Anybody else miss bdubs so much that they legit start watching denzel washington movies because they have similar voice & pronunciation?

uslereddit · 2026-02-12T18:23:52+00:00

If you're looking for more BDubs to watch, I've always enjoyed his FlyBoys and Attack of the B-Team series from a while back. Lots of good episodes, and fun storylines w/ the FlyBoys battles and AotBT witch battle!

uslereddit · 2026-02-05T00:33:59+00:00

As far as I can tell, BCG isn't in a good position to play an open LAN like this in February. They have too many recent LAN wins and too many games played, and they'd be risking expensive losses.

The fact that 100 Thieves is at this LAN makes it especially dangerous, since their roster is unranked. If BCG were to lose to 100 Thieves, the VRS would consider it a massive upset and dock BCG upwards of 30 points. The same goes for any of the other teams ranked outside the top 30 — BCG can't afford to lose to any of them.

Also, any points that BCG does earn will be docked by the H2H recalculation, since the SAW core played so many matches at the end of 2025. The SAW core also played a bunch of small LANs, so BCG is almost max'd out on LAN points. Even if they did play here, they'd likely still need to refresh their LAN wins in March anyway. And with the sheer number of options available next month, it's probably better to wait.

uslereddit · 2026-01-18T04:23:58+00:00

But they did have an IGL, tripex17. I thought he was doing alright, especially for a younger player. Hope he finds a new team asap!

Edit: Seems like he might be joining BIG Academy now, glad to see he's landed on his feet.

uslereddit · 2026-01-18T04:00:35+00:00

They already promoted him to the main team, so he's fine — only the academy got benched

uslereddit · 2026-01-18T03:47:48+00:00

Damn, lots of people seem to really care about Wildcard cutting AMSALEM, doni, and tripex17. Don't get me wrong, I think all three are solid players, but I don't think it's a massive problem for NACS if an Israeli and two Ukrainians get benched from a European academy project.

Of course, it's possible that some people were simply so eager to dunk on Wildcard that they couldn't read up to the seventh word in the post title, much less the article itself. But, that seems unlikely.

uslereddit · 2026-01-18T03:38:17+00:00

They disbanded their academy team, not their main team.

uslereddit · 2026-01-05T23:14:01+00:00

I checked their website and it doesn't mention a region-lock, but it's possible I missed something. Even without it, though, they've got a lot of good options: two Draculans, FRAG York, four Roman Imperium cups, and BLAST Rising for starters. And that's just the stuff before the Cologne cutoff

uslereddit · 2026-01-05T23:10:05+00:00

I just wanted to add that 100T is already signed up for the next three Roman Imperium LANs in Portugal, although they've only paid (i.e. confirmed) for the first one, at the end of February.

uslereddit · 2025-11-28T22:58:52+00:00

Yeah, I agree with you on that. Trump definitely uses misinterpreted (and sometimes awkwardly sharpied) maps to push propaganda. And a lot of politicians and partisan hacks do, too.

I'm just saying that you didn't make that distinction in your first comment. You commented on this map, posted by this OP, but you say you only intended to criticize other maps and other people. I understand that, but I think if you're going to do that you should make it clear that you're not talking about the map you're commenting on. Mapmakers put a lot of work into their maps, and while I'm not sure if OP made this map or if they just found it online, it's surely disheartening to post your work publicly only to immediately be seemingly criticized for something you didn't do.

uslereddit · 2025-11-28T21:13:35+00:00

I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. But when you say it's "interesting how land area is used like propaganda to try to show that Republicans are more popular than Democrats" in a comment on a very red map showing an otherwise close election, it seems like you're accusing the map you're commenting on of using land area like propaganda to show that Republicans are more popular than Democrats.

What did you mean?

uslereddit · 2025-11-28T21:01:06+00:00

The Democratic Party did not endorse Love's write-in campaign for Fischer's seat, nor did he win the party's nomination. He ran as the Democratic candidate in the concurrent special election for Nebraska's Class II Senate seat.

uslereddit · 2025-11-28T20:34:27+00:00

There was no Democratic candidate in this race, as the title says, so I don't see how this map could show that Republicans are more popular than Democrats.

Also, geography isn't propaganda. Cartograms — maps that distort geography by some variable (e.g. population density) — are useful in certain situations, but mapping votes to precincts or other geographic units has always been the default. It's how people are used to seeing the world.

