The Anti-Targ

Members
  • Content count

    8,384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Anti-Targ

  • Rank
    Level 20 Social Justice Mage, with melee ability
  • Birthday 07/03/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

8,187 profile views
  1. They don't need to do that, they just need to make it to a handful of politicians who lack critical thinking skills, who are already predisposed to favour "small" govt low tax propositions.
  2. All that, and net neutrality looks set to die a cruel death. That'll be a nice lump of coal under your Christmas tree.
  3. Well, yes, they are also forms of gambling. End of the day, if you are paying money for the chance of getting something you want, but also the chance of getting nothing you want, that's gambling. But there are also key differences. With baseball cards you're not buying the card, you are buying a product and getting a baseball card packed in, so arguably you are always paying for something you want (the products) and you might also get an extra thing that you also want. The fact that baseball cards have commonly been associated with buying candy or cigarettes is a whole different moral argument. With MTG card packs you are guaranteed to get at least one card with some rarity, so it's much less likely that you are going to get an entirely disappointing outcome.So there is less risk of getting nothing satisfactory. So the potential for harm or abuse is reduced, though not eliminated. They are also far less likely to lead to addictive behavior, because it's more difficult to throw tons of money at those things within a matter of minutes. Video games them selves are pretty addictive, so throwing another additive element into an already pretty addictive foprm of entertainment carries a fair amount of harm potential. The question around possible regulation is to what extent are companies engaging in abusive consumer practices with this form of gambling? And is sensible regulation the best means to mitigate the worst consumer abusive elements? I think the reddit response to BF2 answers the first question: companies (or at least EA, and arguably Warner Brothers with Shadow of War) have got into abusive consumer practices with this form of gambling. As to the second question, I guess we'll see. It could be that game publishers might realise that they've shit the bed on lootboxes and that much line online pass it will quickly become a toxic revenue gathering mechanism and it will die a natural death. It seems like a few smaller publishers are already disavowing lootboxes. So maybe regulation won't be necessary. But I think lootboxes are as addicitve for the companies using them as they are for people sinking large amounts of money into opening them.
  4. So lootboxes as gambling coming under serious regulator fire / examination, and how EA started the bringing down of this house of cards with Battlefront 2. Hawaiian regulator: "This game is a Star Wars themed online casino." Ouch!
  5. I wonder how the global nature of the internet will affect this? If most other major jurisdictions (EU in particular) enforce net neutrality and regulate the internet as a utility will the decrease the potential for ISPs to screw over US clients? It's still a major question about whether other countries will regulate to maintain net neutrality, but assuming the best case scenario would this help US folks in any way? Fascinating. You could argue that C-CPI is the better method for working out inflation adjustments since it reflects actual behaviour better than straight CPI. Though when it comes to tax policy I think "what's fair" is an important question when there are such huge income disparities. And perhaps it's not fair to have tax thresholds rise at the slowest possible rate, especially if the basis for doing so is to give corporations and the wealthiest people more money. One can always advance the argument that people should be able to keep more of their own money, but it's a bit hard to advance a rob the poor to pay the rich argument.
  6. So Jude Law the male lead (probably a Kree, maybe Mar Vell?) for Captain Marvel. One article I read was that he would help Carol get to grips with her new powers. This is sounding like a lost opportunity to reprise Ronin the Accuser and have him help Carol out. I still hope Ronin will be in Captain Marvel fighting alongside Carol. A small worry that we might be seeing a mirror of the Wonder Woman / Steve Trevor relationship. If he's Mar Vell, then Carol will probably adopt the name Captain Marvel in honour of Mar Vell, who will die in some gloriously self sacrificial manner. The stories of the relationships between the two movies would differ in detail, but thematically they would be very similar. Both male characters are helping these women find their way in the world. In the case of Wonder Woman it's integrating into modern society. In the case of Captain Marvel, its coping with and coming to grips with her new powers.
  7. So certain scenes from trailers, especially the alleged Super Girl leg shot and the green lantern glint in Alfred's glasses obviously didn't make the sub 2hr cut. It's still arguable that the alleged Super Girl leg shot was actually Superman getting in touch with Alfred after he had chilled at the family Ranch for a bit and that it being cut is a nothingburger. But still I think on balance it probably was Super Girl's leg. So the question is whether the trailer is still a teaser for what's coming, that Super Girl will put in an appearance in the DCEU. Or is it nothing? It was certainly a misdirection, IMO. Personally I would have quite liked the idea that Super Girl remained a sleeper right up to the events of JL, and that the re-animation of Superman did turn to shit for the entirety of the movie, and that it was Super Girl who finally decended she needed to come out and was who was needed to turn the tide of the fight with Steppenwolf. Also, at the end of BvS obviously Clarke and Superman both end up "dead". So everyone who knows Clarke would have been, "interesting coincidence, Clarke and Superman both die on the same day." But now Superman is back alive and miraculously so is Clarke. I'm thinking people who know Clarke will be saying "This is no coincidence". Personally to maintain the ruse I think Clarke needs to grow a moustache, and Superman needs to somehow be able to magically make the moustache disappear. I don't think glasses are going to cut it anymore.
