injurai

Yeah, it's gorgeous and perturbing at the same time. Truly biblical, or rather... umbiblical.

I just want to say, that posed shot of Lilith is absolutely sublime. I can't get it out of my head.

I only watched the D4 reveal, but I have to say I'm half impressed by Blizzard. Only half because it seems like they are approaching the franchise like they should have all along, it only took years of criticism, and a handful of major **** ups handling the series for them to finally take this attitude. It's nice that we got more than just words. I loved the new atmosphere in the gameplay reveal. I wonder if the always persistent world is taking inspiration from Dark Souls? At any case there was a bit too many recycled D3 animations to really excite me with regards to the gameplay, I'm hoping they refine the combat a bit more and create something with a fresher feel. I'm not into simply playing a reskin of D3.

EA Announcing Battlefront 3 Foreplay Pass.

But can it see why kid's love Cinnamon Toast Crunch™?

One day a war will be fought with robot soldiers, all while a new season of Robot Wars will launch featuring a bi-pedal category to distract us from the real world implications of our death machines.

Just got back from Joker, really enjoyed it. I won't spoil any specific plot, just give my take away of what it accomplished. Don't read if you plan to watch it.

0 hype for Ep 9 Makes it easy to not watch trailers I'll be seeing it with low expectations

BlizzArD

Outlined, edited, talking points & details committed to memory, to be discussed with other "network" safe pundits is maybe a better way to word "written, okayed, rehearsed, and played out." Actually fake segments is overkill. What I'm talking about more is how the network envisions the effect of a segment and everyone works towards that. Rinse & repeat.

I do not mean literally rehearsed like a play. I mean the format is used and abused for agenda's sake. Not for realization of investigative journalism. The people prepare topics to be talked about, and will doctor their spin, feign their ignorance for the networks narrative. You have fact checkers to affirm what's patent lies, and what truth they can omit to make their point. You know certain content gets vetted and axed, when someone really gets brave and goes off script everyone knows to stop them cold. They sometimes cut to other content, or will even dismiss or cut a remote guest. Anyone trying to keep their job will find the narrow path to walk. For developing and yet uncertain claims, that's where the real flexibility lies. Networks will drop ideas into their viewers minds, but delicately hedge the position as to not get stuck holding it. It's out their, and often you never seen the person who took the risky claim reneging on the FUD. They really want to cultivate certain emotional positions in their viewers. Clearly it all plays out live, clearly they ad lib, clearly unexpected things happen. There is a modality to how they operate. Not sure how any of that is conspiratorial. It's well understood that networks manufacture consent to use a choice term.

So are they just going to shotgun a VTM game in every semi-niche genre imaginable while the brand is hot?

Data is, datum are.

I should be clear, I linked that video because it stitches together multiple things, I'm not endorsing every single word of said rando comedian. All I know is the guy is a former contributor to The Young Turks, which I don't like and I was probably giving him a shot for having left. Generally I find CNN talking head segments to be so unpalatable that I can hardly stand sieving through the BS and I've done it on many occasions. Perhaps I'm getting lax and consuming second hand indictments of them as they've failed me on so many stories with their 24 news cycle. Also my early like of Tulsi is largely predicated on her speaking bluntly about certain issues which are persona non grata in debates, yet no less relevant discussions when shaping American policy. So there is a chance I'm cluing in on other's who like her as being some what sober when that might not be true. That said, the continued sprinkling of spurious claims is bizarre from a CNN analyst, and my assumption is that those segments are generally written, okayed, rehearsed, and played out with some dynamic ad libing for breaking news or other domain sharing cross-talk. Am I to believe CNN just lets their pundits spill any drivel they want? If the rest of the panel never refuted the claim, only really had confusion and skepticism and douby of such a lofty claim, then still let him espouse his full view and take the last word. Is that just a rogue pundit? Honestly I have no idea how one is supposed to read CNN, it reads like planned talking point. The whole format is anti-intellectual to me. Yeah, and I'm being sloppy myself, but I'm just stitching together bits and pieces that I'm trying to find when I'm not at my day job. I'm not a professional political investigator and so many of them can't even built a report that isn't mostly narrative. Now I had not even seen the supposedly better journalism article that you had posted earlier but I'll take a look. Just on a cursory glance I can see that much of my like from her comes from her strategic cutting through the ****-slinging in the 2016 election. Maybe she's just highly strategic. She felt like a sane voice during all the DNC hijinks the befell 2016. I had not realized she didn't support nuclear energy either which is pretty odd given it's track record and continued improvement. I do need to study her deeper, but that's why election cycles are so long. But you can understand my frustration when criticism of a candidate like her takes the form of conspiracy instead of central refutation of her stances.

