A.K.A u/hucifer

  • 2 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle



  • The costumes are good, but the armor in the show is all over the place.

    According to this blog post by a military historian, that “scale” armor you linked is the worst of a bad bunch:

    Perhaps the worst offender (which unfortunately gets a lot of screentime) is the odd Númenórean scale armor. Now scale armor was not necessarily a bad idea here (it could make for an interesting visual motif connecting the seafaring Númenóreans with fish-scales, for instance), but there are two immediate problems with this armor. First, it doesn’t seem structured like scale armor. The strong cording around the edges and rigid spaulders make it look like rigid armor made to look like it is composed of scales. The effect is only increased because the backing is shaped to give it pectoral muscles (and chests for women, which is doubly silly). But that’s not how historical scale armor hangs on the body.

    Scale armor is [supposed to be] a lot more flexible (with the downside that the very flexibility of the scales means that a strike from below can pass beneath them and through the armor) and would thus hang and shape to the body. This armor does not do that. Instead as noted what this looks like are solid plates that are made to look like they are made out of scales. And that’s also not a terrible idea except that the actors are then also wearing scale-armor-print shirts underneath the armor which makes it clear that we’re to understand a flexible scale armor covering the whole of the upper body, which this clearly isn’t.

    What on earth is this armor made out of? The queen’s armor looks like it might be bronze, albeit less well polished than I’d expect for royalty, but everyone else’s scale armor is made of this dull off-white material that looks like plastic or pressed foam, presumably because it is plastic or pressed foam. Surely this stuff should be made of iron?





  • Hi, thanks for the response.

    Similar to posts, when selecting the options for an individual comment in the official lemmy-ui, as a moderator you can 1) check the modlog history of that user, 2) remove the comment, 3) ban the author of the the comment from the community, and 4) appoint the author as a new moderator of that community.

    It would be great to see all of these features added to Thunder, but as a priority I would say that removing the comment and banning the author are the top two most important for moderators.






  • Yeah, I know that gnostic atheism is a theoretical position to hold, but I’ve never actually met an atheist that holds that view. The vast, vast majority of atheists ascribe to a scientific world view that is based around the concepts of evidence and burden or proof. As such, trying to argue belief in the non-existence of a non-existent being (i.e. “I firmly believe that God definitely doesn’t exist”) is not compatible with that logic, whereas “I don’t believe in God, because there isn’t enough evidence” is.

    When it comes to explaining atheism to religious friends and family members, I’ve found the best approach to be this: Ask them if they believe in any other Gods except their own (Zeus, Ganesh, The Yellow Emperor, etc.) When they say no, you say “Ok, so my list of Gods I Don’t Believe In is one longer than yours.”


  • there’s no wyantonrpove the existence of A god, atheists must believe that that’s the truth.

    What you’re describing here is agnosticism, not atheism. Agnostics claim that the existence of God is either 1) not known, but certainly possible, or 2) unknowable to begin with.

    Atheism, on the other hand,

    is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

    Source




  • I do not like the frequency of reboots necessitated by kernel upgrades. I know that I could mask it, but IME that eventually causes problems with packages than make .ko kernel modules; it’s just more things to fail, and it makes me really wish Linus would have just based Linux on MINIX.

    Here’s a tip that you might not be aware of: Arch has an LTS kernel. It may seem counter intuitive to run Arch and not have the latest, bleeding edge kernel, but the upside is that you get a stabler, less breakage-prone system.


  • Kabe@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlAre you a 'tankie'
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Hang on, so you’re telling me you guys lump social liberals in with classical liberals and neoliberals? That’s definitely not common, but then I suppose if you’re a communist then it kinda makes sense.

    Also, while I wouldn’t call Sanders a socialist either, he is not a centrist by any standard measure. I presume you don’t consider anyone a leftist if they don’t advocate for collective ownership and a centrally planned economy?




  • Kabe@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlAre you a 'tankie'
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.

    That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.

    Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have a degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term “tankie” in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.