  8. Be careful what you wish for. The grass may not be greener. I would suggest a small tropical pacific Island, but they will mostly be under water in the next 30 to 50 years.
  9. Interesting, As Jim Sterling said in a recent Jimquisition video 2017 is the year of the lootbox. It seems that no only is it the year lootbox "gambling" became a favourite persistent revenue stream for most major publishers, but it also looks like 2017 is the year that lootbox gambling has got the serious attention of some regulators, because it seems corporations did what corporations always do in an unregulated environment: they take things too far.
  10. Yikes! Weekend estimate $96 million, weekend actuals $93 million. That's not a good sign as the usual formula to work out the Sunday (and Saturday?) numbers to provide the estimate was obviously wrong, which means a bigger drop off than expected. Though looking at the actual %s for the drop for those days they don't look wildly out of whack for these sorts of movies. It does seem a bit like if the Friday (which includes all preview screenings) is huge then the expected drop for Saturday and Sunday are large. If the Friday number is modest then the Saturday and Sunday drops are smaller. It seems like the Friday number for JL was modest, so they applied a smaller drop formula to Saturday and Sunday than what happened. I wonder how many people went to see it on Friday (and previews) and told friends and family "eh, don't bother." Warner Bros seems to believe that people will turn out for JL on Thanksgiving weekend, so they are looking at a sort of 2 weekend opening window as a proper measure of box office potential. They seem to think Coco isn't going to be a big draw (a big risk to assume that I think). I dunno, I'd be sweating if I was a WB exec, thanking my lucky stars that the International audience seems to be more forgiving. Interestingly Thor took a massive hit on the Friday, as you'd expect, but it actually bounced very well on Saturday. So perhaps there was an element of people who saw JL Friday, or previews, telling friends and family to skip JL and see Thor instead.
  11. Pictures of you eating it, not wearing it.
  12. I guess you should buy a chocolate bra and wear that on the day of the elections, just as a precaution.
  13. Can you complete the campaign that way? I got a decent amount of amber through military alliances, but objectives, quests and missions kept making me venture out. And you can't get enough Amber do all the research you want and have all the strongest units in your armies. I tried to limit my expansionist activities to only having buffer zones. But then The Empire AND Dwarf factions both declared war on me for no reason, so I ended up going on a vengeful rampage. Even if you stay more or less confined to Athel Loren the rest of the factions will all pretty much fall to the Chaos Hordes. And if you wait for Chaos to arrive at the borders of Athel Loren you are pretty much toast. Though I suspect if Chaos goes after the Dwarf factions first they may get stopped in their tracks. They are tough SoBs and may be the only AI faction that can actually defeat Chaos. But even then you kinda need to play a faction that very much either supports them or stays out of their way.
  14. US box office for opening weekend not looking flash (pardon the pun) for Justice League. It's possible this will be the first DCEU movie to have a domestic run <$200 million. Estimated $96m opening weekend, and possibly a final multiplier of 1.99 (which is what BvS got). I think the foreign box office will save it from being a financial trainwreck. But you gotta figure that where the US audience goes, the international audience will soon follow. If they think the DCEU is going to be a 15-20 movie venture they need to do a serious course correction. IMO the problem is fundamental. The MCU started out as movies being made by Marvel, as something of a passion project. They had to start with Iron Man because he was a character for which no one wanted to buy the rights. Iron Man and Hulk even had different distributors. The DCEU is a competitive business response to the MCU and you can tell that there is this fundamental difference in the starting positions. I think there is a reason MoS and WW are regarded by most as the better movies of the 4 we have so far, by quite some margin. Both MoS and WW probably had greater creative freedom. WW, because it happened outside the timeline of the DCEU, and because it was WW and probably not expected to be a core movie for the franchise, so WB didn't try to focus test the life out of it. MoS also likely less micromanaged by the suits, because it was a reboot after a one off reboot so was possibly a "see what you can do with this" sort of thing. Though the money they threw at MoS was ridiculous. There is something a bit rotten at the core of the DCEU and I think it's an imbalance between the creativie, artistic side of movies and the business side of movies. But it might also be that the wrong creative people are in charge regardless of the business side. The movie got a B+ from audiences. So it's possible word of mouth might be that the movie is better than the critics say. This could help to push it above $200 million in the USA. Which would still be disappointing, but not the embarrassment that falling short of $200 million would be. 2nd weekend drop will tell.
  15. Eh, Hannity wins with his viewers either way, and it doesn't prevent the revictimisation. He either interviews a victim and tries to tear them to shreds, in which case his viewers all cheer him for exposing the lies about the good Mr Moore. Or there's no interview and Hannity gets to claim, with no rebuttal, that the "so called victims" are hiding because they know they are not telling the truth. There is really no winning with these people, so I guess not subjecting yourself to a direct on air attack is the better option.