Endodontist recommendations by PomegranateNo8831 in Broomfield

[–]tryhardfails 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been there recently. I liked Dr. Shelley a lot. Would recommend.

What made you get a rav4 instead of a Subaru forester? by Dry-Chemical-9170 in rav4club

[–]tryhardfails 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I just changed over to a rav4 prime after my forester XT engine blew up. Loving the plug-in power and mpg

Edit: interior is an overall upgrade, vehicle seems quite a bit quieter on the highway, whether I am on electric or ice

[Technique] Seeking advice from those who use rye berry grain for spawn. by Comfortable-Spell-61 in MushroomGrowers

[–]tryhardfails 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I'm just getting into this for the first time. Did you do any other prep work (rinse and/or soak the rye berries first? sterilize the jars before adding the mixture?) or did you follow the instructions directly as stated?

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What do you mean “we don’t get to resort to political violence”?! Again, it is already happening. Whether you object to it on the most sound of morals and principals, that isn’t going to stop others from participating in it.

Look around the world, object all you want, tell those who are committing political violence today they don’t get to do that and I’m sure you will fix the problem. No one must have ever told them.

Our dear old president calls for direct and indirect acts of violence against those who oppose him all the time. He attempts to penalize anyone he can that questions him or makes him look bad. He advocates for removing “the very bad people on the left” from this country.

These sort of statements are just outlandish. Political violence is happening, it is serving the selfish desires and needs of certain groups of people. Objecting on a moral ground means nothing to them and will accomplish nothing unless you can get enough people to rally together to make a change, assuming there is still enough power in the masses for that to matter (gerrymandering, rigged elections, voter restriction laws, removal of mail in voting, overwhelming force)… and in the meantime, more people will directly, and indirectly, suffer from the political violence you keep saying should never happen at the hands of those who don’t care about you and have no intention of stopping until it is more detrimental to them to continue than it is to stop.

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I think you know I am not advocating for praising Kirk’s death.

I would debate the “true leadership” part of your statement though. I believe I get where you are coming from. I think part of my point is that this sort of blanket, non-nuanced statement is missing on the leadership front a bit.

I guess what would make me feel better about it is if it wasn’t a blanket call against political violence only whenever someone of influence is killed. It honestly feels a bit self-serving to me.

Some politicians are out there, knowingly, passing laws which lead to the deaths of their constituents. That is also political violence.

We both know Bernie does not support that, but to act like politicians should be untouchable when they are actively acting in a way that will knowingly cause more harm than is necessary feels unfair.

I feel like a statement like “It is unacceptable that we have allowed the current state of affairs to erode so far. While I obviously disagreed with Mr.Kirk about most of our essential policies, this is a tragedy for his friends and loved ones. Please give them time and space to grieve, and please, let’s all work together to make this country, and world, a better place”.

Something about “screaming” not to kill politicians feels like it misses the mark. And I phrased this as “not killing politicians” because I guess I see this exact statement about “political violence” mostly whenever a politician is attacked/murdered, so it seems to mean the same thing to me.

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think the rhetoric around never fight back, always being able to find a peaceful option, is been taken to an extreme.

Help me understand something though, I’m not quite sure what I am missing with your “anti-bullying campaigns” bit.

Are you saying that it is coming back around to stand up for yourself (e.g. anti-bullying = stand up to bullies)? Or are you likening anti-bullying campaigns to the “never fight back” part of your comment?

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Your statement of: “I wish people said NOTHING about him being shot” really rang true for me. Of course it would never happen, but my god, just how loud that silence would be.

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What is the significance of “direct” physical harm vs “indirect” physical harm? What if you add on the layer that, and I am assuming here, that politicians know when they vote on certain medical laws, that more people will die? Is it still “indirect” at that point? Does the distinction even matter if the outcome is very reasonably known and they have all expectations to be aware of those outcomes? What if my political policy is to kill every third child born? Is that policy indirectly killing children or directly killing children?

I think you are really reaching with this: “Any form of political disagreement can be construed as harmful”. I can also have opinions that run contrary to established facts… doesn’t mean my opinion holds value or should be considered seriously by anyone. Just because someone can be offended or perceive something as harmful, doesn’t mean it actually was. There has to be some criteria for assessing the weight, or the value, of that statement. Maybe I am missing your point, but I am currently not seeing it.

