u/dabnada

Same for uniting Korea, it was surprisingly rare even months after the dlc dropped

The espionage dlc adds some content to certain nations. The naval dlc also adds some stuff iirc, and no step back.

That being said, it’s well worth buying and playing without any dlc. If you go onto the owb discord (google it), the devs are pretty responsive and can probably answer your question with more specifics

Wokethesda slop. Fallout is a dead franchise anyway. The only good fallout game is Hoi4 OWB (unironically true btw /s) /s

Fury Road is a two hour long car chase maxe with blood, sweat, tears, fire, and lots of spray paint. It has amazing pacing, great acting, the plot is pretty basic but also creative and engaging.

The choreography, effects, sound design and music are out of this world

Imo it’s the greatest action film of all time

You’ve misunderstood OP

Calling Fallout 1 & 2 weak on stories is frankly absurd

The logistical depth of Fallout towns and settlements in most titles is pretty awful, so any deep investigation into how Fallout's towns might form is pretty moot. The Black Isle/Obsidian titles (1, 2 & New Vegas) are pretty in-depth when it comes to caravan routes, resource politics, etc, but Fallout 3, 4 and 76 are much less interested in this. Fallout 4 and 76 are by far the worst when it comes to realism in settlement logistics.

That being said, if there was to be a settlement that cared for Brahmin, here's how I might plan for it.

How did this town come to be: Most likely geography. Access to water, arable land, and natural defenses that make the settlement easier to protect. Or they're built on a busy route that they can import goods from. Maybe some ranching families banded together and set up shop on a road that gives them access to a chems or ammo manufacturer that needs animal product. Over time, they turn into a hamlet, then a small town as their value grows as a settlement.

Gathering Brahmin: You could buy them or breed them. Pretty simple. That being said, the safe transportation of that many Brahmin is a logistical nightmare in of itself. You either need manpower or machinery, and neither are necessarily cheap. You can't let them inbreed, you have to protect them against disease/predators/etc.

Caring for Brahmin: Not so simple. The more Brahmin you have, your need for water, feed, grazing space, infrastructure, security and other maintenance costs go up. You would need a massive, massive space for hundreds of Brahmin. You wouldn't have Brahmin pens in the middle of town, the actual settlement would probably be a small distance away from where the Brahmin are.

Also, that's a lot of poo. A lot of sanitation issues. That's a whole thing.

Economy: what they trade entirely depends on their environment. I image Brahmin milk and meat is a big part of it, but there's many, many ways to make money. They might not necessarily be making Jet or explosives like you can in-game unless they have the industrial capacity to do so.The NCR relies heavily on brahmin for a number of things, so their economic options are actually pretty diverse.

In terms what they trade for: everything they can't grow or make on their own. Farming equipment, vehicles, things that require precision machining or specialized tools. Medicine, weapons, etc as well. Hired mercenaries for defense, contracts with local militia (like paying Minutemen to do patrols around the road in exchange for housing, food, etc)

What outside threats?: again, this depends almost entirely on their environment. Predatory animals, crop-feeding bugs, raiders.

I don’t think so. It’s grammatically inconsistent, it cites a specific example that makes sense in context.

The thing is that besides the obvious flags like em dashes and “it’s not X, it’s Y”, AI writes like most people do. At the end of the day, there’s only really so many ways to explain a concept, and people will fall into familiar patterns of speech.

I read a lot of written content, and after a while, you start to “see” AI writing everywhere. You could probably point something out in this very comment that you could say was written by AI.

TLDR: we’re already cooked

A part of it is definitely in how they made the film. George Miller and others have talked about how insanely difficult the first movie was to film, never mind get off the ground. Not only was it stuck in development hell for actual decades, shooting it was a logistical nightmare for many, many reasons, including having to move the entire shoot to Africa (I think) because rain had made the Australian desert too pretty to shoot in.

Then you have stunts involving hundreds of people on camera, and hundreds more behind the camera, with pyrotechnics, vehicles, acrobatics, etc.

Idk who said it, might have been George Miller or his wife, but they basically said in an interview that they were never going to do something like that again.

Which is probably why, IMO, Furiosa just falls flat in terms of its wow factor. It’s a solid movie, and it actually feels closer to the original trilogy in terms of direction and storytelling devices, but Fury Road set the bar way too high.