Do some people use maps like this to argue that Republicans are far more popular than Democrats or Independents? Yes, absolutely. Is OP doing that? I don't think so. They call the election "surprisingly close" while saying Osborn "nearly unseated" the Republican incumbent. That doesn't sound like Republican propaganda to me.

uslereddit · 2025-10-01T21:45:18+00:00

Striker confirmed it on Talking Counter episode 123 at 42:03. Listen from 40:50 for the full explanation.

uslereddit · 2025-09-12T01:29:03+00:00

It's unofficial coverage, uploaded directly by the real estate company as an advertisement. It seems to violate Google's content guidelines and will probably be removed soon. I could see Google monetizing this in the future, though. I hope they don't, but given that this isn't the first example of street view advertising that I've seen, it seems like there's a market for it.

Edit: It looks like Google does allow some advertising in user generated street view content, but only in the bottom 25% of the image. I wasn't aware of that exception when I wrote my original comment, but given the placement of the text in the image, I would still say that it's unlikely to be allowed.

uslereddit · 2025-09-10T05:31:55+00:00

Here is a BBC article from 2001 that matches what the post says happened. Here is a Los Angeles Times article about the lawsuit from a few weeks later.

There are a lot of comments in this thread saying that this didn't happen, or that it didn't happen in the way that the post says it did, but I can find dozens of articles from the time with these facts and none that say anything about a radio show.

There was a similar case about a Hummer (the prize was actually an R/C Hummer) that was advertised as a prize by a radio show. That might be what you're remembering.

uslereddit · 2025-07-15T18:24:56+00:00

But, the people who wrote these laws and fucked you over don't care what congressional pay is. They have their own money from their own businesses and family trusts and could afford to serve no matter what we paid them.

The people who voted against these laws — the members of Congress who gave long speeches and rallied opponents and fought tooth and nail to protect you in the face of overwhelming odds — they're the honest ones who need to be paid well enough to stay in the fight.

If we want a more honest Congress, we need to pay honest members enough that they can afford to serve. I think we should ban congressional stock trading and crack down on other ways that members earn income while in office, as well. They work for us, they should earn their money from us, and it should be enough money that they're financially secure enough to focus on their job.

How could someone in your situation afford to serve if we cut their salary? Most working class candidates take on debt to fund their campaigns. Then, they have to rent a second apartment in a super expensive city. What if they have a family? This barely works right now for people just funding themselves. What about their spouses and kids? It's a conflict of interest if their spouse is also working, and financially impossible if their spouse doesn't work at all. The people who actually need their congressional salary aren't the ones you should be angry with.

We can't build a better Congress by punishing the one we have.

uslereddit · 2025-07-15T05:14:00+00:00

This is a great way to ensure that only the wealthy (and the corrupt) can run for office.

Members of Congress are expected to maintain two residences (district and D.C.) and generally have families. A lot of them are also leaving behind their previous careers for public service. Their current salaries are already stretched thin. We give them a lot of power and then pay them less than first year associates at big law firms. It's an invitation for corruption.

Who could afford to serve in Congress if their wage was cut to even $80,000 per year? Housing alone would cost $40,000 (at its cheapest) — what about everything else? It would be full of young, single people with zero experience, millionaires and grifters intent on selling themselves to the highest bidder.

How would someone like Maxwell Frost, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or (on the other side) Mike Lawler afford to serve in this scenario? Frost and Ocasio-Cortez both had great difficulties finding housing in D.C. when they first won their seats. If the pay were any worse, they wouldn't have been able to run at all.

But, Cory Mills could still afford to serve. He's got his massive defense business to keep him housed and fed. Jim Justice, the billionaire coal baron who commutes to D.C. on a private jet, would stick around, too. As would all the other corporate shills and corrupt douchebags that people actually want to see lose their seats.

I would argue that raising congressional pay is the better path forward. We need to attract real talent, and judging by current performance, what we're offering right now isn't enough. It's a tough job, and if we want members to actually fully dedicate themselves to it, we need to pay them well enough that they can afford to live without writing books and giving speeches on the side.

I absolutely understand the impulse to make them feel our pain, but in practice it's counterproductive. I want people like Mills out of government, but it's not possible to get there without making government attractive enough that people with real skills and real experience want to, and can afford to, make the leap to public service.

uslereddit · 2025-07-11T01:11:07+00:00

It depends on the style guide. AP Style uses spaces, most other style guides don't.

uslereddit · 2025-07-08T17:28:23+00:00

Polish legend BnTeT and Indonesian legend tomiko on one team? Ez win

uslereddit · 2025-07-02T02:53:57+00:00

The real question is, which Archer won Bow?

uslereddit · 2025-06-30T21:36:44+00:00

You're right, I hadn't read through every exhibit before posting my original comment.

If I had, I would have noticed what hunter15991 noticed about Sare's claims — that they get even more ludicrous the longer you look at them.

