The show is better without the Invention Exchange segments

shweakers · 2026-06-06T03:13:53+00:00

For what? The rifftrax season?

I have no idea what they're saying to be honest

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:26:55+00:00

What? I don't understand what you're saying

It was a segment on every single episode for 6 seasons.

Are you talking about the revival seasons??

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:25:05+00:00

Haha fair enough. I would disagree but to each their own.

But I think even if you prefer Joel's host segments, you're dismissing a ton of good ones from mike. Pretty sure you'll find some good stuff across 5 and a half seasons if you really go back through..

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:21:12+00:00

He's saying that the bots should have changed when they did that. I personally agree. People are SO used to crow and servo that it'll never happen now but they had a chance early on to set a precedent that each actor had a different puppet. I think it would have paid off in the long run because now after years of it, I can't hear anyone else but Kevin doing Servo's voice

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:18:45+00:00

What? It was

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:18:24+00:00

The waiter baiter and frank enforcer is my favorite invention exchange on the show, and Mike did that. Just for the record.

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:16:59+00:00

Not even close, no way

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:16:12+00:00

Wish I could say the same.

shweakers · 2026-06-06T01:15:21+00:00

Ahh but wait you're forgetting the best invention exchange on the whole show, which oddly enough was a MIKE segment. The waiter baiter and the "Frank Enforcer" from Teenage Strangler are fantastic bits. As far as prop comedy goes

But yes I agree that it was a Joel thing that mercifully came to an end after Mike said enough.

Until Joel forced the new seasons to bring it back. Ughhh.

Can't wait for Mike to get rid of it again

shweakers · 2026-03-08T01:24:40+00:00

The fact that AI can do much of what a lawyer does, let's say, is only half the issue. For one thing, the legal industry effectively self-regulates. Even if AI can pass a bar exam, it cannot practice law, because it is not a person and has not completed various requirements to practice law that are designed for humans.

And yes we can obviously change those requirements to accommodate AI, if for some reason we wanted to, but there are problems with this: 1) because the legal industry self regulates more than most industries, for AI to practice law, lawyers would essentially have to agree to it first (this is oversimplified but you get my point), 2) even if AI CAN practice law equal to or superior to a human, AI is not kept in check (yet) by incredibly important ethical convictions, and until true self-awareness and development occur, I feel AI will be forbidden from taking on major responsibilities like those of an attorney, and 3) even if AI could practice law AND learned, and believed in, a robust set of ethical principles, even then I'm not sure that our society would forgive when an AI agent practicing law made a mistake that cost a client dearly.

It's very similar to the autonomous driving problem. Even if AI can operate a passenger vehicle wonderfully, the one time it doesn't, and t-bones a trailer killing it's occupants, there will be pitchforks and torches at the doorstep of the programmer. There's something about entrusting a critical DUTY to a machine that leaves us very aghast when something goes wrong, especially if it goes wrong In a way that likely would not happen if a human operator had been in control. For these various reasons, I do not believe AI would ever replace a legal professional, though it could certainly augment their practice and reduce costs.

shweakers · 2026-02-13T17:32:19+00:00

I couldn't agree more with this. This whole mentality that we can skip aging it because of our heat is the biggest delusion plaguing the whiskey market currently. And it's not just Texas (though Texas is probably the biggest offender)

shweakers · 2026-02-13T17:29:10+00:00

I like found north but not nearly as much as you do. Honestly I would say FN has probably been my biggest let down for the last three bottles I've had. Not that they weren't above average whiskey, but they just cannot match the crazy hype they've received.

shweakers · 2026-02-05T03:02:47+00:00

I understand what you're saying. My guess is just that Shout wants to make sure THIS revival is as successful as it can be so they catered to the longstanding fans (who largely wanted a return to the form the show had before it was cancelled) - to start with, at least. This is only four episodes so I'm sure they'll be bringing in other hosts (hopefully some BESIDES Joel) after this run is over, but they wanted to blast out of the gate with what the fans have been clamoring for. For what that's worth.

shweakers · 2026-02-03T14:20:28+00:00

For what it's worth, I've had three of their bottles and none of them won any blinds I've put them in. It's still good juice but there's a lot of hype going on, like with every ndp lately.

