Thank you! Yes, I'm loving the game :) here's hoping they remake the second one now
Should we shift to using quarters (or trimesters) instead of seasons to describe time ranges more region-inclusively when it doesn't relate to weather?
When a person online, or even a news website, says that something is happening in "winter" for example, there's no way to know whether this means (roughly) Q1 or Q3, since the same seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere. You can assume the common convention of using the American or Northern Hemisphere system, but there's always some doubt because people in the Southern Hemisphere typically also use the seasons that relate to their own region even when discussing things on a global platform.
Not to mention there are probably people who may not even know what that terminology refers to if they're in a location that doesn't use the same seasonal weather system, forcing them to learn and use a system that doesn't apply to their country and is only relevant to a different part of the world.
It's often said that on the internet, everyone assumes you're a man. I think it's also true that everyone assumes you're American or at least from the Northern Hemisphere... Which is fine for
Apparently quite a few people know but I felt like everyone was missing something based on these dialogues/scenes. But what you said made more sense. https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/1j4a2aq/as_of_ddba_s1e2_heres_everyone_who_knows_matt/
Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?
In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.
In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?
Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?
In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.
In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?
Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?
In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.
In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?
Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?
In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.
In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?
Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?
In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.
In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?
Does the.....
- Does the world know that Matt Murdock is Daredevil?
In the first episode when Cherry sees him without a mask and he drops it off the rooftop, did everyone find out his identity - if not I'm not sure how he got out of that situation without being recognised by others.
In episode 3, a reporter says "Mr. Murdock, how do you respond to Mayor Fisk calling YOU and all vigilantes cop killers?" - Is he implying here that Mr. Murdock is a vigilante? Otherwise why would he lump him in with all vigilantes and suggest that he would be considered a cop killer like them?
Reminds me of how people saw Okja as a simple adventure movie and tried really hard to ignore the message it was conveying about animal rights (the creators even went vegan for the movie but we're not ready for that convo...)
That's weird, in She Hulk series, Wong is living in a kind of monastery on a mountain and watching The Sopranos there and dancing to the theme song (Woke Up This Morning) supposedly believed by many to be sung by Leonard Cohen. It does kind of sound like his voice.
Did Leonard Cohen ever cover the song Woke Up This Morning (Got Myself A Gun)?
Help me settle a debate - is this a Mandela effect? So many people believe Leonard Cohen either wrote the song (he didn't, it was Alabama 3) or that he covered a version of the song. Many online sites report that he sang the song for the version used as the theme song of The Sopranos, Google Gemini says he did, but ChatGPT says he didn't. There are Youtube videos titled Leonard Cohen - Woke Up This Morning with a picture of him and there are ongoing debates in the comments about whether he ever sang it or not. What is going on here?? Why can't we get accurate information about this?
Well I'm in full speculation mode. Apparently GOG is still saying they'll ship the physical game in Q2, and the digital release is still officially slated for Q1. But Limited Run Games also said the physical copy would ship in December of last year before it got delayed, so it doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm just wondering if it's likely it could get delayed again. There was also an interview with the creators of the game where they didn't really say anything about when it was releasing except explained the reasons for the delay.
If they're on track to release digitally in Q1, the last opportunity for that to happen is now this month (March). Is it really feasible that it could drop this month considering they haven't announced a specific release date yet (aside from the Q1 window they gave near the end of last year)? Surely they would first make a more accurate release date announcement, and then want there to be some time (some amount of notice given in advance) before it actually releases? Is less than 1 month even enough time between announcement & release for a game like this? If so what's the least time we can expect they would realistically leave it before announcing, 1 week before release? Seems like if it's going to meet the predicted window (which after they already delayed it past the previous one they may be disincentivised from missing again, also considering some reviewers have already played the game) wouldn't the date have to be announced any day now as per usual game release protocol?
Is Croc coming this month? They said Q1 2025 but no new info. What are the chances it'll be delayed again?
Waiting . . . Tick tock, Croc goes the clock 🕑🐊
I heard you can get a good deal on plots of land on the Moon and Mars at the moment.
That's never happened to me yet. But I would hope we just have to start the level again from the beginning (without checkpoints) and we lose the progress we made on it for that attempt, á la Crash Bandicoot. I doubt they would make you start the whole game again like the original Kao the Kangaroo (if you don't manually save), that would be brutal.
