I heard, quite a while back, that while deodorants are basically just smelly persistent goo that helps trap and mask your most stinky zones, antiperspirants actually act by having an element that binds to your sweat glands, and this can actually cause them to block up and cause dermatological problems.

Is this still, or was it ever accurate?

I dunno, maybe its more or less like many kinds of make up, where that only becomes a problem if you don’t wash it off after use?

While one part of me fucking absolutely hates the Mac Goggles for many reasons…

…the other part of me kinda really wants them to become normalized precisely so that Ghost in the Shell offensive hacking type bullshit can just ruin the lives of anyone who regularly uses one.

It doesn’t have to be as immediately malicious as cutting the feed while driving…

…You could do that watermelon green text from 4chan. Just have a watermelon, every day, thats always… not quite in the same position, but always there.

Funny, most of the women I’ve known in the last decade with pre existing diagnosed mental disorders refuse to go to therapy and self medicate with booze or weed, and pressure me into doing the same.

Hey, maybe you should try thera… Are you saying I’m nuts , that I’m psycho or some shit?! Fuck you!

…

Anyway, yep, therapy is great if you can afford it.

She gave him the silent treatment.

She did not say: “Look, I’m really angry/flustered/sad/whatever right now, please give me some space and we can talk about this later.”

She then was just standing there at 1 am at his bed, implying either she’d been standing there for a while (weird) or she woke him up (rude).

The situation as described has nothing in common with two partners who understand themselves and their boundaries well and set aside a time to discuss things in a mutually agreed upon time and place when they both expect to have more emotional bandwidth.

It is absolutely needless, unreasonable guilt tripping, though.

Hypothetical and rhetorical questions designed to evoke contemplative but reasoned thought, or absurd hilarities, or a plausible future scenario are one thing.

Its completely different when its an absurd loyalty bullshit test that only has wrong answers.

Answer with loyalty to the point that it endangers your own life?

Ok, status quo.

Answer reasonably, or ask why such ridiculous questions are being asked?

Anger, grief, ammo to use in future arguments.

This scenario was extremely and needlessly combative on the female partner’s part.

Even if this person was legitimately traumatized by past or recent events, that does not make her behavior acceptable.

So, fair warning, I am autistic, but also, I’ve had several multi year relationships with people of differing similarities to this person, here’s my read of this:

This is extremely manipulative and abusive behavior toward you.

You forgot about a text after a hard day of work.

She got angry and refused to speak with you for hours because you missed a text.

And you say this is apparently normal behavior.

That is fucking absurd, to be frank.

Before any of the rest of the story, that alone is bonkers.

Just do the reverse situation in your head. You’re out late for some on location work event, text her and ask if she can be there when you get back home. She forgets.

Would you be so angry or disappointed that you would refuse to speak to her for 3 hours, would that be something she would accept as normal behavior from you, and would she be inclined to blame herself and totally accept this punishment from you as appropriate?

The rest of this story is she wakes you up in the middle and questions you with absurd nonsensical questions that are all specifically designed as loyalty tests.

I had a 3 year relationship with a person like this.

She was schizophrenic, massively physically, mentally and emotionally abusive toward me.

I am of course not going to say your partner is schizophrenic based off of this alone, I am just saying that reading your story immediately sent me back into the mindstate and memories of my own.

It is however clear to me that your acceptance of this kind of behavior as normal, up until the middle of the night nonsense questioning, to me this indicates that she is utterly dominating you into total submission, and you think this is normal.

It is not.

Fucking bail out immediately is what I would do.

It is completely absurd to think that she could somehow have been kidnapped in the 30 seconds between getting out of an uber and walking to your door.

If she actually believed she was in real danger of being kidnapped, she almost certainly would have told you why, and would have asked you to evaluate her why and what to do to prevent it.

Shes fucking grooming you when she guilt trips you into saying you’d murder someone on her account in a totally hypothetical situation that she is taking extremely seriously.

She is trying to make you feel extremely guilty for things that 1) are not and would not be your fault if they occured and 2) have almost 0 chance of actually occurring.

Maybe there is a 1% chance she will open up later and tell you, wow ok, i was really on edge last night, here is why: and then recount an actual, unlikely but possible extremely unnerving situation.

Or, she is cheating on you or has done something you would be greatly displeased with if you found out, and this is all a reflection/distraction technique. She felt guilty so she leaped at any chance to make you into the bad guy.

Again, I obviously cannot say with any certainty that is what is actually going on, but I can certainly say that she is a highly manipulative and abusive person if you find it normal for her to just completely give you the silent treatment for hours for an inconsequential error.

I’ll never forget my first playthrough of Disco.

Spent an hour attempting to build a character I thought would make a good detective.

Wake up… oh god this is really bad hrm…

Well ok… lets get my tie.

Heart Attack. Dead. Game Over.

Possibly the greatest single player rpg ever.

Sadly, this also implies that this is the last known survivor, the last tiger.

So he just has to order the CIA to do it.

The… the CIA and many other government agencies have a stories history of doing absolutely insane things that are absolutely crimes…

…And many of those things only get brought to light by a whistle lower or leak ot some Watergate level fuckup of being caught in the act, or years or decades of actual investigation later.

