Youtube comments of Snack Plissken (@snackplissken8192).
-
2200
-
1000
-
746
-
As one of the many people who read the books because of the Witcher games, I would say that while Yennifer mostly exists to compare and contrast with Geralt though the Witcher Cycle itself becomes less about Geralt and more about Ciri as the story progresses. If they had stayed true to the source material, they would have had a story that ultimately focused on a young woman going from being a McGuffin to the protagonist as the story progresses. Ciri is prophesized to have incredibly powerful offspring, and that is the only thing about her that most characters in the story care about. Geralt and Yennifer both resent the fact that they have been made sterile, and both eventually become surrogate parents to Ciri and ultimately teach her that relationships don't have to be cynically transactional, while also giving her the strength to become the active master of her own destiny instead of a passive victim of it. The books already had a strong message about female empowerment, but since they did not emasculate the men, the show writers had to completely abandon them. Also, can I say, I really hate what the show did to Ciri's grandmother, Calanthe. In trying to make the freakin' "Lion of Cintra" more of a "girl boss" they somehow managed to make the most feared and respected ruler in the entire book series look like a weak and incompetent sop to feminists.
389
-
363
-
327
-
302
-
177
-
148
-
113
-
99
-
89
-
86
-
75
-
67
-
66
-
63
-
63
-
52
-
50
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
39
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
For a film done soup to nuts in a few months by a studio that has either distributed or backed existing projects before and couldn't get many professional actors to agree to star in, it's a lot better than you'd expect. It definitely could have used more time to cook, but it's serviceable as a sports comedy in the vein of Dodgeball. The meanest jokes come at the expense of Jeremy (Rob), Matt (Kris), and the Crane and Company guys (Jake, Blaine, and David) who are most of the main cast, and it's the "Lady Ballers" and the reporter who pushes them who are the villains of the film so it does not come off as mean as the movie's tagline suggests. Despite that, the ending is surprisingly heartwarming. It will probably take a few years of experience before DW+ hits their stride, but they are betting the farm on building a platform that will attract creators whose projects are unpalatable to the major studios and that large swaths of the public want badly enough to excuse less than Hollywood level polish. If it encourages more small studios to make genres of film audiences want with smaller and less risky budgets, it might help to convince Hollywood to leave their rut of the "safe" budget-busting blockbuster sequel flops that Disney and Warner Brothers keep pumping out.
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Considering that the only industrialized country that breeds above the replacement rate is Israel and mostly because of the orthodox community, which VisualPolitik takes such a dim view of, it's probably fair to say that nobody has a solution that works to end demographic collapse in wealthy countries. In the industrialized world, only the more right wing communities of orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons have higher birthrates. They view it as a religious imperative and tend to orient their communities towards having women employed in parenting. But these communities also tend to live outside of major metropolitan areas, where rising costs of living make the financial stability necessary for modern parenting increasingly difficult.
The video suggests single motherhood as the solution to demographic collapse, but in the communities where single motherhood is most socially acceptable, it tends to increase the relative poverty of women in those communities and decrease social cohesion without having that great of an increase in birth rates. Most of Asia tends to have less equality between men and women than the west, and that definitely does not play well with well-educated and financially independent women who have choices their mothers didn't, but if improving equality between the sexes could improve birth rates, why are the Nordic countries also dying out?
As VisualPolitik pointed out in an earlier video, the only place where early evidence suggests that falling infant mortality and rising standards of living have not caused the typical decrease in birth rates is in Africa. Whether this is Religion, Culture, or something else is hard to say. We also do not know that the trends will continue as development increases there. But it would seem that more questions should be asked about why the difference exists.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I grew up on the Adam West and Michael Keaton Batmen but The Batman is probably the best version I've seen. The opening scene that established how the Batman works is incredible, and the reveal of the Batmobile is brilliant film making. Red and Blue are absolutely right that most fight choreography is completely generic. This is why Jackie Chan and his friend Sammo Hung are so beloved, the fights they choreographed told you something about the characters. Everybody remembers scenes from Jackie Chan movies where he is trying to protect some background object from being broken, for example. In books, fights almost have to be written to tell you about a character because the author can't count on your imagination to give you spectacle.