TLDR George Miller + everyone else involved with Fury Road literally suffered from success

I think a part of that is also Max’s advantage over nearly all of his teammates. With the exception of Ricciardo (also considering MV was quite fresh during his time w DR), Max has pretty handily demolished every one of his teammates in performance. Hadjar is the closest to matching his performance out the likes of Gasly, Albon, Lawson, Tsunoda, and Perez.

Hamilton could compete in his rookie years, but Alonso had the upper hand in raw performance. Hamilton also lost outright to Button over the course of a season when they were teammates. Then of course you have his post-21 Mercedes slump, when Russell was giving him a hard time and at times, also outperforming him.

Anchorman 2 is pretty fun imo

But this is like, the most common take on the show

It depends from director to director and artist to artist. I actually don’t remember what Hans Zimmer does or has done in the past, but I can tell you a little bit about another very prominent artist who did the soundtrack to a Joseph Kosinski film: Daft Punk.

They were hired before the script to Tron legacy was even finished, and iirc most of the tracks were being written before shooting started. So the scenes were influenced by the music in this case. Kosinski used their demos to help film and edit scenes.

There have been multiple crossovers across the different generations of superhero comics.

Jokes and silly humor should be complementary to the story, not one of its core themes

I have to agree. The best parts of fallout is the grounded worldbuilding. The show made a lot of ground level characters into caricatures. Practically all of them, tbh. People do things and go places because it’s funny or plot-convenient, not because of any real pressure put upon them by the story.

Typically you wouldn’t shoot depending on your preferred arm, but your preferred eye, right

Disclaimer. Not a specialist on ancient and classical times.

We should first name a time and place, even if the answer doesn’t strictly require one to do so. Classical Greece generally refers to a period of time spanning about a hundred years, namely those between the 5th and 4th centuries (~500-400 BC), though the spread of Hellenistic ideas continued for centuries afterward. We’ll choose 450 BCE, since it’s comfortably in the middle of that period of time.

It’s important to note that there wasn’t one Greek culture. Simply put, Hellenistic influence spread over different regions in different proportions. So let’s choose Athens.

Tribas is a word used to describe someone engaging in lesbian sexual activity, particularly one where one woman played the part of the “active” (and therefore masculine) role in the relationship.

But wait, there’s a problem. The term “Tribas” isn’t used in any texts about lesbian sexual relationships from Athens, at least from that time period (partially because Tribas itself was probably coined hundreds of years later than 450 BCE). I’m not certain there are any surviving documents or artifacts referring to sex between women in Athens from any time period. So it’s really, really hard to say for certain how they perceived sexual activity between women. But even the codification of the term Tribas could be seen as evidence that even if “lesbian sex”, or even the word lesbian, lacked an accurate translation, homoeroticism between women was recognized to some degree.

But let’s continue. Sappho was a relatively contemporary poet from Lesbos, a literal Lesbian, whose surviving works are mostly comprised of poems about erotic or romantic desire toward women.

In Plato’s Symposium, which comes after 450, Aristophanes speaks about how humans were partially categorized as beings that had two counterparts. These pairs being “male male”, “female female”, and “male female”, to simplify things. These beings were split in half by the gods, and each half longs to be reunited with their counterpart. Which is a sign that the idea of same sex desire, not only between men but also women, was being promoted as a universal reality around that time.

All this to say, though the *term* lesbian sex isn’t necessarily a thing, sexual desire and activity between women was probably acknowledged and accepted (using the word accepted very loosely here) by a non-insignificant portion of Hellenistic cultures.

So how does this translate to your scenario? Frankly speaking, I think the scenario plays out in Athens much closer to what would happen today in an American suburban neighborhood than you might think. Whatever you want to call it, a stranger is in bed with your spouse. I think most people would be confused, shocked, and angry. As to what they would call it, there isn’t really a great translation for “my wife was having sex with a woman” in Ancient Greek. It would probably be closer to something like “my wife desires another woman”, or something similar.

Does Wots uh the Deal count?

Yeah, but he leaves out one crucial detail

The closer term would be mise-en-scene, but it wasn’t exactly what I meant

Without America, everything that happens in Europe becomes an entirely new conflict. I understand your question, but it's framed in such a way that doesn't fully define who in your question is defeating Hitler. The Soviets might defeat Nazi Germany, but it wouldn't exactly be a victory for the Allied nations. So the answer to your question would be "no" with a giant caveat. On the other hand, it's not impossible for the Germans to win in this fictional scenario, so the answer could also be "yes, the Americans were necessary to defeat Hitler/Nazi Germany".