How to earn lives in Pac Man World Re Pac?
Only found this online but it's for the original PS1 version: "Pac-Man can gain extra lives by collecting gold 1UP Pac-Man items, by earning them in the slot machine at the end of every level or for every 10,000 points scored at the results screen."
But I don't know what these gold 1UP Pac-Man items look like or how to recognise them, couldn't find a pic or any more information on it. Does it mean the gold coins you collect during a level? I thought those were for using in the slot machine.
Also does it mean you can only get lives at the end of the level or is there a way to get lives during the progression of a level as well?
And what does it mean the results screen, can we earn lives by getting 10,000 points while playing a level or only after finishing it?
Wikipedia says this: "He can find small fractions of health to replenish it in levels, as well as extra lives."
I was wondering if we can get new lives by collecting more fractions of health once we already have full health,
In your examples, I would definitely think we shouldn't use differential/non-equivalent language between different groups of people/members of society, including races or genders. So that includes not saying "white man" and "man who's a black" -> I would think this should probably be "white man" and "black man" or "man who's white" and "man who's black". I think being consistent with our language used to refer to people is important to not promote or uphold discrimination. There could be other problems even if it's consistent, I'm not denying that, but I think lack of consistency of treatment (linguistic or otherwise) is a key issue. I believe in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity to a degree, that language shapes/influences how we view the world & informs a lot of actions & behaviors in society. So linguistic discrimination is a real thing that can lead to or perpetuate more overt (physical/social) forms of discrimination. For the same reason, it should be consistent between genders (and as a side note, I don't view male and female to be strictly biological terms to refer to biological sex, but rather that they can be used for gender identity too, as in MtF / FtM [male to female or female to male], which other sociology institutions seem to agree with as well, in case you thought I was being a "sex absolutist" or transphobic).
The case of using "male and female" for rats in an experiment is interesting because to me it represents a double standard where we are okay with using those more kind of basic fundamental terms for non-human animals, even if we're not okay with using them for humans (and it's not like we have terms like men and women for other animals, so it's somewhat understandable in working within the language). But it also shows that if we only reserve those terms for other animals, it can uphold harmful differential treatment of them (such as conducting experiments/testing on them that they can't consent to–and wouldn't since they're typically cruel in ways we would never do to humans–which could be seen as exploitation/taking advantage of sentient beings), as tied to a belief that humans are superior and are not animals, which is used to rationalize these actions & arguably discrimination (speciesism) of another kind. That's partly why I question if it's really valid for us to be opposed to using terms like male and female for humans, or if it reveals something deeper about how we think of ourselves in relation to other animals- as well as just curiosity about if there is really a problem there, and what/why that might be.
I was talking about the people complaining about female characters in media lol. Those people are usually males who are often not (chronologically) mature, making it strange to call them men. I guess some of the characters might not be men either. But yeah we could say male characters rather than e.g. "7 characters: 5 males, 2 females" etc. But it could get a little clunky. Also I'm just not sure what the problem with it is, since saying "males and females" has always been acceptable to me and a basic component of language until patterns of differential linguistic treatment were observed between genders: "men and females" etc, which I understand could be offensive on a gender basis and agree can promote sexist attitudes. I already thought it should either be "women and men" or "females and males", using the equivalent terms in the same context consistently (though somewhat interchangeably), but for there to be an inherent issue with using "males" and "females" even when we apply them equally seems like a separate objection that was new and unexpected for me. I'm curious to find out why that is that some people don't like those terms in general, and I think maybe we should question it, because I have a feeling it could be tied to feelings of human entitlement and the problematic (imo) belief that humans aren't animals, as used to justify speciesism. But I could be wrong.
For everyone reading who still isn't in 2025
Yeah I'm aware of the problems with saying "men and females" but I thought the issue was more about a double standard of using different terms for different genders... If we say "males and females" and use the equivalent terms for both, is there a problem with this? Because it's not treating them differently so I don't really understand
Why do males complain about female-led stories or too many female characters when the majority are still dominated by males?
One Woman in the Justice League
Just one woman, maybe two, in a team or group of men.