As a narrative device, there really shouldn't ever be a fight that does not in some way inform either the central conflict of the plot, or a conflict with a character. If the hero feels conflicted about the use of violence, they may try to disarm or entangle opponents. Maybe rivals demonstrate the values of planning and flexibility respectively as part of their conflict over which is better. Fights should be an external metaphor for an internal conflict. Barring that, even just having combatants display their own individual qualities (i.e. your smart guy is really precise, your strong guy tends to cause collateral damage, your hero prioritizes protection over destruction, your lancer toys with opponents, your heart is careful to take enemies out of the fight out of the way, etc.) is a way to make a fight memorable. Ask people about the Battle for New York in the Avengers and the only thing people remember is the Hulk saying, "Puny god" and smashing Loki like a rag doll.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Considering how America let Putin invade Ukraine under three different presidents, only sanctioned Russia for attacking Kyiv after it was clear Ukraine could hold on its own, how they have slow walked military aid to both Ukraine and Israel, how they did nothing when China annexed Hong Kong in contravention of its treaty with the British, and how they handed Afghanistan to the Taliban in the model of the fall of Saigon, Japan has to realize that US security commitments are worth a bucket of warm spit. The political fallout over the deaths of US personnel stationed in Japan would be about the only thing that would draw the US into a conflict between Japan and one of its totalitarian neighbors, then again the US did not act over service members killed in Afghanistan, Americans kidnapped in Palestine, or US sailors killed by Iranian proxies attacking international shipping, so who knows. America is not a paper tiger militarily, but politically is clearly a different story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I grew up mocking the "seashells" from Demolition Man (America's only major pop culture bidet reference), but when I briefly lived in Japan, my mind was changed. I live in the mountains where the water is as cold as a death row inmate whose last appeal has been denied, and I put a basic thirty dollar unpowered unit in my commode. To my shock and surprise, it was actually fine. It's nothing like stepping into the shower with that Stygian water, so I never bothered to upgrade to a heated one. Even in the dead of winter, I don't care, and I have become that sissy that runs the shower to get it hot before I step in. I buy a pack of tp once or twice a year to dry up at the end, and I haven't used a plunger in almost a decade. Better yet, if you get the runs, you will cry at how much more gentle the bidet is than even the cushiest tp after your fourteenth trip to the bathroom of the night. Try a cheap one, worst case scenario, you're out less than fifty bucks and maybe two hours of time to install and then remove it. It will make you weak and dependent, but you will love it all the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think it's more fair to say that weapons have an additive effect to physical strength on lethality, rather than a multiplicative effect. People with physical advantages still have an advantage all other factors being equal, but the more lethal the weapon, the smaller the relative advantage becomes. If a weapon were a multiplier then we wouldn't say that "God made man, Colt made him equal" because the gun would then make brutes vastly more lethal than the average men. You don't need to be Mr. Atlas to launch a nuke, and a child pressing the launch button would not make it any less lethal.
Klavan does not know about armed combat. He is a screenwriter. Clearly, none of them know anything about combat. I think it is probably fair to him to say that he is comparing a layman's view of the relative realism of something like The Last Duel, which isn't a wire-work CGI fantasy fight, to Hollywood superhero movie waif-fu where a 90 lb woman can send a full-grown man flying with the slightest touch. He is clearly overstating his case for reality but not for his native film industry's depiction of reality, which I suspect is more what he is actually describing. If he were to watch HEMA instead of Hollywood, my guess is he would probably try to meet reality closer to the middle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem is not that socialism needs more data to work, but that it needs to be Laplace's Demon, knowing the position and momentum of every particle in the universe to predict the future and no amount of AI will be able to calculate the information it does not have. The free market, on the other hand, works like the balance of animals in nature. It incentivizes individuals to exploit imbalances for personal benefit and thus rebalance the system. It allows some level of inefficiency and impractical novelty because shocks to the system may cause such an anomaly to survive where more efficient organisms might fail. The push and pull of extinction and mutation cull the impractical while allowing for innovation and redundancy to protect from unpredictable future events. A top-down system, even with an unethical amount of data and the most perfect calculation, cannot know that a lab worker might accidentally spread a virus, or that a hurricane might hit an unprepared community. It cannot predict the accidental discovery of a new battery technology or a breakthrough in a stalled energy science.