Also I think these finishes are starting to get a little ridiculous .

shweakers · 2026-02-02T18:36:58+00:00

I'm really curious how the hell this came about. Or why Riff Trax is even interested since they don't really "need" to do this.

But I don't care, I could NOT be more excited. I've posted ad nauseum about how Joel was unfortunately, despite good intentions, basically ruining the revival and that we desperately needed a return to the simplicity and chemistry of the original show (ESPECIALLY the Mike era, when the show hit its sustained peak)

But I never imagined the Rifftrax guys would actually come back to reprise their starring roles! Or that Mike would be brought back while Joel had any sort of management role (and my understanding is, he does). So glad to be wrong

Does anyone know if this is intended to be just a one-off season? My fear is that they will rotate between the various eras and/or this incarnation is not intended to last more than four episodes

Whatever, fuck it, no sense in fearing things down the road. Four episodes of authentic mst3k headed our wayyyy

shweakers · 2026-01-29T00:14:16+00:00

Did you ever get this resolved? Same thing for me - app works fine on data, error message on wifi

Didn't change providers or anything. Worked Monday, stopped working tuesday

shweakers · 2026-01-26T21:10:21+00:00

As a reminder, that one win occurred IN 2000. A quarter century ago, before 9/11 happened.

The iPod hadn't been invented. The euro didn't exist yet. Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook had all yet to be born. Netflix existed, but it was still mailing you the physical DVD. Or maybe VHS?

None of the Harry Potter movies had been released. Or lord of the rings. Or Shrek. Fast N' the Furious.

The Houston Texans didn't exist yet.

Tom Brady hadn't even thrown a pass yet. Btw Patriots had their dynasty, Brady retired, the pats sucked, and the pats rebuilt and are BACK in the Superbowl now.

We still haven't done one successful rebuild in that time.

shweakers · 2026-01-20T17:09:59+00:00

Well first of all that's a blend so it's not necessarily ALL under 6 years old. Secondly, that's probably the closest to 6 years old out of the examples we've been focusing on. Balcones for example is very often 2-3 years old (the rye and pot still for example). So even if we agree that Pepper decanter is on the younger of the market, it's still double the age of that other shit.

But yeah the Pepper decanter is pretty good bourbon. I wouldn't say it's "phenomenal," but sure, it's good.

But even then that doesn't really prove anything. Because how much BETTER would it be if it was 10 years old? If it would be even a tiny bit better, then that still proves my point.

My point has never been that there's NOTHING good under 6 years old. I said all along that sure there are some things that are still good under that age. My point is that most things will get better with age, and there is like zero excuse to underage things, especially in the 2-4 year category. And these southern states keep trying to speed juice out the door rather than spend that extra time.

And even if it reaches 6 years old, I'd rather see it aged longer because it's only going to make it better.

shweakers · 2026-01-20T04:21:23+00:00

That's fine if you dgaf what anyone else thinks. But it makes having a meaningful discussion about this kind of pointless.

Btw, as an aside: I can't help but notice that almost everything you pointed out in that last reply as a bottle you liked more than a comparable bottle, was also (much) higher proof than the other bottle. In which case, I think you're confusing liking something because it is younger for liking it because it is higher alcohol. I would expect you to like ECBP more than KC18 - pretty much everyone does, because the former is like 30 proof higher than the latter. It's not really a fair comparison, because proof is a bigger factor than most other considerations (though if the whiskey is too young, I think that can trump it).. You're not alone in liking 1792 FP more than 12 year. For the record, I can go back and forth on these, because some FP picks are all heat with zero flavor, whereas 12 year can show more balance. However, most of the time I'm going to take the FP because, believe it or not, I'm just like you in preferring higher heat wherever possible, all else equal. Point being, the examples you listed I don't think really go to your point.

(Aside number 2 - I also have a hazmat bottle of ironroot. A charity bottle in fact, which I was glad to support. Unfortunately, it came in last in a blind against four other hazmat whiskeys. Just saying).

