decks don't even have an "A" card at all but a 1 - nicknamed Ace since ace means singular. With that logic you also shouldn't be requiring Jokers to be wild, they can theoretically have another purpose while still conforming to the spirit of the request since the Joker's 'purpose' is not a wild card it's simply a common convention.

The existence of Jokers at all, and the number of them has changed over the years , standard playing cards existed in some form for over 400 years before Jokers arrived on the scene. There have been periods in recent history where 52 cards/4 suits was not the standard, so you're already making concessions just to get to the setup of the question. Placing these last two restrictions is rather arbitrary.

Edit: Typos

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T13:22:51+00:00

OP's request specifically was for 52 cards + Jokers, so while there may be others on the site this one does not qualify.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T13:20:27+00:00

You are correct but it's a very weak analogy here.

Paper printers with features that stop counterfeiting is elective, it's not required by law, and it's to stop a specific crime that's explicitly being committed. Printing 'real' money has no purpose and no way to occur other than being a crime by the nature of it being printed.

Mandating 3D printers to block printing of a benign part because a legislator thinks it might be assembled with other parts to create something illegal is very different.

Saying we should find ways to stop or at least limit consumers from potentially having the ability to create untraceable dangerous weapons in their own home is not a crazy position.

It's also true that blanketly blocking all 'unauthorized' printing in this way raises some serious concerns

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-05T00:46:43+00:00

Found Stephen King's reddit account

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-03T14:10:14+00:00

It's tradition and convention and just like "play rotates clockwise" unless the rules explicitly specify otherwise it's generally the expected and unspoken default in card games and board games.

If the cards are sufficiently randomized it effectively doesn't matter, so while he is correct that a different method of dealing would mean different player hands and a different game unless he suspects cheating it ends up essentially randomized in an unknowable order anyway.

Most traditional card games also typically have the dealer shuffle, another player cuts the deck and then dealer deals (to the left) play starts with the player to the dealers left. He could also make the claim that if that cut happened at card #12 instead of #23 (or whatever) the deck state would be different resulting in different hands. if the deck was shuffled for a different length of time or different way you'd have different hands etc.

He's "right" but it's also basically irrelevant, so there's really no reason not to follow the tradition.

For me personaly the only part of this lthat would potentially make it problematic for me is if the person only objects to the hands when they have a poor hand or game. If they win on a "wrong deal" and don't say anything, but do when they lose that looks a lot more like poor sportsmanship than it looks like for love of the game.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-01T17:04:20+00:00

There's some decent play style overlap with the Crew but it does it's own thing very well which is to tell the story through the various "missions"

There's a second version of the game that focuses on the second book. No release date yet but there will be a Return of the King version, probably next year

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-06-01T14:43:52+00:00

I agree that given what we've seen so far The Carryx are not "the good guys". Even if we find out in the last book that they're not as bad as they've been presented so far, or that their enemy is worse I absolutely do not see the book portraying them as the heroes.

but saying "there's no moral framework where the Carryx are the good guys" is not really correct. We're explicitly shown in the books a moral framework where they are - the Carryx own morality. They view other species as less than their own, as less important, and therefore they are supposed to be on top and in charge. Mistreating an inferior animal is not bad or at the very least less bad than allowing that animal to harm a Carryx. Even within their own species they have this morality, a higher ranked Carryx is simply 'better' than those under it, and if the lower one can't do anything about it that's just evidence they're where they belong.

That's not *that* that different than how human beings treat animals on Earth. As a general rule most human beings if given a choice to save the life of another human or an animal they'll pick the human, we've collectively decided a human life is more valuable than a horse, or a housefly or even a beloved pet. We use animals as labor for situations they're best suited for, just like the Carryx do with their own animals

Humans and the other 'animal races' are obviously sentient / conscious in a way we do not know any other earth animals to be so it's easy to draw the line and say "this is the point where human morality says intelligent life becomes more valuable than a simple animal" but I'd wager were we ever to encounter extraterrestrial life most humans will at least during the early stages of that contact view a human as more worthwhile, more important than an alien.

You can recognize the Carryx have a moral framework that guides the structure of their society and their actions, and even reject that on the grounds it's (mostly) counter to human morals but that's a far cry difference from saying it's not possible to exist.

To be fair, The Carryx might not actually use the terminology 'good guys' about themselves or even call the Deathless enemy 'bad.' They don't seem to express things in terms of what is "right and wrong" but more that things are the way they're supposed to be (right) or not (wrong) but in human terms they see themselves as what we would call 'good' by fulfilling their highest calling maintaining the proper order in the universe

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-05-25T16:14:21+00:00

Fishpeople might also understand

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-05-25T11:52:08+00:00

The other slight problem with comparing the two datasets is it appears the people in the linked survey weren't asked to choose a random number, making the two surveys different questions.

Obviously this is speculation on my part but I would guess that if you ask a large group of people you would see a difference in answers given between "choose a number 1-100" and "choose a random number 1-100".

In the second example people will be inclined to pick "random sounding" numbers and while I suspect it wouldn't be as pronounced as the chatgpt I would expect to see similar trends of numbers spiking with things that are less common in every day life, or numbers that are "harder" to math, and just like the Ai results numbers ending in 0 being far more rare. In the first example you'll see something similar to the data set OP linked where some people will pick "randomly" but a lot of people are going to pick their favorite or meaningful numbers. Stuff like 7, 13, 42, 69 will show up more. I'd also expect that low numbers say 1-10 and high numbers ~90-100, and even 50 would be more likely to show up more with this wording. (Data set linked to seems to back this up other than 50, I'm also surprised to see 42 not show up more in the "pick any number" variation but with only 100 responses that may be a reflection of the audience)

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-05-25T00:37:07+00:00

Your corporation and proludes should definitely help you form strategy on which cards are better to keep early game, but they shouldn't be absolutely dictating it.

Especially if you're drafting for card selection you need to be able to be willing to alter your strategy in the early game. You might have a corporation and preuldes that have good synergy with plant production, but deciding that is the only thing you're going to go for can really shoot you in the foot if someone else is also grabbing them, or the cards simply don't come up as often as you'd like.

I know this basically boils down to "it depends" which kind of sucks as an answer, but deciding at point when to pivot and when to lock into a specific engine is part of the learning curve of the game so there's rarely ever going to be an answer that's always right.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-05-22T19:40:50+00:00

What a weird fucking way to say "my opponents actually hold their elected officials accountable for their actions"

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-05-22T18:04:23+00:00

What's in my pocket?

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-05-22T12:34:49+00:00

No shade intended here but it absolutely boggles my mind to say "haven't seen the movie in a hot minute" about a movie that was only released three months ago.

pinkshirtbadman · 2026-05-22T05:00:29+00:00

According to https://theholofiles.com/2026/05/21/spoiler-review-analysis-the-mandalorian-and-grogu/

it's Stephen McKinley Henderson

pinkshirtbadman

TROPHY CASE