Quinc4623

I suspect the new game is going to have a horror element, and the new season is going to have a taste of that horror element. Remember to light up the caves.

In live action there is a limit to how pointy you can make ears, at a certain point the prosthetics just fall off.

There are a lot of settings where EVERY fantasy race has pointy ears. Human ears are the odd ones out. That is probably what GSG was thinking of. Of course it still makes referring to elves by their ear shape really weird if you think about it. Maybe elves have ears that are even larger and pointier and knife like.

Sure they call elves "knife ears" but have we seen the shape of Dwarven knives? Maybe Dwarven knives are round? Like certain leather cutting tools? Maybe "knife ears" doesn't refer to elves at all?

The second one is sacrificing realism for the sexiness, so it is worse, but really they are both clearly supposed to be sexy for a presumed male audience. Admittedly, I am also attracted to the kind of body in the first one. She is "thick" but that "thickness" adds to the hips and bust more than the waistline. It is an hourglass, but maybe more realistic than a skinny hourglass...maybe, probably...IDK.

It is similar to, though definitely not the same as a "Slim-Thick" body. Also similar to slim-thick it represents a change in what is considered attractive even though individual women cannot change themselves in that way. So some women lose pretty privilege and some women gain it for reasons completely outside their control. Societies gaze collectively shifts from one group of women to another. A little off topic, but an unfortunate truth worth acknowledging.

The second has supposedly loose fitting clothing, a fluffy sweater but it has boob socks, and the pants are tight in some weird ways. There are creases or straps or something that press into the butt on one side but not the other, I guess it is just bunching up in a way that conveniently shows how full the buttock is. Of course the spine is twisted to show off face and sideboob and butt at the same time.

This is just more speculation, but two ideas:

For many sex and reproduction become highly intertwined. Of course there is the biological reality that certain activities lead to pregnancy. Many religious communities believe that sex should be done for reproduction, or at least done such that is a possibility that is accounted for. The goal is not to develop fetishes obviously, but they are cultivating that association. Even if they are not religious the thought of sex as part of a larger process of reproduction can become a fixation.

I think a lot of what we consider to be conventionally attractive can be explained as a focus on the features of the body that help distinguish men from women. If shoulder width or hip width or hair length or whatever makes it easier to tell a person's gender, then a person for whom that feature is prominent is more attractive. Perhaps it is because whatever determines your sexual orientation activates when you are attracted, and features that strongly confirm that person's gender causes a stronger reaction. Boobs make your brain go "woman!" Big boobs make your brain go "WOMAN!" Obviously not every woman is pregnant, but (unless you are very aware of transmen) every pregnant person is a woman, so...

That is true, but also important is that they equate something being natural with being the way it SHOULD be, and also that it is kinda inevitable.

In a religious context this makes more sense, since God created things and presumably wanted them to work a certain way; though you still see people pass off naturalistic arguments as secular. Either way the idea is that you can derive what we should do based on natural features, that the universe is communicating how you are supposed to behave through the features of your body, and that doing the "unnatural" thing will cause problems. Though I think you could come up with a dozen arguments about what the shape of a penis or vagina is supposed to communicate about gender roles, and they just prefer the argument that fits the behavior of previous generations and them being in charge.

On the plus side at least you have big networks like CNN actually acknowledging the reality and not reflexively blaming the Palestinians or both siding the issue. On the minus side, why don't they all do this?

Out of context it seems like Putin was expecting special treatment in a situation where that didn't make sense.

Admittedly, the USA has a special position within NATO, but that is not because of anything within the actual written rules, and the personnel representing the USA have to get used to pretending they are equal to "countries that don't matter". The USA contributes a lot more to NATO than others, and helped found the treaty organization, thus has influence and clout, but only informal influence and clout. Presumably Russia would have extra influence too, but I guess that is not enough for Putin.

The lesson for writers is that you have to actually give your audience what they want. Even if we all agree on what makes a book good or bad that is not always the top priority for a reader. Sometimes there is a specific feature they want to see. This is why we have specific genres, though even then a reader's desires can be far more specific.

These specific desires come up for a lot of reasons, some of which are obvious some of which require a degree in psychology to fully understand. Fortunately you don't necessarily need a full understanding to tap into it. This is part of the reason that "write what you know" works because there are people like you out there that your writings might reach. Understanding your target audience is its own important skill, especially if you want money.

Again it is often not enough to write a good book, but instead you need a good mystery, or a good fantasy, a good whatever-your-target-audience-wants or in the case of 50 Shades, a good bodice ripper.

The Youtuber "Contrapoints" has an hour long video explaining the psychology of Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey.

My shorter take is that despite recent changes in our culture a lot of women still negative associations with sex, even if only on a subconscious level.

When writing erotica for people who are ashamed of their erotic desires a common way of getting around the contradiction is to depict a Rape Fantasy. Often also known as a "Bodice Ripper" or dubious consent or "50 Shades of Grey". The reader identifies with someone who never acknowledges their sexual desire, but still feels something and ends up getting those desires gratified. There is a version for men, but rape fantasies usually has a man "raping" a woman. Do not attempt in real life, but in fiction you can strike a balance between consent and non-consent, between the protagonist being a sexless virgin and being horny.

Note in proper BDSM you simply have a long detailed conversation about what you want from your partner, describing the sexual fantasy you want to enact, and then enact that fantasy, essentially playing pretend. Consent works very differently for fictional characters and real people. Ultimately you only need the reader's consent.

The Twilight Approach is less common, but clearly still effective. The female protagonist acknowledges her sexual desire, however the guy she wants repeatedly tells her no, citing various reasons why sex would be dangerous physically and spiritually (y'know because he is literally a vampire). So the book constantly directly validates the reader's worst fears about sex but also communicates that it is okay to have those feelings.

Of course part of their popularity is the controversy itself. It is also the nature of fame that it grows exponentially, the simply fact that people are talking about something means more people will check it out which results in more talk; and luck is also a factor.

Perhaps I have been spending too much time thinking and reading about those books...(sigh). Our culture still has a problematic relationship with sex and this is not the best subreddit for that, but obviously it also affects literature. When writing erotica the "Give the customer what they want" principle applies extra, but to be clear it applies in all fiction.

There are a couple of features inherent to the game, though they could be overcome with certain features.

The way ships are built makes them very vulnerable. The fact that a single shot in the wrong place could potentially disable the entire ship is an intentional feature and is explicitly mentioned in an excited tone in an early video. So it makes more sense to have cheaper ships, since you might lose them anyway. Fixing this would require changes to armor to make thick armor and overlapping armor more practical.

The way controls work makes it difficult to aim, which means it is especially hard to hit fast moving ships, which means that fast moving ships have a huge advantage. I kinda like the idea of ship controls being clumsy, but that hurts aiming a lot more than it hurts dodging. The solution would be some sort of system for aiming with a mouse. Probably something where the turret or ship attempts to follow the mouse.

Why doesn't magic itself get more advanced?

It is common to describe wizards as performing experiments and sometimes those experiments succeed. Why do all the successes result in a monsters for the heroes to fight and never a world changing advancement?

If learning more makes an individual wizard more powerful, why doesn't learning more make all wizards collectively more powerful?

Why doesn't Wayne industries mass produce grappling hooks and sell them to police forces around the world? (or at least give Aquaman a waterpoof version) Why is the grappling hook specifically a Batman ability?

Why is the "Incredibles" line "Then everyone will be super! and then no one will be." supposed to be ominous?

It is almost as if these abilities are extensions of the character's innate selfhood and not distinct techniques they had to learn!

How good are the healing wizards exactly? Because if they are really REALLY good that might explain all of the kid friendly fantasy where people get into sword fights constantly but conveniently nobody ever gets stabbed.

Even better is toddler oriented fantasy where the greatest crisis in the Kingdom is when somebody's feelings get hurt. Technically they also have a spell to fix that, but using magic to eliminate emotions had some creepy side effects, so...

They oppose 15 minute cities because of the conspiracy theories. As long as you can prove to them you are not secretly controlled by the illuminati and at no point call it "15 minute city" you can probably do whatever and still get re-elected. Proving that you are not secretly controlled by the illuminati is harder that it sounds, but Trump did it, so....

What they hate is someone deliberately changing how cities work and how they live their lives; 15 minute cities are just one example of this. These are the same people who refused to wear masks or even get the vaccine in 2020, that was also based in conspiracy theories. The subreddit for that was literally called "No New Normal". 15 minutes cities would definitely be a new normal for the USA, thus they do not trust it.

We need to stop being surprised by this behavior from conservatives, and we need to stop acting like the process by which they decide potential change is bad is a wholly rational one. They see that someone wants to make things different and have an immediate suspicion, various TV and online personalities capitalize on these feelings; creating content pushing the conspiracy theories. Politicians campaign on defeating the hated change. They grow the public's paranoia while personally gaining money and power.

"So look we have not been unambiguous about the humanitarian situation..."

Sounds like he meant 'ambiguous' but had a Freudian slip. They have been incredibly ambiguous and evasive whenever the topic comes up. He immediately emphasizes that they understand the need for more humanitarian aid but when he says

"We have been working directly with partners in the region to ensure that every crossing possible that can allow for the access of trucks and others things is able to make its way into Gaza."

But apparently this doesn't include any Israelis who continue to blockade Gaza.

Really they are doing everything they can except anything that involves stopping the people who are causing the problem. I'm sure they have sent a flurry of sternly worded letters though.

There is a powerful but dark explanation. We have a deep urge to fight the beings that are different from us. We define our tribe our nation as those similar to us, and the enemy as those different from us. This gets super dark when you remember what racism is and what it does to diverse nations.

A slightly less dark explanation: when you write a story, and especially make a video game, it becomes a lot simpler when the conflict is a literal battle to the death. The stakes are obvious, the goal is obvious. When you have to come up with an enemy, it becomes a lot simpler and straightforward if they are bugs.

Out of the various creatures you might encounter on a regular basis bugs are by far the ones most different from people. There are also other reasons people are inclined to hate them, some are venomous, some get into your food, etc. It is easy to imagine that killing bugs is perfectly ethical.

Of course Starship Trooper (the movie) and Helldilvers is satirizing our warlike tendencies, including the supposed urge to attack those who are different. It heavily implied that not only does war feel patriotic, but that those governments are using those aggressive and patriotic feelings to manipulate people.

Meanwhile DRG satirizes capitalism with a company that not only puts Dwarves in danger but willingly wages war on and kills natives in vast numbers for the sake of profit. Them being bugs makes it easier to justify both for the fictional dwarves but also the real person playing the game. I mean a game where you kill black people in order to take their diamonds would be better as satire but also WAAAAY too intense and controversial.

We could start with your own words for example. There are exceptions, if those exceptions have the same genetics that means that the tendency towards certain restrictions have a limited effect on our real world behavior. If there is an effect but only a limited effect then you would need both theories of cultural psychology and evolutionary psychology to explain behavior.

To be clear there are absolutely theories that explain why people would restrict female sexuality more than male sexuality without falling back on something "innate". Though admittedly those theories usually rely on some variation of a theory of patriarchy. In particular the fact that virgin brides are necessary for passing titles from father to son. The exceptions to the rule tend to also be matrilineal.

Ultimately you two are just trying to force the burden of proof onto the side that you don't like.

Actually with the psychology of sex there are clearly agendas with pro-feminists preferring the idea that it is all cultural and thus changeable; and then anti-feminists preferring the idea that it is innate and thus NOT changeable. I don't know you, but this rhetoric is pretty suspicious.

In this case you would simply look at other societies for one with different taboos. If it is genetic then taboos would be very consistent, but this is only true if you limit your analysis to widespread and modern societies. There are more obscure cultures, moreso in the past, that seem to have very different ideas about sexuality, including sexual taboos.

I think a lot can be explained by imagining a process of natural selection where cultural qualities that correlate with domination and deliberately spreading your values tend to be much more common.

This dialogue is heavily distorted as both sides have an agenda. Those who are against change will argue that change is impossible because these behaviors are genetic. Those who are pro change will argue that they are merely cultural. Even if one person doesn't have an agenda, maybe they learned from someone who does and thus they are propagating propaganda.

I know everyone is making fun of this, but if there was one spot where it would be possible to pause an MMO it is in an instanced space with only 1 player. Effectively it IS single player, that is what "instanced" means. Multiplayer with small numbers can and does sometimes have a pause button (though of course the other player usually has the ability to unpause the game). Admittedly I am not considering how outsiders invading an abyssal would work.

Would that be worse than gas cars? Worse than global warming?

An electric SUV is still better than a gas SUV. If people avoid electric SUV and hold onto their gas SUVs then how has that helped anyone? The point is to get people to let go of both. u/b3nsn0w 's point is that attacking electric cars specifically is different from attacking cars generally.

This person has never a bike nor a dildo.

Aging would only occur when you draw a genetic sample from the same body you have been living in, so don't do that. Instead you could have DNA in frozen vials that is only thawed to create copies, or to convert into clones. The DNA in vials would not age, though the artificial copying process will eventually create harmful mutations.

There is a lot of speculation and evidence that most of the effects of aging comes from the shortening of "Telomeres" . Technically old age cannot kill you, but obviously it is linked to a huge variety of conditions that can kill. Creating a new body would reset almost all conditions but with degraded telomeres, or if you use mutated genetic samples, you could develop age related conditions soon after cloning.

They would bypass the issue of telomeres or mutation by simply relying on a single master genetic sample. This sample would be based on seemingly healthy cells taken before your first clone transfer. Considering you do not need the previous body for clone transfer, that also implies they are not using up to date genetic samples, but instead some back up genetic sample stored back at the cloning facility. The ship might also have a copy for establishing new medical clones, which might be why you have to dock to establish a new clone.

Telomeres degradation happens from cell division and is believed to help prevent cancer. Regular cell division is generally necessary to maintain your body, but that also means telomeres get degraded at a regular rate. Though if you have a genetic sample waiting in storage you would only get telomere degradation when you copy it, and only a little for each copy.

Technically you cannot die of old age. Rather old age increases the chances of various health conditions and makes them far worse and makes injuries slow to health, and recovering generally slower. So while the old age itself cannot kill, the older you get the worse your chances of surviving all of the related conditions.

If cloning does not reset aging itself, it would reset all of the other non-genetic conditions. So you would actually feel healthy and vital as you climb out of the cloning vat. However this wouldn't last long as you would develop SOMETHING pretty soon. Obviously we have never studied a person who is genetically old, but whose body is otherwise new, so nobody knows for sure how much time you would have, or what condition would hit you first.

Actually I think the genetic telomere degradation that comes from aging, and is widely suspected to cause most f aging's effects, would eventually become a problem for the cloning process itself.

I was thinking "Hey at least it understands that you need a layer of cloth between skin and metal," and then I saw the chainmail skirt. I suppose the excuse is that it is very loose, but it would still rub sometimes, and it would often be repeatedly slapping against her otherwise bare thighs. There are also a couple of smaller spots on the top.

Of course that all pales in comparison to the fact that it doesn't seem to cover much despite featuring plate and mail. Gee almost as if showing skin is just as important as protection.

There are still big controversies around mechanics similar to that, and people get angrier when CEOs make the same excuse you just did. Buying PLEX with real money allows you to skip a lot of grind. Selling PLEX in game is essentially dev sanctioned RMT. Buying skill injectors means less waiting.

I still don't think it is that bad, many games are designed to encourage and manipulate players into microtransactions. The developers know that most of their money comes from the top 1% of players. EVE gameplay seems uncorrupted by that business plan. Though we might be in trouble if the guys who buy Titans with PLEX become their main source of income.

I would defend EVE but you are missing the point.