Of all the fouls you could call...
136 karma · joined July 18, 2020
What choice would you have made in 1787?
-Washington Post
And if they got a breakout offensive, the allies would have produced another million tanks. In civ terms, the game was over before Poland, if you want to find out why the allies won you have to figure out why the US had all those good production cities cranking out tech and troops when the Germans didn't even have a decent tile with oil.
That's real life though. WW2 wasn't decided by who was the best strategist. The allies produced 4 million tanks, the axis 700,000. Game over man.
And there was a hell of a lot more than one unit per tile on the coast of Normandy in June of 44.
That's why diplomacy is so important in civ 4. Manage that right and you don't need to build the 20 musketeer stack, you can leave most of your cities completely undefended. Your neighbor builds the stack and you bribe him to go attack someone else.
I don't micromanage everything unless I'm trying to hit a record early date, usually I'm paying to attention to one aspect of the game at a time, trying out different strategies.
And you can always just play the openings, usually everything is pretty much decided in the first 50 turns and after that it is just a matter of how much sleep you want to lose playing out the inevitable.
Those were called "squats" when I was young, that's where I ended up at 19. Although I wasn't trying to escape my parents at that point, I was planning on leeching off of them. I ran away for the first time when I was 14, by the time I was 19 free food and rent in the suburbs sounded pretty nice. My parents weren't having it.
"The share of 18- to 29-year-olds living with their parents has become a majority since U.S. coronavirus cases began spreading early this year, surpassing the previous peak during the Great Depression era.
In July, 52% of young adults resided with one or both of their parents, up from 47% in February"
-- Pew Research, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-...
Nope.
Same as McSweeney's, I used to read it and I thought it was funny and now I read it and it comes across as self-pity.
Give me decorative gourd season any time, but pieces where people complain about the things they haven't done aren't worth my time.
Something new, please.
What the technical side of the operation wants to say is "We're making short term decision that are going to hurt us in the long term", and what the business side of the operation hears is "This is free money".
Here's something from 538:
"A 2018 study conducted by Loungani and others looked at 153 recessions in 63 countries between 1992 and 2014 and found that the vast majority were missed by economists in both the public and private sector. This was painfully true in the case of the global financial crisis in 2008, which wasn’t officially declared a recession until it had been going for almost a year."
Economists apparently can't predict the future. And they don't seem to be able to "predict" the present, or the recent past.
So I guess in your analogy, it would be something like, "We were driving at night with an economist in the country, and they said, 'There are no boulders ahead that I can see'", and then you hit a boulder, car was totalled, you were severely injured, spent months in recovery, and then 9 months later the economist gets back to you with, "Recent data confirms that we did, indeed, hit a boulder."
I think your argument is an argument from authority. If you can't "predict" the past, you are not an authority.
Whatever your politics are, you can't begin to understand crime and policing in the US until you internalize those numbers.
In your first link, he is asked, "We hear the term “toxic masculinity” a lot these days. As someone who writes a lot about manhood, what does it mean to you?". He answers, "Oh boy, I’m not sure if I really believe in it".
Sounds to me like he doesn't believe in the term toxic masculinity.
In your Huffington Post link, the interviewer claims "It’s a book about consumerism, and an expressive, violent response to the cold fact of it. It’s also a book about toxic masculinity, even if its author never deigns to expressly critique or uphold controlled violence". I don't know why we would consider the interviewer the authority on the text in question here. Here is Palahniuk's take in the same interview:
Q: Would you say Fight Club is more of a critique of violent masculinity, a celebration of it, or both?
A: Boy. I wouldn’t say it’s a critique. I think that because it’s consensual, it’s OK. It’s a mutually agreed-upon thing which people can discover their ability to sustain violence or survive violence as well as their ability to inflict it. So, in a way, it’s kind of a mutually agreed-upon therapy. I don’t see it as condoning violence ― because in the story it is consensual ― or as ridiculing it, because in this case it does have a use.
Thanks for the HuffPo link though, here is another quote where he gives what he thinks the message of Fight Club is that seems to be in agreement with the other ones I read, "The central message of Fight Club was always about the empowerment of the individual through small, escalating challenges". It also has this quote about killing the father, "In a way, it’s like everyone rebelling against dad, and discovering their own power by killing the father, as the Buddhists would say". I've seen interpretations of Fight Club as a Buddhist allegory (https://web.archive.org/web/20090423020258/http://www.unomah...), interesting to hear him bring that up.
And maybe that was the artist's intent all along. From the title I doubt it but I read that originally the filmmaker wanted it released without any title.
Chuck Palahniuk, the author of the book the movie is based on would disagree with you. For one, he has said he doesn't believe in the term toxic masculinity. He has said that Fight Club is "about empowering the individual and allowing the individual to make what they see as the best choice" and "about the terror that you were going to live or die without understanding anything important about yourself".
He has also remarked about how few cultural narratives there are for young men today, "I feel a little frustrated that our culture hasn’t given these men a wider selection of narratives to choose from. Really, the only narratives they go to are The Matrix and Fight Club".
As for the snowflake term being co-opted, he says, "once that material passes on to an audience, the audience adopts it. It will become the child of the audience and will serve whatever purpose the audience has for it. It would be insane to think that the author could control every iteration or every interpretation of their work."
For me, Fight Club was a very nihilistic (Chuck Palahniuk admits to being somewhat of a nihilist) and also very hopeful book (and movie), which is a tough combination to pull off.
Those are the known knowns. There are also the known unknowns, the aliases from intercepted messages who were never matched to identities, and the unknown unknowns, the ones we haven't found out about. One of the spies on the Wikipedia list only had their identity revealed last year.
Me too. The way I look at it, if I'm going to live off 4% of my assets a year in retirement, I need an extra $1500 to fund a $5 a month recurring charge.
So it's a matter of looking at how long it would take to save that $1500 and asking if I would commit to working that much longer before I retire in order to afford the recurring payment.
If "that much longer" is measured in days/weeks/months instead of minutes or hours, the answer is almost certainly going to be no.