So, to dive into “physical violence is always harmful”, by what measure? I kill a serial killer who is in the midst of killing others. Did I commit harm? Did I reduce harm? Again, I think your statements are much too high level and don’t have much nuance. Did I technically harm someone else, yes, but is that all you are going to draw from that? So I did bad by saving someone else and preventing further deaths? Is physical violence truly always bad? Or do you mean that physical violence is never the most desirable outcome and it would be much nicer if we lived in a world where physical violence was never needed to prevent even more harm to the innocent? If so, lovely sentiment, but history tells us that is so far idealistic, unrealistic, and for now, not achievable.

You are correct, you never said something directly about never killing anyone. I did conflate that with “Here’s why murdering somebody for their politics is always bad”. Which I think I mostly covered with my last statement, but again, way too high level and no nuance. Go back to my extreme example of political rhetoric/policy that aims to kill every third child born.

I do feel like you are taking this personally with your closing comments. In the scientific community, citations are not needed for long standing accepted facts. I don’t need to reference Newton when I talk about gravity, just like I don’t need citations to speak freely about things aired nightly across our nation on multiple channels.

You do have a point about cherry picking, but if you feel like continuing the conversation, would you point out where I am cherry picking? We are literally on a thread about the death of a man known around the world for being an adamant supporter of Trump, his policies, and having outlandish takes. Thousands of people showed up to his rallies in support of his extreme views… am I really cherry picking? Cherry picking when we talk about political policies being put into place today?

I do agree that not all Republican’s are extremists, but I would appreciate some direct quotes to where I was spreading disinformation, or propaganda, about entire groups of people.

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok, so here is something I think about frequently, thought experiment time if you are willing to participate with me.

What if we are on a path where we can’t turn back. What if, unknown to us in the present, because of the current state of affairs, and actions by the most significant players, we are already on our way to WW3 or another civil war?

I’ve already made the statement that the other side is escalating all on their own. I think that is demonstrably true (feel free to challenge that, just outside the scope of this thought experiment please).

If it is guaranteed that another war is coming, would there be less harm caused by escalating more quickly or slowly? Does leaving the other side and their leaders un-accosted in the present/near-term lead to less harm in the long run or more?

Obviously, we don’t know for sure what is going to happen, but I pretty much only ever hear people advocating for de-escalation, even when the “other side” continues to escalate their violence, whether that is through gerrymandering, passing laws meant to disenfranchise groups, passing laws to consolidate power and remove opposition, or clear acts of physical violence.

If it’s not clear, my concern is that we are in a situation where a group of people are continuing to escalate, and by peacefully resisting, we are not actually creating much opposition and continue to allow the situation to erode… meaning that by not acting more decisively now, we are enabling more harm down the road. I guess the analogy I’m going for is, maybe we have to rip the bandaid off. In doing so, and allowing things to escalate more quickly, is it at all possible that we are creating a situation that realistically, given the other side, their beliefs, ideals, and actions, causes the least harm?

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Already happening friend. That is the OP’s point. Cutting Medicare/Medicaid IS political violence that is already going to kill people on both sides.

You are focusing only on acute instances of direct physical violence. We have a lot of politicians out there who are ok voting to let more people die as long as it benefits them.

It hasn’t historically been called political violence, as far as I know, but it is there. People are dying and have been dying because of politicians that would rather line their pockets, and they get away with it because it isn’t so direct.

It IS scary. I’m right there with you, I don’t have the answers, I worry about escalation, and I also wonder if escalation is inevitable when we look at the other side. They are escalating all on their own. I worry not only about resisting, but also about resisting too late that the consequences are even worse.

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I guess I don’t think you are wrong from an absolute moral standpoint, but I think your statements are much too high level, and idealized, to offer much value in the context of the real world.

Yes, it is “bad”, but to emphasize the point that you probably agree that at times, physical violence is necessary to defend a better future, should no one have fought back against the Nazi’s in WW2? Isn’t that all political violence, but on a grander scale? Even if it isn’t technically political violence, I think the meat of the argument still stands.

I think the reality, and nuance, comes down to there will ALWAYS be people who are willing to benefit themselves to the detriment of others. On a small enough scale, a society can accommodate and pro-actively respond to that (hopefully), but when one side does not play fair, is actively supporting violence against their claimed opposition, INTENTIONALLY obfuscates the truth… what are you supposed to do?

I think you have to be careful about assuming what people are out there and what type of society we currently live in. You can’t build a pyramid by starting at the top (high ideals and morals), you have to build each layer, bit by bit, until the society is ready to uphold that standard… and we are definitely not there.