There are so many problems with this ruling its mind boggling.

Pack 100 of compsognathus (compsognathii?) says hello.

Not sure how out of date the research is, but in the original Jurassic Park book, there are roaming packs of these things that overwhelm and kill people.

Though the on screen scene of them killing people happens in the second movie, it actually takes place in the first book IIRC… anyway, they’re basically depicted as land piranhas.

(Again, IIRC, Jurassic Park the book basically gets set in motion with a family of tourists being eviscerated by a pack of compys… but the first movie dropped this from the story, then when the second movie comes out they basically use this scene as the intro for that, but its on a different island and used to set off an entirely new story?)

Yeah, its infuriating that punk has become a suffix.

There is nothing punk about steampunk, dieselpunk, atompunk. They are just fantasy technological scenarios / art styles.

Cyberpunk has an both a recognizable aesthetic and a whole lot of political, social and philosophical views baked into it. You get the punks in cyberpunk as either a direct ideological opposition to the power of corporations, or as an indirect result of said corpos creating a hell world for 99% of people.

There is nothing inherently rebellious about worlds or characters within worlds with more prevalent / advanced steam or diesel or nuclear power.

Solarpunk arguably has some actual punk to it if you actually try to follow the idea of personally minimizing your fossil fuel usage, but mostly its a utopian or post-dystopian setting / art style.

Its now like -gate being affixed to any kind of publicized controversy.

Most people do not understand what Watergate even was and why it was so significant.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwJ6OVSwkM&pp=ygUWYWNkYyBpdmUgZ290IGJpZyBiYWxscw%3D%3D

I thought Paulogia’s minimum witnesses argument is basically that Paul could have hallucinated, and that those who witnessed an empty tomb basically did see an empty tomb, but circumstantial confusion led them to misinterpret what they saw?

I’ll have to rewatch some of his vids.

Also, hey, Goju Ryu! I trained in Shito Ryu =D

I like this answer too!

This stems from the fact that, so far, the earliest dated written fragments we have from what is now the New Testament are some of the writings of Paul.

Paul was not one of the Apostles EDIT: Disciples, and it seems possible that, after persecuting earlier, existing Christians, he could have basically had a stress induced psychotic break and hallucinated the vision of Jesus that he had, then converted.

Thing is though, Christians would have to … you know exist and already be a real thing first, for that to make sense.

It does explain why Paul does not mention some very key elements of the narrative of the Gospels: He just had not actually read about or heard of those parts yet.

This creates some theological problems down the line, and some of those problems were ‘remedied’ by what a good deal of scholars and historians believe to be forgeries… chapters of the Bible that modern Christians attribute to Paul, but do not seem to actually have been written by Paul.

It is also possible to some of the empty tomb accounts in some of the Gospels as similar kinds of trauma induced hallucinations.

Mark famously originally just ends with an empty tomb, and nobody said anything about this because they were scared… and then the last bit of verses giving Mark a more satisfying ending have been shown to be added … decades later.

There exists documented proof in many bits of literature from around 200 BCE to around 100 CE of numerous different figures in what is called ‘Jewish Apocalypticism’, basically a small in number but persistent phenomenon of Jews in and around what was for most of that time the Roman province of Palestine, preaching that the end would come, that God or a Messiah would return or arise and basically liberate the region and install a Godly Kingdom, usually after or as part of other fantastical events.

Jesus was one of many of these Jewish Apocalypticists. Much like the rest of the movement’s key figures, they were wrong, and their lives were greatly exaggerated in either their writings or writings about them or inspired by them.

This seems to be the (extremely condensed) opinion of most Biblical Scholars.

There are a very small number of modern Biblical Scholars that are ‘Mythicists’ of some kind, who believe that Jesus was completely fictional and wholly invented by certain people or groups.

This is an unpopular view amongst scholars and historians of that time and region, as most believe it more plausible that Jesus was just another example of a radical Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, which again, was fairly common for roughly 300 years in that region.

Its like how if you go to a big city theres always that one guy with a megaphone preaching imminent doom. 99% of people think this is silly and ignore them, but tons of people know that people like them exist and do have small followings.

Depends on how the combo works. Is there an element of skill involved? If it’s like a rhythm game I would just call it a puzzle/rhythm game. Otherwise it’s just a puzzle game with extra steps.

That was in my OP though, that most games can be thought of as puzzle games with extra steps.

EDIT: I would agree that Tetris is not a puzzle game.

This is quite interesting to me.

My main point of this post is to highlight how the genres and categories we have for games breaks down upon examination and I guess changes over time.

I would say that most people either have or would call Tetris basically the most popular puzzle game.

When it came out it was basically the titular, archetypal ‘puzzle’ game.

You think that pushing a button that generates a purely random outcome is a game?

To me, those are neither games nor puzzles.

There is nothing one can do, in terms of thought or execution, to influence the outcome.

Other than I suppose choosing to play or not play.

To me, a game must include some capacity of the player to influence whether they succeed or fail, within the game itself.