We should learn from the Gros Michel Banana. They were all one single plant with no genetic diversity and no variation in biological defense mechanism. The Panama Disease hit them, and the Gros Michel went from ubiquitous to nearly extinct worldwide within a decade. Companies and cities can use separate AI to help with central planning, but doing so on a state or country wide basis is asking to turn a small disaster into a gigantic one, just like the bananas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It might be less a question of priority than a question of what can be accomplished for the resource expenditure. Israel can absolutely beat Hamas. They are vastly more powerful than their adversary and international patience for their self-defense is limited so that conflict will have the quickest resolution with the least expenditure. If Taiwan can be kept out of a war, it is probably the second-cheapest conflict for Washington to achieve its goals in. If America has to fight a proxy war with China over Taiwan, China has vastly more resources and military power than any of America's other geopolitical rivals, so maintaining the status quo in Taiwan is paramount.
Ukraine is a bit more tricky, since Russia has the stronger war machine than Ukraine, and it's already a hot war. Washington either has to ramp spending up to give Ukraine the resources to win, threaten to cut support to get Ukraine to the bargaining table, or publically do the first and quietly threaten the second to pressure both sides into a compromise, but Uncle Sam has hedged his bets and has put only limited pressure on Putin to avoid Russian threats of escalation and no pressure on Zelenskyy to avoid giving its allies excuses to moderate their positions on Russia. The administration would probably have an easier time getting the hawks on the right to fight with their populist wing if they seemed to have a plan to end the conflict or if Ukraine was making visible progress. The sad truth is that, right or left, American politicians have a long tradition of declaring any perceived stalemate as an intractable quagmire that must be abandoned when the conflict belongs to a president of the opposing party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You guys are insane for thinking the guy who brags about threatening Putin that he would bomb the s out of Moscow if he invaded Ukraine is going to give Putin everything he wants. If you had listened to Trump when he told you to do your job and contribute your NATO minimums to defense, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. If you had listened to Trump when he warned you not to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that Russia needed so they could invade Ukraine without the Ukrainians being able to bomb the Nord Stream 1 and cut off Europe from all Russian energy, you could have avoided the invasion. He even threatened to leave NATO to warn you to protect yourselves in case the next US president was somebody whom Putin would not respect, but you were too smart for that. You can't count on America to always have cowboys at the Resolute Desk, especially since American presidents haven't sent treaties to the Senate for Ratification since the middle of the last century, which means they have zero binding legal authority.
If Europe intends to seize the position of global reserve currency, it had better be prepared to take the responsibility as world police that comes with it. The British Pound was the Global Reserve Currency during the Pax Britannia, when the UK could forcibly end the global slave trade with military and economic pressure. They lost this in the 30s, and America took over and got stuck with the obligation to protect global free trade. Europe won't even take the lead to protect Europe from Russia, let alone provide military escorts in the Bab-El-Mandeb Strait. Americans resent having to protect you as much as you resent us for having to protecting you. If you want a better position from which to push even more protectionist tariffs on America, pay for your own territorial defense for a change.
1
-
When big cities develop perpetual one party rule through policies like district gerrymandering, block voting, and ballot harvesting, the entrenched political elites take all the political power from the voters. Those elites are established interests whose policies are designed to prevent upward social mobility and stifle potential business competitors through complex and confiscatory tax schemes and monopoly favoring regulations. When the policies get Draconian enough, the net taxpayers use their superior resources to vote with their feet, leaving the interest groups and tax beneficiaries behind. Essentially, without electoral competition, politicians slowly eat the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Also, as Europeans maybe you don't know that cities have their own executives, laws, police forces, and prosecutors. High crime Red states get most of their crime from blue cities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fact that America's medical system tries to save premature babies at a much earlier age than in countries with socialized medicine, which simultaneously increases the number of premies who live while necessarily converting those who can't be saved from uncounted "stillbirths" into "infant deaths," is never taken into account.
