Blakerboy777

joined 1 year ago
[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@Zorque

@ZeroCool @qooqie @PapaStevesy the witch cursed Narnia so that it's always winter and never Christmas.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@blanketswithsmallpox

@iridaniotter @BarrelAgedBoredom

Yeah, non-trans women don't enjoy being forever 2nd because they weren't born men in physically competitive sport

Some sports just have totally dominant competitors. I don't think all the men who lost to Michael Phelps enjoyed losing to him because they didn't get to be born complete genetic freaks that look like they were engineered in a lab to win at swimming. In many women's sports, the top (cis) competitors tend to have really beneficial genetics, including really high levels of testosterone compared to average. Losing to someone because their genetics help them be faster/stronger/taller is just how it goes in competitive sports. Losing to a trans woman is no different than losing to a cis woman who hit the genetic lottery.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

@semperverus

@astanix

Might be mixing it up with another card, Reliquary Tower has no land subtype. It gives you no max hand size and taps for {C}.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

@PlatinumPangolin

@delitomatoes @NABDad @danielbln @fartsparkles @Potatos_are_not_friends

Fair points, I have only watched a few episodes myself and was merely copying the source since others weren't seeing it.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@Potatos_are_not_friends

@delitomatoes @NABDad @danielbln @fartsparkles

There are examples in the second link, but I can paste them here for you:

Scrubs:
J.D. started as fairly emotionally needy due to him wanting a father figure to replace his own dysfunctional family. Fast forward to season five where J.D. is an appletini (light on the tini)-swilling "sensey" (that's "sensitive person") who can't hold on to his "man cards" (which would be taken away from him if he did something girly) for a full day. This is lampshaded by Zach Braff in the bloopers to Season 8.
"You haven't been here in a while, my character's really gay now."
Carla was initially a tough cookie Team Mom. As the seasons went on, the writers Flanderised her obsession with gossip and her domineering tendencies over Turk. She also went from giving advice to forcing her opinions on everyone else and admitting that taking the moral high ground "is like crack for me".
Elliot went from being a pretty normal, slightly quirky, girl with no interest in kids and a high degree of efficiency coupled with no personal skills to highly neurotic, obsessed with getting married and having kids, and the most compassionate doctor in the hospital that was only there because she wanted to help people. The family part is at least somewhat justified by the fact that she as she got old she had a stronger desire to settle down.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

@beefbaby182

@delitomatoes

It sucks when a show is spinning it's wheels and a significant actor moves on to greener pastures, but you get it. It really sucks when a show rockets off and actors leave because the show has made them into a star who get offered bigger projects to capitalize on their fame. Mucking things up for the thing that made you famous is such BS.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@HobbitFoot

@delitomatoes Many sitcoms have an overarching romance arc between two leads that gets stretched out for eternity. I don't know how much I can vouch for "The Office" handling other storylines, but the getting Pam and Jim together 1/3rd of the way through the series, and then not having them constantly breaking up and dating other people and then getting back together (like Friends) was a real breath of fresh air. The show really proved they could survive as an anthology without having the main romantic arc to fall back on. Of course, later on they introduce serious romantic arcs for other characters.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

@infyrin

@fubo I'm confused, this literally backs up what he said.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

@Nintendianajones64

@picandocodigo @slimerancher I think you're underselling how important the price cuts were to the PS2's longevity, and I don't think Nintendo is willing to go nearly that far. The PS2, like the Nintendo Switch, launched at $299. 2 years later it dropped to $199. Then steady price cuts all the way to $129 preceeding the launch of the PS3 in 2006 at $499/$599. I think it's safe to say that the enormous price difference played a huge role in it's ongoing sales past the PS3 launch. PS2 launched in March 2000, and 7 years later it had sold 117 million units, taking us just a few months past the PS3 launch. In the next 5 years the PS2 sales racked up another 40 million units, or about 25% of all PS2's sold occurred after it's successor's launch.

If the Switch were to follow the same trajectory and a Switch 2 launched this holiday season, we'd see another 40+ million units sold over the next 5 years, ending in over 170 million units sold. But there are a number of reasons to doubt this will happen.

#1 there might literally just not be enough chips left to do that- it's speculated that Nvdia stopped production of the chips and there's a finite number left, which may fall short of that goal.

#2 Nintendo seems very reluctant to drop prices. The PS2 by this point was less than half of the launch price and only 65% of its cost after the first major price drop. The Switch is 100% of its launch price, and I believe in some regions it even got a price hike.

#3 it seems implausible that the Switch 2 will cost as much as a PS3 did at launch (more expensive than the Series S and PS5 digital, equivalent to Series X and PS5 disc). That means the price delta between the Switch and Switch 2 will necessarily be far narrower than the PS2/PS3, so continued sales after the Switch 2 launch are unlikely to be as robust.

#4 Sony wasn't trying to pump up the PS2 numbers, selling it nearly until the PS4 came out was a strange phenomenon born of unusual circumstances. I don't think Nintendo will have any interest in selling the Switch alongside it's successor except to clear out inventory, for the same reason the Wii U and Switch V1 were both discontinued promptly after their successor's came out.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

@slimerancher

@picandocodigo it's averaging about 20M units a year, so assuming Switch 2 makes the Switch 1 totally obsolete, we'd need another year+ of strong sales to rise to number one. If the Switch 1 continues to be sold after Switch 2 is released (not fully backwards compatible, Switch 1 price drop, Switch 2 is just more expensive), then less than a year or strong sales plus another couple years of long tail sales to get over the hump.

If it overtakes, I can imagine the most likely scenario to make it happen are - Switch 2 is considered unambiguous successor at $350-$400, Switch 1 price drop of only like $25-$50, basically just to clearance out the old stock, except no switch lite replacement for the first year, so the now $150-$175 switch lite continues to to rack up sales at a ridiculously apealing price. Obviously they could easily reach 1at place if they did a really agressive price drop but that doesn't seem likely for nintendo at all- a small price drop on the lite, especially if the choices are $150 Lite, $250 V2, $300 OLED, $400 Switch 2

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

@stopthatgirl7

@rafoix I'm confused about the defense of "they should have closed off the roads". He drove around a barricade according to the story, so it sounds like it was shut off. Also just kind of weird to say "yes, I intentionally ran into those people, but the cops should a have done a better job of stopping me." He didn't negligently hit them, right? It was on purpose? You can try to share some blame when an accident happens and say <i>. But it doesn't work when you're actually trying to cause harm.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

@numnum

@skhayfa your wording is a little confusing - you said this will only bring them to $21, and and that they were hoping for more than $10. A) this will bring them to $21 today, with 4 more guaranteed yearly increases bringing the total to $28.52. B) if I'm understanding correctly, minimum pay today is $18.25, so this would cumulatively be a $10.27 raise over 5 years.

What would an actually good contract look like? To me, I can definitely understand why this would be dissapointing. But I can also understand why some people would be willing to accept a greater than 50% wage increase over 5 years as a win.

view more: next ›