@Gromnir When a news station doesn't publish any hard hitting investigative journalism but simply builds mental connectives to sow uncertainty by saying "hmm isn't it curious that a, b, and c are saying x, y, and z about Tulsi? Should we not be concerned that she is <insert spurious and damning claim lacking any real evidence>" that underpins an ulterior motive of it's own. Or have we forgotten everyone has an agenda in a free economy. If Tulsi was a known threat, I'd imagine the something of real substance would have come out now by those who claim to be on top detecting warning signs. If she is a "threat" she would be an insider threat, not some foreign asset. As in a full-blooded American who doesn't want to see her fellow soldiers be put in harms way for what seems like costly and non-beneficial campaigns. "Bring the troops home" is not a new taking point, but it certainly threatens some contractors bottom line (which threatens the wealth of some sordid donor class who pretend themselves more American than the next generation.) Plus, It's increasingly evident that the projection of soft power is becoming the name of the game, and the US is sorely behind in that realm. Well... they actually had a monopoly for years, but there is a new form of soft power that has completely blindsided America. Particularly in relation to IP and the democratic process. Tulsi's stance is not that absurd, especially had it not been for "AMERICAN ASSEST #1 TRUMP" for entirely borking American's position in Syria just recently. Oh and when we did try to get involved in Syria (short of launching our own Invasion) we made things far worse and only drove more of a wedge between ourselves and the region. It's not like Tulsi wasn't the victim of a deep fake mole super-imposed It's clear some interest group finds her will for the nation in opposition of what is useful to them. Some oil group late the the US fracking party or not setup for Venzualen oil or something? Trying to cling to the old model of petrol dollars as long as possible? Who knows, but it is clear when a house of cards is build buy charlatans so much as a light breeze becomes a "threat," but once again it's a spurious slander based on a fear of how might her policies affect long ago planned campaigns and operations. Because apparently the people in charge don't actually have some rational that would all of a sudden clue in the president to the nuances of a situation once they became seated? I hope that's not the case. Or should this be about "forgiving CNN" when they are unprofessional?

The sad thing is these things are never the dev taking a stand with the crazies, it's them casting the widest net possible for sales. Paradox knows excluding "deus vult" won't deter the average sane, sober, free thinking, person who only quotes deus vult with ironic love for the Paradox game that promulgated the memetic status of the phrase in the first place. In fact it's far more Paradox paying the "media troll toll" to not be blacked balled from receiving media partnerships for marketing purposes. It's sad but true. When you have "not journalist" journalists who approach games with a resentful framework, you have to placate those people who have their hand on the public's perception. Most people even if they follow a few things closely rely on second hand accounts from the media for the most part.

K, but tech people get all those stock options and have all that early career expendable income to invest or start families. And even in places like San Fran those earnings are hardly enough as it all goes to rent. I agree English majors are important in so far as their contributions to society, but being able to automate away highly complex tasks that go billions times faster than a human is still going to set someone up better in general. Maybe the STEM market is becoming saturated but until those earners become bigger consumers, the English majors won't have nearly as big of a market to sell to. The English is shrinking for a reason. Another thing, that article talks about economic narrative. Well keeping interest rates low can be good for things like student loans, keeping inflation low though is a way to ensure that earnings/income doesn't rise fast enough so people that people can't keep up with compounding interest. No federal bank is in the business of being the common person's friend, they are looking to smooth out economic shocks while retaining a capital raising model of generating credit by saddling people with debt that comes with it's own tax (interest.) Also there are plenty of corporate ladders in stem fields to climb that come with pay raises, so even if your tech skills fade, you can orchestrate of new design teams as a leader or manager. Many in STEM also take up adjunct professor jobs, or other tangentially related roles that aren't just building out enterprise or business logic from spec. The innovators and lead engineers will also command higher salaries to match management increases for those who really commit to the tech path. (It's usually said one becomes a manager when they can no longer maintain their skills.) Saying we need English majors in order to story-tell economic narratives, and their pay will come when they move on to being middle and upper management is a perfect example of a sinister peddled economic narrative. Better to risk it all on a dream, or find a high economically rewarding job that you can use to fund your fantasy book series, musical ventures, mountain climbing hobby, etc. If you truly love English so much, you'd probably prefer becoming a professor or teacher than simply a copy-writer using English in it's most debased form. There are enough debt saddled journo students to cycle in and out of the spin-mills that an English major really doesn't want any part of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iJsy-bJ-k

That's the side-channel of Shoe-on-head, who is using mommy ironically as a call back to her earlier criticism of Hillary fanatics as well as a reference to Jordan Peterson critics who mockingly referred to him as daddy. She also likes to make fun of people voting for woman on the base of being woman, and not for their past character and policy records. She uses sarcasm a lot. Anyways I think she has one of the better track records of providing commentary to things, but her format is heavily geared towards existing followers.

If the smears against Tulsi aren't meant as a form of "reverse-psyops" then either the American populace is far stupider than I imagined that they would believe she's a Russian plant, or the people running the ops are far stupider than I imagined for thinking people would buy it. I'm not sure which is worse. Like... at this point, if Tulsi was secretly "the DNC plant" who then had to "concede to pragmatism" once in office; then at the very least I'd by happy that the "chosen" candidate was speaking frankly and not pushing the mindless anti-intellectual talking points that have been trotted out for almost two+ decades now. It's really getting pathetic how much empty posturing and inability to communicate reality has become the defining characteristics of political discourse. I'd like a sane sober figurehead to at least quell the cretinous fervor that people feels so entitled and empowered by these days. Not all activists are like that, but why are the idiots in the room sucking up all the air?

I wonder if they will try to push it back to this time next year. Being the big October title would play very well for them.

Is there no free chat in Fortnite?