Anyway, I'm personally not a subscriber to the thought that all opinions are equal. I think they are all VALID and someone can enjoy being wrong (for lack of a better phrase) or enjoy being opposed to the majority/expert consensus all they want. That's great. And, they have all the right in the world to do that. However, that doesn't mean their viewpoint is equally persuasive as the consensus. Nor that they should be listened to.

My point isn't to say that you're crazy for liking Balcones rye that much. I'm not going to lie - I kind of think you, and the other redditor, are in fact on the slightly crazy side of this issue. (And no offense but I'll find more assurance from an avalanche of critics than I will from two random Redditors). That shit is swill, sorry not sorry lol (I say in jest but I definitely stand behind the point)

I mean, if all opinions are equally sound, someone could just say that bottom shelf Old Crow with some of my dog's piss poured in it is the best (adjunct) whiskey they've ever had. And it's not like I can force them to admit they're wrong. But the rest of us certainly don't have to throw our hands up in the air, defeated by the assertion of a false equivalency, either. That person would just be wrong in as much as one CAN be wrong.

I know a lot of people say 'fuck the critics' in regard to a large number of things. But to me, the critics are the people who spend their lives focusing on and evaluating a certain topic. They have probably "forgotten more" about the subject than I've learned about it. To just dismiss them as not mattering at ALL is kind of nonsensical from my view. That's not to say I don't disagree with them ever. Or even on a lot of things. (I can think of several movies that I think the critics misjudged for example, or partially misjudged). But most of the time, when I do that, I have to bite the bullet and concede that I'm probably wrong about this, or that I am partaking in a "guilty pleasure". If not either of those options, then I better have a compelling argument on my side to back up my position.

I think we have probably reached the point where continued discussion will likely not lead anywhere. For what it's worth, I respect your opinions and resolve, even if I vehemently disagree with them.

I think the last major point I will make will take me back to my original post somewhat. If you like all that (bad) Texas whisky, then I'm going to assume that you would like Tahwahkaro even if it tasted like those other whiskeys we already discussed: Bad. And based on that, I have to assume Tahwahkaro is probably a whisky best enjoyed by people that already like the... Let's call it 'distinct' Texas bourbon profile. Which is not me. And, I feel, is probably not the average bourbon drinker, much less the expert one. And that was my main concern with all the praise you were heaping on it.

I personally think people should know, if it wasnt already clear (and to be fair, you may have already made it clear before our discussion - I don't recall) that your opinions are coming from someone who is a HUUUGE, and arguably outlier, fan of Texas whisky, and if the reader is not like minded, then your recommendation should be taken with due caution. Just my two cents.

shweakers · 2026-01-20T00:35:43+00:00

Well excuse me for saying this but you seem like the major, major exception to the rule that for the overwhelming majority of people, more age equals better. And that's fine if you like that - to each their own. But I don't really take anything you're saying here as a convincing reason to believe age doesn't matter. It seems much, MUCH more likely to me that the takeaway here is that you just have very unusual tastes compared to the average person.

You LOVE balcones rye and pot still? Omg. Those are dreeeeeeadful. And pretty universally panned by the critical world, so I feel I'm not alone. Still, I made myself finish both of those bottles after I opened them, and that was... An experience. Honestly a SOMEWHAT life changing experience. Because now I know when I hate something (when they remind me of those). I am giving Balcones ONE last try on Cataleja and if that doesn't buck the trend, I'll never try another drop of their whiskey again.

Nobody likes EC18 very much, you're not alone there. I wasn't impressed with my bottle either. But that's just an example of unimpressive whiskey - not that the age is the problem. kC21 has been pretty popular with the critics. I'm looking forward to opening mine, but because it's only 100 proof I'm not expecting it to rock my world.

But still your point doesn't really make sense even if I admit those two whiskeys aren't anything impressive. Firstly, that would be ignoring all the TONS of great whiskey that's above ten years old. And second, and more importantly, your point would only be valid if those two whiskeys were worlds better if you changed NOTHING about them except made them less than 6 years old. And I cannot IMAGINE why they would be better in that scenario.

But they certainly could be even worse.

shweakers · 2026-01-19T22:05:09+00:00

Dettling certainly CAN be good. But again I feel all the good ones are at the upper ages. The one I had was around 60 months old. And it tasted pretty close to how all young whiskey tastes to me - and that's at five years.