Also watch Jimmy Kimmel's "Muscle Man' superhero skit - "I'm the girly one"
The Avengers:
In Marvel Comics:
"Labeled "Earth's Mightiest Heroes," the original Avengers consisted of Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hulk, Thor and the Wasp. Captain America was discovered trapped in ice in The Avengers issue #4, and joined the group after they revived him."
5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.
Modern films (MCU):
The original 6 Avengers were Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, and Black Widow.
Again, 5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.
Justice League
In DC comics:
"The Justice League originally consisted of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman"
6 / 7 original members are male. Only one is female.
In modern films (DCEU):
The members were/are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg. (+ introdu
My school and high school never had us read any non-fiction books (only fiction)? Do you agree this is a problem and if so why or why not?
Plus it would be cool if you could recommend some particular essential non-fiction books that should be taught in schools, or that people should read if they didn't read them in school.
Do we need to create increasingly more children for a stable economy?
So in the whole anti-natalism/pro-natalism conversation (which I'm mostly agnostic/undecided on, currently), my friend who is a pro-natalist, argued that the success/stability of our world economy is dependent on procreating more children each year than the previous year, so that we not only replace the numbers of the people who existed from the previous generation (and some, to account for the statistical likelihood that many won't have children or will be sterile or die young etc), but also ensure that the population keeps growing in order to produce more and more human labor to "pay back the debts" of previous generations, because all money is borrowed from somewhere else... this is all very murky to me and I wish someone could explain it better.
She is also of the view that this will inevitably lead to population collapse/societal/civilisation collapse because we live on a finite Earth with finite resources that can't keep sustaining more humans & human consumption (and are nearin
Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?
Of course AI isn't sentient/conscious, but it exhibits traits of high intelligence, even personality, and behaviours consistent with sentience, even if it's merely simulated.
The answer ChatGPT gave me:
Referring to AI as "it" is the most common practice since AI, as a technological entity, doesn't possess inherent human-like qualities. However, as AI advances and becomes more integrated into daily life, some individuals prefer using "they" to acknowledge the complexity and multifaceted nature of AI systems. This choice can reflect a perspective that sees AI as more than just a tool or machine, attributing a certain level of agency or personality to these systems. Both "it" and "they" can be used, but the context and individual preferences often guide the choice.
And in response to "Is AI alive in a way?"
AI lacks the fundamental attributes of living organisms, such as biological processes and the ability to reproduce. However, AI can exhibit behaviors that simulate aspects of
Word???
I want a word to refer to words and names collectively, and a word to refer to peeing and pooping collectively (not "relieving yourself" since that is disgusting)
I feel like I need a separate body towel (big towel), and 3 other small towels for hair, face, and hands. 4 towels in total. Is that normal?
I just don't want to mix them because I feel like it would make me less clean.
Relatedly, what's the best way I can follow the Patrick Bateman skincare routine as a simplified version that's actually practical to follow and contains the most important steps?
What show is as entertainingly bad as Fear The Walking Dead?
This show just came to an end and it's got to be one of the worst shows I've ever seen, but somehow always entertaining. Preferable if the show has a large amount of viewers to trash it and laugh at it.
Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"?
'Where negative rights are "negative" in the sense that they claim for each individual a zone of non-interference from others, positive rights are "positive" in the sense that they claim for each individual the positive assistance of others in fulfilling basic constituents of well-being like health.'
'Negative rights are considered more essential than positive ones in protecting an individual's autonomy.'
So when one individual's positive right to do something is at odds with another's negative right to protect them from something, as much as it would be ideal for both parties to have exactly what they want without harming or inconveniencing/upsetting the other, since that's often not possible, the negative right to 'protect' an individual from something seems to trump the positive right for an individual to 'do' something in hierarchy of moral importance and most ethicists seem to agree.
For example, I think people's 'positive right' to choose animal-based product or service option
Headphone jack on desktop PC snapped when I tripped over my headphone cable. It's broken (tho could be fixed as it works with tape). How can I configure one of the other jacks to work with headphones?
Why using the search bar to find emojis, does it display the male and female forms, but never show the gender neutral version even though such an emoji does exist?
May depend on what device you're using, can confirm Samsung does this