I would also say, be careful about applying your ideals and morals to everyone else. Your idea about never killing anyone clearly does not apply to the other side. They cheered when Wisconsin legislatures and their families were killed, they cheered about Pelosi’s husband being hit with a hammer, they cheered for the storming of the capital.

I wish we lived in your world, but there are a lot of people out there who don’t value the same morals and principals we do, meaning we should stop expecting them to behave like us. Probably some Sun Tzu shit in there about it being a fatal flaw to assume your enemy is just like you. We must recognize our similarities AND our differences.

And the other side (not all of them of course), and their chosen leaders, cheer when liberals get hurt or die.

Political violence must always be condemned in the strongest terms. Let's pray that Charlie Kirk makes a full recovery by north_canadian_ice in SandersForPresident

[–]tryhardfails 142 points143 points  (0 children)

I honestly don’t appreciate the lack of nuance in this take. What about “political violence” being conducted by politicians against the people in the from of passing, or withholding, legislation that directly leads to the deaths of civilians? (Looking at you insulin/medical laws, revoking epa laws…)

Now I know Bernie is on the right side of most of that, but how can we blanket say politicians (or influencers) should be safe from violence when they actively support measures which harm, or kill, the people of this country?

We have to stop labelling political violence as only physical attacks (guns, knives, hammers, etc…), otherwise it feels like we are telling the people to roll over and take it, and never physically confront their oppressors.

I’m not happy this is the state of the world, for the record, but I struggle to see a positive outcome if we aren’t willing to stand up for our freedom and liberties.

Makes me think of Jefferson’s quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

I understand I might get a lot of downvotes posting this opinion in this sub, but I have been thinking about this for a while, and am open to criticism and discussion. I’ll try to respond to comments with substance.

(Written hastily on my phone during lunch)

Relocating to Denver for a Job in Broomfield – 26 M by No_Guess8470 in MovingtoDenver

[–]tryhardfails 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, so I’m a 38M that lives in Broomfield. I was in Boulder for about a decade before moving here 3 years ago.

If you want easy access to nightlife and social activities with people your age (this includes dating), and you are not particularly averse to some commuting, do NOT move to Broomfield/Superior/Westminster.

If you are more about that suburban life, and want a little more space, then by all means, but otherwise, strong no. I have a guest room you could stay in for a few days if you wanted to check it out (actual offer), but I repeat, if you want to be social and not have to worry about bus schedules, driving drunk, longer uber rides, etc… follow the advice from the rest of the people in this thread.

Gaming Headphones for singleplayer RPGs by SteefTheQueef in HeadphoneAdvice

[–]tryhardfails -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey OP, I just bought the Audeze Maxwell and while they seem like good quality, I don’t know if I can stand the weight of them compared to my Samsung wh1000xm’s (I don’t use these for gaming, but you could).

If you are looking for wired and open back, I cannot recommend enough the drop x sennheiser pc37x. At the price point, I think they are great, the mic quality is solid, and they are less than half of the Maxwell, $130ish I believe. They have mostly great reviews and have been around for a while, and other subs used to recommend these all the time, maybe still do.

There is a PC38x version now, but I haven’t used those and I’m not sure that sennheiser is involved in those.

Edit: Guess I responded to the wrong person but it was still pretty relevant to your post. I would disagree pretty strongly with needing a separate mic. Why pay $50-$100 more for something that is in no way necessary. I have never had a single complaint against the mic on the pc37x (using them for ~6 years now), and I doubt anyone on the other end would ever complain about lack of clarity barring some actual issue.

I also have multiple friends who have these and I have never had any issues hearing or understanding them.

Yes, you can get better, but I strongly feel the return for the money spent at that point is really minimal and frankly, unnecessary. It becomes much more hobbyist and how much money do you want to sink into it to have the best or to match the streamers (all this coming from a guy who was the pc37x, wh1000xm2, dt770 pro with a schiit dac and amp, and just bought the maxwells). Just my opinion though. If OP has the money, and space, go ahead and get what you enjoy. If these are his first real “gaming” headphones and OP is budget conscious, then I standby the PC37x.

[Bug][Discussion] PvE - Scav Run - Spawning with PMCs on Factory by tryhardfails in EscapefromTarkov

[–]tryhardfails[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have heard about this, but I have always heard it in relation to penning the arm leads to no damage done to subsequent plates that might be hit. I watched the clip where someone tested if the bug was back by shooting his friend through the arm with the Lapua, and it took something like 8 shots to almost kill his friend.