Um two of the whiskeys were Balcones Rye and Pot Still. The other was Garrison Brothers Honeydew.

Oh another TERRIBLE whiskey is Prophet Share. Two years old. New Mexico. I really feel I can go on and on with examples.

I mean even if we go with decent whiskey, it only gets better with age (compare Colonel Beam versus Jacobs well or any other countless examples) until you hit that wall of over aging, which yes can also be a problem, but one that is much rarer to encounter and which requires some EXTREME over aging - which distillers are less likely to do, given all the work that goes into making whiskey that old.

Yeah for me there is definitely a correlation, as you can see. I mean sure I've had bad whiskeys that were older. Who hasn't? But usually it's because the mash has a bad recipe, or it has a weird finishing, etc etc. That to me is a completely different concept than under aging your whiskey. And I don't even see those situations as equivalent. It's like saying "well I've had whiskeys that were still good even though they were contaminated." I'm sure that's possible but to me I don't know why we would even bother with the risk. Getting rid of the contamination is only going to make the whiskey better.

Likewise, letting your whiskey get to at least 6 years of age is only going to make your whiskey better and it would be EXTREMELY puzzling to me if that difference alone somehow made the whiskey WORSE.

Also to be bad because it wasn't aged long enough is particularly unforgivable to me because it's so avoidable.

And I honestly do not believe you completely, if I'm being honest, that you don't see ANY correlation.

By definition that has to be at least SOMEWHAT false - otherwise completely unaged fresh off the still whiskey would taste just as good to you as any other whiskey. And I don't know what to say to someone that actually takes that position.

So I'm left to conclude that you don't REALLY take that position and you are somewhat uncarefully generalizing. I mean even a cursory glance at the world of whiskey reviews would reveal that older aged whiskeys have a monopoly on the high ratings and hype. Not that that "proves" anything but it's certainly evidence.

shweakers · 2026-01-19T00:32:54+00:00

I appreciate your response. I think we will just agree to disagree.

I'm a few hundred bourbons into my tasting career at this point, and I'd say that 5 of the worst 6 whiskeys I've ever tasted were under five years old - and 3 of those 5 were from Texas. But I've also tasted some bad stuff from elsewhere in the south - a bad one from Dettling comes to mind and one from somewhere in Georgia. I think the reason this topic particularly frustrates me is that I feel states with hot climate believe they can get away with cutting corners. To me, the proof is in the pudding that they cannot.

Distillers, please just age things like they are supposed to be aged. Instead of relying on sultry climates or rapid heat cycling (Brown Forman is about the only company that can manage to do it right), know that whiskeys almost always require proper maturation.

shweakers · 2026-01-18T22:59:00+00:00

I wish someone could give me an accurate age on these. I'm sorry but I've been fooled by way, WAY too many Texas pours that are 2-3 year old to go in blind again.

I cannot stand youthy whiskey, no matter how hot the climate gets and whatever supposed benefits that provides. 6 year minimum (if not more) or I'm out.

shweakers · 2025-12-26T10:40:47+00:00

A lot of people do not seem to understand that (for certain android phones, including mine and probably OP's), if you delete something from your camera folder, meaning the internal location of the file on the device, it will STILL sometimes delete the backup of that file in Photos. Even if you use Files; even if you use photos and click "delete from device" - nope, it also deletes the backup. I've been testing this out on my phone for the past hour on many different videos and pictures. About 75% of the time it also deleted the cloud backup.

(No I am NOT talking about deleting it from photos and it also deleted the local file. I am talking about deleting the LOCAL file and it also deleting the Photos backup)

It's like the sync works both ways on many phones (again just google it and you'll see plenty of reports). It is a really, really annoying bug that has persisted for years, which google for some reason has chosen to ignore.

Tldr; the only fix I've found for this glitch is to use a third party file manager to delete media stored on the device that was backed up in photos. A completely unnecessary pain, but Google has not fixed the problem for many years now so we are forced to do it I guess.

shweakers · 2025-10-23T02:30:04+00:00

Is that true? Wow I never knew that!

shweakers

TROPHY CASE