There are simply too many "what ifs" in any scenario that doesn't involve America, it's almost impossible to try and argue one way or another. But what I can say with some confidence is that America's declaration of war essentially turned the Allies' question of "can we win?" to "how long will it take for us to win?". The advantages of industry the USA had over Germany was almost laughable.

It’s not cope. Ironically, you’re the one here closer to coping. While these strikes demonstrate Ukraine’s ability to reach into Russian land, you have to look at the actual consequences in numbers, and the operational damage from these kinds of attacks does vary wildly depending on what was struck. Otherwise, you risk being unaware of who holds strategic momentum in the conflict.

Nowadays, I would say academic arrogance comes through in a different way than it may have done a hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago.

The simple and short answer here is that the institutions driving academic achievement have changed, or at least, those motivations have changed. Appealing to grants and foundations makes academia a competition market, and there’s a few studies floating around about how academic language today caters to specific criteria. The method of achieving academic “fame” has changed, so the medium has changed.

The simpler answer is that I find it hard to believe humans have become less arrogant as a people, simply because over the thousands of years of documented history, the more people change, the more they stay the same. Even today, you can find examples of people existing in astoundingly different living conditions and situations, with rich histories and traditions so far removed from one another that they may as well not have been on the same planet, and realize that at the core, people have the same feelings about this or that.

Edit:

As to your last point, I was using anthropology as an example because it’s something that I’m familiar with.

I don’t really read modern philosophy, I’m actually completely unaware of what’s going on in that field. And though I’m a fan of scientific articles and global supply chain logistics, I’ve never dug up economics journals or their contemporary equivalents from previous centuries.

That being said, I recall an anecdote in which a prominent figurehead of scientific academia in the 19th century claimed that all laws of physics had been discovered, or something along those lines. Which is strange, because aerodynamics was definitely a known unknown at the time. Just one example, unfortunately. I’ve got to leave very soon and don’t have the time to do research and come back. But I would wager that if you did some quick google searches on your own, you’ll find something not dissimilar to what I said.

Edit 2: I should have clarified in my original response that I would be speaking specifically on one generic field. But everything else is still true (to me)

I’m willing to safely say no, but in the spirit of today’s academia, sort of, not really, but maybe!

The shift you’re pointing out is definitely a real phenomenon, and it really didn’t become popular in academia until the 20th century. I personally tend to categorize a lot of academic papers from pre-colonial to post-colonial history, but this is honestly a flawed model that really shouldn’t serve as anything but an example (which I’m about to use it as).

Consider European scientific literature on natives, in this case we’ll go with the British and their exploration/exploitation of Aboriginal peoples and their cultures. There’s quite a lot of “artistic” interpretation and examination of Aboriginal practices and traditions, but this cultural examination is performed through the perspective of a self-described superior in all things social or scientific. So you might perceive that many contemporary scholars took on this perspective of drawing from universal “truths” that in reality, were the product of their times.

And though I’m sure this perspective was critiqued by many throughout the early modern to modern period of history, such critique really wasn’t popularized (I’d say) until the 1960s, when those like Thomas Kuhn argued that the influence of social institutions from colonial/postcolonial eras inspired scientific truths that ignored the limitations of applying universal theories to all peoples around the world.

You could say that anthropology as a science, though practiced in name throughout pretty much all of written history, didn’t really take an honest look at itself (sorry moderators if this metaphor is too vague) until the 1970s/80s, and books like the Poetics of Politics of Ethnography point out that colonial and postcolonial ethnographic writing are probably a terrible way to try and understand minority (for lack of a better word) cultures, or rather, peoples that were historically under academic investigation. I’ve never actually finished the book, but this is a title I pulled from uni notes, so I probably hold the authority to speak on its contents.

Which ironically, is exactly the kind of attitude that contemporary scholars documented foreigners, most notably natives of geographies previously unknown to them. Just like I’ve been writing this entire response within the conventions of the subreddit, anthropologists of the 19th and 20th century had the liberty of a near artistic expression in their work, as well as the idea that experiencing a new kind of culture gives one the moral authority to critique and preserve in a form of their own.