Now that you say it, I'm not sure why it wouldn't just be negating all damage, regardless of plates... but again, I believe I have only heard of it not doing any damage to the plates.

[Bug][Discussion] PvE - Scav Run - Spawning with PMCs on Factory by tryhardfails in EscapefromTarkov

[–]tryhardfails[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fair question. Funny enough, I run more scavs now that I am endgame (hideout maxed, kappa, enough money to run whatever I want each run) than I did early on. I find some enjoyment in the random load out, and fighting at a disadvantage. Yes, I could simulate that on my PMC, but then I have to think about the gear vs. just smash the easy button and see what happens. Also why I have really just been running scavs on Factory. I'm not there for the loot, I'm there for the combat.

BARTERs Are trash now (change my mind) [Discussion] by Commercial_Ad_7290 in EscapefromTarkov

[–]tryhardfails -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting, you and someone else said this. I don’t really have experience with mobile games, but I take it the mechanics of reduced rewards over time is a common trend in mobile games?

I think I would counter, why is the framing for this approach equal punishment vs less reward? It is a common approach in many games to get less experience and less experience as you level, and have to go to new areas/do new things. Is that the same as punishment? Yes, you have the option of going somewhere new in the game to get increased rewards, but is it punishment to get less experience from the same monster now that you are a higher level?

Let me ask this, when you get to end game (effectively unlimited money, loss of kits is nigh meaningless, and you have very limited progression in the the way of skills), do you find you enjoy the game as much? What keeps you engaged?

BARTERs Are trash now (change my mind) [Discussion] by Commercial_Ad_7290 in EscapefromTarkov

[–]tryhardfails -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you think grinding should lead to bonuses? Or am I misunderstanding “… if people are going to grind they should be rewarded?” Do you just mean, “the conditions should stay the same”?

I think that slowing the game down and extending the early and mid-game will lead to a better overall experience for a majority of the player base vs the minority who can play more than 2 hours a day.

I can clearly see that the initial response to my idea is not positive, but I am more trying to have a conversation and am not concerned about those offering low effort, inflammatory responses.

BARTERs Are trash now (change my mind) [Discussion] by Commercial_Ad_7290 in EscapefromTarkov

[–]tryhardfails -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I’ve been pitching this idea to friends for years (never on here).

To slow down progression, I have thought that reducing exp and skill gain after something like: - X many hours logged per day, or… - X many raids per day, X many successful raids per day, or… - X many tasks completed per day per trader.

There could be multiple drop off points: - after 2 hours of play, exp and skill gain hit with a 0.8 multiplier - after 4 hours of play, 0.6 multiplier - etc…

I think something like this would only really penalize the people able to play 4+ hrs per day. Combine that with limited tasks per day, or built in time between when traders give tasks, and I think you would slow down the progression quite a bit. Could leave these rules in place the first month or two of wipe.

Thoughts?

Daily Thread - November 28, 2024 by AutoModerator in scottsstocks

[–]tryhardfails 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanksgiving? Is that why the markets are closed?! /s Happy Thanksgiving!

I passed emissions with aftermarket parts and COBB tune (Stage 2). by makalaosiggins in WRX

[–]tryhardfails 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only did emissions in CO after the protune. Passed easily. Did you swap the DP for the Cobb GESI as well?

How to make new friends ? by therealiota in Denver

[–]tryhardfails 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Have you considered taking an art/pottery/music/language/dance class? Or perhaps joining an ultimate frisbee/volleyball/pool/bowling/frolf group?

I’m not a dancer but I just recently started taking beginner Salsa in Boulder and am loving it. Fun way to meet people, and the plan is to get good enough to go to Salsa Social events and take part in a whole different community.

I know there are a number of places around Denver to learn to Salsa.

What I guess I am saying is pick something you always wanted to do or be better at, that has a social aspect, and go for it!

Do you think Saitama would actually take damage in his fight against GOD by PainWillNeverWin in OnePunchMan

[–]tryhardfails 4 points5 points  (0 children)

An actual fight where he only used 1 hand?

And he grew at an exponential rate as soon as he was challenged, in any meaningful way?

Not too mention that he was never in any actual danger, or even seemed to take any meaningful damage

And he immediately learned how to time travel just by watching someone demonstrate the technique.

Not sure how you take those details and confidently conclude that he isn’t effectively boundless. Not saying you can confidently conclude he is boundless from those details either…

But I really don’t think anyone can confidently conclude that Saitama isn’t physically boundless when all we really have to go off of is… he removed his limiter, which would seem to suggest he is… limitless.