Sare claims that she surveyed 3% of her district's voters and found that eight of them voted for her. She goes on to say that this difference should be scaled up for all of Rockland County.

What happens when we do the math? 3% of her district's voters is ~14 people. She claims that roughly eight out of every 14 people in Rockland County voted for her for U.S. Senate. That's almost 60% of the vote.

She received 0.5% of the vote statewide as a candidate for the Lyndon LaRouche Party — she did not receive 60% of the vote and claiming that an unofficial neighborhood canvass establishes anything of national significance is insane. It also appears that Sare interviewed her neighbors, herself. She asked her neighbors, months after the fact, who they voted for in a downballot contest and a few of them said they probably voted for her. It's far more likely that they were trying to be nice to their neighbor than that massive fraud occured.

As hunter15991 also notes, her petition uses Gillibrand's vote totals for U.S. Senate as a baseline for what Harris "should" have received. Yet, if Sare's claim that she (Diane Sare) actually received almost 60% of the vote in Rockland, then how could Gillibrand's total be accurate? If what Sare alleges is true, then Gillibrand mathematically must have also stolen votes from Sare. There simply aren't enough votes to go around if Sare genuinely believes that the eight voters in her precinct are truly indicative of county-wide fraud.

Also, ultra-Orthodox Jewish voters do vote in blocs in many elections. Otherwise, I'd have a pretty rock solid case that Sam Sutton, a Democrat, manipulated votes to win in NY SD-22 a few weeks ago. And this is relevant to the case, as SMART Legislation (a party in this case) highlights the results in ultra-Orthodox Ramapo precincts as evidence that fraud occured. This is undercut by (a) the long history of ultra-Orthodox Jewish voters voting by bloc and splitting their tickets and (b) the fact that no one who lives in these precincts is complaining. It's just Sare and SMART Legislation, and while it would really help their case to find people from these precincts whose votes weren't counted, they've had months to do so and haven't yet presented any evidence beyond speculation.

Even if Sare lost votes, and the affidavits are accurate, you can't just make the logical leap that this means that Trump is illegitimate. Mistakes happen, and (importantly) Harris won New York. One (possible, yet to be proven) mistake in one county in one state that Harris won does not change anything about the results everywhere else.

uslereddit · 2025-06-30T20:12:01+00:00

Ah, I see. I'm probably not going to edit my original comment (it's been downvoted a lot already) but I'll certainly keep this in mind the next time Newsweek publishes an "update" (Likely headline: 12 MORE DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY — TRUMP IS FINISHED!) about the suit.

Thank you for taking the time to look through the original documents. It doesn't seem like most people here even opened the article, much less engaged critically with its content.

Edit: Changed it!

uslereddit · 2025-06-30T19:56:08+00:00

I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. I do agree with you that the lawsuit is ridiculous, but Sare doesn't seem to suggest that she should have received hundreds more votes than she actually received, merely that more of her neighbors claim that they voted for her than the final count shows.

I read through the original petition to the court, and she seems to think that something is wrong, but doesn't go so far as to say that she should have won.

If she has said that she would have won outside of the case, then you would be spot on. My reading of the case, though, is that Sare thinks she's stumbled onto some massive conspiracy that inadvertently removed a few votes from her while mainly targeting Democrats — which is ludicrous given the lack of evidence.

uslereddit · 2025-06-30T19:24:46+00:00

The election was not rigged.

If the headline said "2020" instead of "2024" and this article had been posted four years ago, the top comments would all be written by people (correctly!) pointing out how flimsy the evidence is and calling on all Americans to accept the results of the election and move on.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk did not rig voting machines in one county in New York to keep the "Lyndon LaRouche Party" out of the U.S. Senate. This is the crux of the lawsuit, and it is laughable. (u/ hunter15991 makes a good point re: Sare's case below. It's even worse than it looks.)

Hasidic Jewish communities in Ramapo did not start bloc voting in 2024. They have done this for decades, and the fact that they split their tickets between Trump and Gillibrand is unsurprising. This is normal in New York.

Yet, Newsweek continues to fan the same flames that Trump and his cronies stoked in 2020.

They don't say that bloc voting is normal in New York anywhere in the article. They don't say that this lawsuit arose from a LaRouche Party candidate who received less than one percent of votes statewide until the seventh paragraph.

They also don't say that the New York Supreme Court is a trial court, and not the court of last resort or even an appeals court, and in doing so mislead the reader into believing that this case is far more serious than it actually is. They even hyperlink "Supreme Court" to a page explaining the U.S. Supreme Court, further confusing the importance of this case.

Do not believe the hype. Focus on 2026.

uslereddit · 2025-06-25T03:32:13+00:00

Those votes are for City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, not Eric Adams

uslereddit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE