Even Nazi Germany had “good Jews” who would cooperate with the Nazis. Some of the top ranking Nazis each had their own “good jew” that they were sympathetic towards including Hitler himself. They thought their status as “one of the good ones” would save them. Other party members, especially the SS, would hold them accountable and even the “good ones” got “taken care of” sooner or later.

To be fair to Signal, they kinda outed themselves by including that journalist in the chat. That’s not really a fault of signal. But they also shouldn’t have been using signal in the first place, so there’s that.

They aren’t necessarily counting the oceans, but rather the ocean floor.

Dr Phil actually has a PHD or master’s (can’t remember which) in psychology, but if I remember right he’s had his license to practice either removed or he hasn’t done the due diligence on his part to maintain it. I can’t remember which. Apparently he also did a lot of sketchy shit with his clients including forming relationships with them prior to his time on TV. Behind the Bastards did a multi-part series on him that’s worth listening to.

The worst part about Dr. Oz is that he was an exceptionally skilled thoracic surgeon, apparently one of the best in a field we are severely lacking skilled practitioners in, and has done hundreds of operations. This is a man who has saved or extended hundreds of lives. He then gave all of that up to sell bullshit weight loss miracles to middle-aged moms. He literally stopped saving lives so he could actively harm others with his bullshit and questionable advice outside of his realm of expertise.

I’d argue that Oz has done more direct harm to people on a larger scale than Dr. Phil could dream of. Again, there is a multi-part series on Behind the Bastards covering him that’s worth a listen.

In regards to the off topic question thing; that just sounds like a fairly normal person. I feel like anyone could get annoyed by being asked constantly about non-relevant stuff. Sure, some folks are very good at handling those things with grace and should be applauded for it, but I feel like that’s a noteworthy exception and not how most folks would react depending on the severity of course.

Maybe that’s just because I haven’t seen anything from him super recently, so my opinion is biased with rose tinted glasses. What little Ive seen of him he seemed like an alright dude. Then again, that’s easily a tailored image of himself.

It’s “prosperity gospel” but for health instead of wealth. I’m healthy because I’m a good person and you’re not because you’re a bad person. It’s literally the same talking points too. Point at the minority of folks in a demographic who actually make genuinely bad decisions and apply that to the group as a whole.

And the rich part is that if they wanted to go down the route of “healthcare is expensive because America is overall unhealthy” that’s “fine”. As the folks in charge do something about it?

Invest in better education on the importance of proper diet and exercise. Invest in providing cheaper and more readily available whole foods. Subsidized or provide classes that teach people how to actually cook. Do the things that would actually help “make America healthy again” instead of worrying about fucking food dyes and weather or not a trans person is getting healthcare.

If they did that while spouting that kinda bullshit at least they would be intellectually consistent, but they don’t and that’s how you know they’re full of shit.

I get what you’re going for here, but the lowness of sugar isn’t really all that important if we’re talking whole fruits.

Mangos for example would be considered high in sugar, but I would argue they shouldn’t be discriminated against in comparison to something like an apple. Mangos are also quite filling compared to something like a candy or juice of similar calorie content just like other lower calories fruits such as apples or strawberries.

Potatoes and other starchy vegetables could potentially get a bad wrap too for similar reasons.

Time out, why the hate for Bill Nye? Did I miss something or is this just a joke on “people who are less qualified than their titles lead you to believe”? If so, then carry on.

On first read it sounds more like a list of shitty charlatans, of which I wouldn’t really apply to Bill even if he’s not as qualified as he would imply.

Yuuuup, at least in the modern times that rings true. There was a time when publicly traded companies were measured by their success as a business and not solely by the “value” they generated for shareholders. We can thank Jack Welch for fucking all that up, rest in Piss asshole.

I haven’t played Sekiro yet, but it’s built from the bones of the Souls games and shares a lot of the controls just like Eldin Ring. I’d say the only major difference is you don’t have as heavy of an emphasis on parry/counter timing (although it’s still there) and stealth isn’t built into the games (although you can slowly walk up behind enemies).

To me, I think that style of combat is “grounded” enough to fit well into The Witcher. Geralt is faster and stronger than normal humans, but not extremely so and some noteworthy humans have given him a run for his money or whooped his ass outright. I think Soils Style combat could do a good job of representing that.

I haven’t played the recent ninja gaiden games, but to me they seem more like hack n slash style games akin to Devil May Cry, which isn’t a bad thing by any means but I don’t know if that makes sense for the world that The Witcher is set in. Please correct me if I’m wrong there, as my only experience was a demo of Ninja Gaiden Black on 360 a decade ago.

What are your thoughts on a Dark Souls style of combat for the witcher?

I can see what you’re saying, I may be looking back with rose tinted glasses. I don’t know what the best control scheme would be, but I feel like if it felt like a Dynasty Warriors hack n slash it wouldn’t feel right. Maybe something more akin to Dark Souls?

I’m under the impression that because of how hyped the game was on release they realized they all had it made and can more or less run the company off that financial momentum. After all it was a fairly small team. Which is still a really admirable thing to do when comparing it to what most major developers do with their titles upon success…

Milk that DLC cow and move straight onto the sequel baby! Shareholders must receive value and number must go up!

I think I see what you’re putting down. Witcher 1 crawled so that 3 could run, and 2 is just kinda living in 3’s shadow. Perhaps I was late to the bandwagon, I played 1 first when 2 was just getting released, I was under the impression Witcher 1 wasn’t that successful (but not a failure)and that 2 was what really brought the witcher into pop culture.

Honestly I think they’re all good games, and by your reasoning I can see why you would say 1 over 2.

Talk about a game with an amazing redemption ark. I played it on release, realized how shallow it was and put it down after maybe 5 or 6 hours. Fast forward a year or so and I heard it had significant updates. I was amazed when I picked it back up.

I play it again every year or so and am always impressed that they keep adding things to this game. Such a rare occurrence that a game that flopped so hard could really turn it around.

It’s not a 10/10, but to call it anything but a labor of love would be unfair to the developers at Hello Games, including Sean Murray. That man received a ton of shit on the release of the game but didn’t take his money and run. Last I checked he’s still there and that says something to the character of that group in my eyes.

It’s not a trilogy, but I gotta preach the good word of Ender Lilies: Quietus of the Knights. If you enjoy 2D metroidvania style games it’s top notch.

The game just drips in atmosphere. The environments are beautifully drawn and designed, characters and enemies are animated well and the music just wraps everything up in a nice bow. It’s a melancholy game and it literally made me cry at points and I’m not the type to tear up often when playing games.

The game can be challenging at times, but I wouldn’t say significantly so. I would say Hollow Knight is more challenging than this game especially with some of the end game content that that game has.

The game is worth full price, but it goes on sale pretty regularly and probably is right now with the summer sale on Steam.

There’s also a sequel out now called Ender Magnolia. I haven’t played it yet but I will eventually.

Interesting take, what did 1 have that 2 didn’t? As someone who enjoyed 1 a lot, I found 2 to be a much more fun experience. 1 felt klunky for me mechanically speaking and just didn’t age well. Thematically and character wise I’d say they’re of similar quality for sure.

Just a side note I wouldn’t necessarily put Witcher 1 on the same pedestal as witcher 2 and 3. You could enjoy it, thematically and story wise it’s spot on Witcher, but it’s pretty klunky mechanically speaking and really shows its age. 2 and 3 are Fantastic in every way though. I hear they’re potentially remaking 1 and I’m all for it if it’s in a style similar to 2 or 3.