Also, you do realize that if you let people who are guaranteed to cost more than they pay in insurance avoid paying any premiums until they need a payout, that no reasonable person would ever pay an insurance premium while they are healthy. The entire point of insurance is to convince enough healthy people to spend years paying into the system to cover the costs of the ones who end up unhealthy, to collectivize risk.
The biggest problem with abandoning a user pays system is that the person who pays is the sole arbiter of what treatment the patient is allowed to have. This is why Canada now recommends assisted suicide for anybody who wants expensive treatments, and Britain bans people from coming to America to seek treatment for conditions that are deemed terminal across the pond. In America, we let insurers kill people instead because employer-sponsored health insurance was created to allow employers to hire workers at an effectively competitive wage despite Richard Nixon's mandating maximum wage levels, which he created to try to stop the free market.
Since Obamacare, most employers I have worked for had changed their policies every year and offered new policies with less coverage for more money. I keep losing my plans and regularly have to change doctors to stay in network. Before Obamacare, I had never seen my employer change their plans in the 2–4 years I worked for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Such a good topic. The accreditation system is pretty bad in the US. With few exceptions (i.e. STEM, Medical, or Law), you can't really make rational educational decisions based on value. I think the best system would be one in which the schools were judged based on how successful their average graduates were, that students and lenders had a good idea how much various majors were worth in terms of expected income, and where universities could only charge what people could afford. In other words, if you know that your premed is worth a lot of money because most of your graduates get into good med schools and make high incomes, you could afford to charge more for it and would thus put more of those resources into improving your premed program. If your communications department mostly just churned out minimum wage employees, lenders would not lend for it, students would not want it, and you would either have to improve your program or drop it to focus on what your school was good at. This way, low value programs would be picked up by schools whose specialty was low cost education, and high value programs would be kept by the schools that gave students the best financial prospects. This means that worthless programs would largely disappear because they cost borrowers money in the long run, low value programs would become cheaper because no big money will chase them, and high value programs would be more expensive but have the best access to loans which even poor students could pay back when they became rich tax payers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I once played a character who was kinda like myself in 2nd Ed and I (unsurprisingly) took every attack on my character personally. Then I passed my 12th birthday and realized it was stupid to play myself and have spent the rest of my life putting layers or abstraction between myself and my character by playing characters who were unlike me (nonhuman, older, younger, female, evil, cheerful, stupid, emotionless, parents, criminals, etc.) but had one or two aspects of their personality that I could resonate with. The whole purpose of a roleplaying game is to take on the role of somebody who isn't you and inhabit their world for a time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden already demonstrated that the president can refuse to spend money allocated by congress with impunity. He did that with military aid passed on a bipartisan basis to replenish Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. Not that Trump, a lifelong New York Democrat, is going to touch Great Society social spending programs, which will turn the middle class and poor against him. Even if you had enough political power to pass constitutional amendments, the only method of paying for government spending that any politician could survive advocating is growth. The only way to actually fix the budget is to sell off vast swaths of government owned property, return most of the federal government's unconstitutional power grabs back to the state and local governments, and restructure and or cut most of the New Deal and Great Society social welfare programs, and the opposition party would control all three branches the very next presidential election to try to roll it back. The best Trump can do is to grow out the tax base, make some regulatory cuts to encourage growth, and slow the growth of government. The voters would have to be afraid of a full governmental collapse to authorize any actual fixes like Javier Meilei is doing.
Fears about DOGE are a joke. Politicians already take money from wealthy billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers etc. to push their political goals, not to mention money from foreign countries including the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and Qataris who have agendas hostile to America. There is already a revolving door between government employees, multinational companies, and advocacy groups funded by the world's richest people. Even if Musk uses DOGE to benefit himself, this is just business as usual in Washington, and one could argue that at least we the press would be looking for him to corruptly benefit himself in a way they won't do with the current entrenched special interests.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1