• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gorn

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight
  • Birthday 06/15/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

2,837 profile views
  1. Yes, someone who marched with MLK, has a 100% pro-choice voting record and who fought for LGBT rights since the early 1970s is a "Dem come lately brosocialist half measure". Meanwhile, a former Goldwater Girl, a former president of college Young Republicans, who supported Defense of Marriage Act and referred to black teenagers as "superpredators" is a lifelong progressive Democrat. In other news, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
  2. This wasn't directed to me, but there is a simple answer to this question: testosterone. I was never able to experience the "women's side", but a lot of transsexual people have actually experienced this difference. And the stories from people transitioning from women to men report a significant increase of sexual desire simultaneous with testosterone injections. Similar experience has been reported with men who started using testosterone boosters. Here is a good link to listen to about this subject: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/220/testosterone?act=2#play
  3. There are open world games who accomplished it without losing the tension. For example, in Fallout 1, you have a fixed time limit for the main quest. However, you're a stranger in a strange land, with only the faintest idea of where the main quest item might be, and it makes perfect sense within the narrative to explore as much as possible and do favors for people you meet who might help you. In Baldur's Gate 2, you need the help of allies to accomplish your goal, and those allies demand a large sum of gold, so you are forced to work as a mercenary for a while to collect that gold. Also, you can tell a great open-world narrative without the sense of tension and urgency. In Witcher 3, you are following a cold trail of someone you haven't seen in years and who isn't in any immediate danger, so while you're in the area, might as well check the notice board for witcher contracts, right?
  4. I forgot to add the biggest complaint I have about the writing - the main character seems remarkably nonchalant about time-travelling 200 years into future, arriving in a new world with mutated monsters and societal breakdown and having their spouse killed and child kidnapped before their eyes (no spoiler tags since it happens in the first 15 minutes). And yet your first action after leaving the vault will probably be looting all the containers in your former neighborhood and checking what improvements you can craft on your handgun. I don't mind placeholder plots which let me do my own thing, but this is just ridiculous.
  5. Finally got around to playing Fallout 4. I'm still in the early part of game and exploring the area around the starting vault and Cambridge, haven't visited Diamond City yet - since the game seems to be ignoring its own "plot", so do I. So far, my impressions are... mixed. The Good - Yay! More Fallout! A brand new post-apocalyptic sandbox! - This might be heresy, but I actually prefer the new leveling system with perks at every level to the classic Fallout character progression. - Weapon and armor crafting systems are satisfying to tinker with. - New power armor mechanics are great, and it finally feels "right", like a game-changer it should be. - Clearing a building/cave of monsters/bad guys with a stealth-build character in a Bethesda game remains, for me, one of the most enjoyable experiences in gaming. The Bad - For some reason, I am expected to spend a large portion of the game playing post-apocalyptic Sims (the Workshop mode) instead of exploring or shooting supermutants. In theory, an interesting game can be made out of the "post-apocalyptic Sims" concept, but the game doesn't give me isometric camera view, anything interesting to do or build, or a reason to bother. Most of the DLC doubles down on this crap, so I can safely skip it. - The interface designers seem to be completely unaware that some people use keyboard and mouse to play. - I was initially excited about the pre-war introduction sequence, but nothing interesting is done with it. - I was also initially excited about the voiced main character, but the voice actors haven't impressed me so far (possibly due to not having any interesting dialogue). - Vault 111 is the most boring vault in any Fallout game. - 90% of side-quests I've seen so far are "go to that place and kill everything there". - Writing in general is bland, and the main plot (so far) seems both like a placeholder, and mostly irrelevant to the protagonist's actions. The Ugly - The graphics are awful for a 2015 game which demands a 2 GB video card and 8 GB of RAM. I normally don't pay much attention to it, but after recently playing Witcher 3 (another 2015 game), the drop in quality is huge. I don't expect lush landscapes from a post-apocalyptic game, but stuff like character faces and animations are so bad that I have a private theory that every character I meet is secretly a synth. I honestly think that if I took two random screenshots from Fallout 3 and 4 and put them side by side, it would be difficult to tell which is which.
  6. No, he's the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby Nothing alleged about that part, since he did it in front of cameras and was convicted of it in court.
  7. 99% of conspiracy theories on the Internet are garbage which can be easily refuted with science and verifiable historical facts. However, there is also that 1% where common-sense logic and additional evidence make the theories far more likely to be true than the "official" version. Here are some that I'm personally at least 90% certain are true. 1. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't acting alone. The "second shooter" theory has been refuted, but the official story of JFK assassination still stinks and fails the "common sense" criteria. Reason? Jack Ruby. An organized crime associate (who at the same time wasn't so closely connected to be immediately suspicious) in an out-of-character display of patriotism kills the presidential assassin while entering through mysteriously unlocked and unguarded stairwell. Oh, and he later asks the Warren commission to transfer him to Washington DC because he "wants to tell the truth" and "his life is in danger". And then dies from eight separate tumors which were not previously diagnosed. Hmmm. 2. 1999 Russian apartment bombings were carried out by FSB and organized by Putin and Yeltsin. I normally ignore "false flag" theories and was dismissive of this one the first dozen times I heard it, but after I started reading about it, I changed my mind. It is the only one on the list that I'm 100% convinced about, because there are so many red flags: - Three months before the bombings, journalist Alexander Zilin warned about terrorist attacks in Moscow organized by the government; - After two bombings, Achemez Gochiyayev realized he was being framed and informed the police about two other locations where explosives were found; - After the Ryazan bombing was foiled and evidence started leading towards FSB, they released a story about "exercise" (with real explosives); - A parliament member spoke of "Volgodonsk bombing" during a session three days before it actually happened; - Two parliament commission members investigating the bombings were assassinated, and a third was first assaulted, and later died after a car accident; - Litvinenko and Politkovskaya, who both investigated the bombings, were both assassinated; - Basayev and Ibn Khattab both denied involvement, even though they were both quick to claim responsibility for other terrorist attacks. 3. Nicholas Deak was killed by the CIA. Since this one is a little obscure, here's some background: Nicholas Deak was a former CIA agent and Wall Street financier was accused, among other things, of laundering money for Latin American drug traffickers. Soon after that, an insane homeless woman walked into his Wall Street and killed him in a random act of violence. Hmmm. Here's a good article about it: https://www.salon.com/2012/12/02/better_than_bourne_who_really_killed_nick_deak/
  8. I recently took a similar trip and ended up paying more than 120$ for a one-way train ticket from Boston to New York, which is insane compared to Europe. Regarding the city public transport, Boston's was OK, as was Chicago's. NYC subway system made me feel like I time-travelled to 1960's. In other major cities I visited (Dallas, Charlotte, Orlando, St.Louis, Nashville, Albuquerque) rent-a-car was the only reasonable option for getting around.
  9. But this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If women don't discuss women's problems with men (because they won't listen) and instead only discuss them with other women, then men who don't go out of their way to educate themselves on these issues will be genuinely unaware of them. "Men-only" or "women-only" spaces are unhealthy to society as a whole.
  10. One man's red tape is another man's consumer protection. The EU has some of the most stringent consumer protection requirements, and more importantly, its market size gives it enough clout to force companies to change their ways.
  11. You say it like it's a bad thing. Seriously, Franken needs to resign, or if he refuses to, he needs to be quietly pushed to do so by Schumer. I have zero patience for old lechers who abuse their power in the workplace, regardless of their politics. Purge the fuckers. No ifs, buts, and whataboutism. If, as a result, the left ends up dominated by younger women instead of old men in positions of leadership, then at least something good can come from this whole mess. Doubt we'll lose any good ones - can anyone imagine similar credulous accusations against, say, Obama?
  12. I think it should be obvious to any open-minded person that the accusations against Moore are true. We are not in a court of law, and only two questions matter here: do the accusations fit Moore's proven behavior pattern (they do), and was he caught lying or contradicting himself (he was). Here is a good article on the topic: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/11/the_mountain_of_evidence_against_roy_moore.html Also, I am confident that Jones will win the election. Special elections are all about turnout. There are no other elections on that day, no other ballot questions, the whole election is about Moore vs Jones. Republican voters have to force themselves to leave house on election day, go to the polling station, and cast their vote for a pedophile, and all this for what? Control over 1/100 of the US Senate? Some Senate vote on a random future issue which may come to a 50/50 split? The only way Moore can win is if his supporters somehow manage to paint Jones as some scary demon who must be kept out of office at all costs (the Clinton strategy), but I don't see how that is possible. From what I've read of him, Jones is a personally religious, non-offensive moderate whose main issues are health care, civil rights and raising the minimum wage, and who mostly stays quiet about abortions and guns (two hot-button issues capable of mobilizing the Republican turnout).
  13. I come from a country where election cheating has been turned into a fine art, especially on a local level. Here are a couple of examples from just the last couple of elections: - Vote buying is a standard practice, and the price and parties willing to pay are well-known. You take a photo of the ballot with your phone as proof and go to the local party offices to collect your money. - If you hold a low-level/unqualified position in a public/government company, you are expected to vote for the ruling party to keep your job. Again, ballot photo is used as proof. - Dead people regularly vote, and so do people who moved out of the country. - A politician from a minor party bought votes with government money. After becoming the Minister of Agriculture, he handed out "agricultural subsidies" to his voters in key areas, regardless of whether they actually did any farming. The story broke out, and nothing happened because his party was key to maintaining the governing coalition. That guy is still active in politics. - There is a natural-resource rich municipality with 200 registered voters and 17 people actually living there. - Ballots are often made invalid during the counting process simply by making a mark on it to make it look like you voted for multiple parties. - Major parties created "shell" minor parties filled with their people for the purpose of having extra election observers present during vote counting. - When the ruling coalition lost its majority, two opposition parliament members were outright bribed to switch parties. The biggest internet portal in the country published proof, together with phone recordings. Nothing happened. - Anecdotally, an opposition election observer in a remote village had a gun pulled on him during the vote count and was told to keep his mouth shut about what he saw if he wants to go home alive. And yet, none of that stuff kept me from voting in every single election since I was 18 for the party closest to my beliefs. This is why I find the complaints about gerrymandering in U.S. politics so silly. The only way to make a change is to keep pushing within the bounds of what is in your power. No election is ever "fair", either because of the money involved, unequal exposure for different political options, media bias, built-in advantage for incumbents and major parties, rules about voting districts and who is allowed to vote, or outright cheating like what I described. And yet even such imperfect democracy is preferable to the alternative (government change via revolution / civil war).
  14. Anyone who uses it as an excuse for not voting, or generally not engaging in the political process, deserves to be ridiculed. I might be overly harsh and bitter because I see too many people with this mindset in my everyday life. No.1 goal should be getting as many like-minded people to the polls on election day, regardless of the state or district they live in. Once your party is in a position of power, you can worry about changing the rules.
  15. One thing to remember re:gerrymandering is that it can only happen once every 10 years, and a lot of things change in 10 years. People die, other people come of age, some stop voting due to lack of political engagement, others start voting, some switch parties, and finally, a lot of people simply move to other districts or other states. A district which was carefully gerrymandered in 2010 to produce a 60% Republican majority might be far more vulnerable in 2018 or 2020 for all these reasons, because its effects become less powerful over time. This is why the attitude "the districts are gerrymandered, our voters are disenfranchised, it's not fair, waaaaah", really isn't helpful.