Tarquinn2049

Ah, well there is an official classification, that is what I am going by. An origin story can still be called an origin story even if it’s the first story, if it follows the origin story format. If however the first story doesn’t follow the origin story format, then it isn’t an origin story even if it’s the first story.

An origin story is named that based on what happens in it, it doesn’t have to be a pre-quel to qualify.

Origin stories tend to resonate with people, it’s basically “how did this person go from being a normal everyday nobody, to one of the most powerful people in the universe” and, if done right, you can empathize with their journey.

Some origin movies maybe suck at that, but that is them squandering an opportunity, you get alot of potential baked-in just from the concept alone.

The Matrix was maybe one of the most successful uses of an origin arc, but most origin movies have a similar free boost, whether the rest of the movie supports and earns that boost is up to them. But many still do.

I liked reloaded and revolutions even on first viewing, but I didn’t need them to feel the same way the first matrix movie felt in order to consider them good. Like, The Matrix stood out from pretty much every other movie I had seen before. You don’t get that a second time right away, especially from another movie of the same type about the same thing. They continued and closed the story very well, but none of them were an origin story, and origin stories are pretty much always more awesome than the other movies in the same series, no matter what order they are made in.

The Matrix was unfollowable, and they managed to follow it ok. They were always gonna be worse in comparison, but they aren’t actually bad.

I haven’t seen Resurrections, not for any particular reason, just keep forgetting anytime I do manage to remember it, before I remember it long enough to see it.

It might be about general knowledge of how colliders work, the sentence structure does it no favours, but half way through I realised it had to be intentional/beneficial due to knowing the only possible way a collider generates heat as a byproduct.

Where as someone that doesn’t know much about colliders might read that sentence and assume it’s like radiative heat or something.

The Harvest Moon games were also all dating sims. The main thing Stardew Valley does is have like 20x as much content and variety as a Harvest Moon game with significantly fewer bugs or abandoned concepts. And the Harvest Moon games were already great as they were. But yeah, if you literally rolled every single Harvest Moon game feature into a single Harvest Moon game, it would still come up short against Stardew Valley. And it was made primarily by one dude that charged way less than any single Harvest Moon game for it.

For the purposes of this comment “Harvest Moon games” refers to the ones made by the real Harvest Moon team, that eventually moved on to “Story of Seasons” when their franchise name was stolen from them. And also includes Rune Factory.

If they would have focussed on making a good place first, and then corrupting it with commercialism, they could have at least boiled a few of us frogs. But you can’t start with the commercialism foot forward and the quality foot behind and expect to make a place worth visiting.

Here’s the thing, if there was drugs on the boat, killing them still isn’t ok. But no, we don’t even “know” if they are telling the truth about the drugs either. We have no idea why they want these people killed. We have to “trust” them… I don’t.

Hehe, I just meant the collecting and redistributing knowledge part. Though yes, it also doesn’t qualify as knowledge, just a string of words that seems like it fits the occasion. Though… not to sell myself short, but not super far off.

If you are catching spray, try to increase the follow distance between you and the vehicle ahead. Same deal for rocks in places where that is a concern. It can be hard to leave a big gap, for fear that someone will come into that gap, but you can’t fix everyone, you can only fix you.

But, we also do have wipers for anything that happens during the current drive, not as good as not getting dirty in the first place, but better than staying dirty.

I am an autistic 41 year old man that lives in my parents basement. I just collect information and re-distribute it where it is needed.

I am basically the pre-cursor to an LLM, an LLM made of meat.

If you’ve ever watched or read anything with that “wise old hermit” that people line up to ask their philosophical questions to. That was an oldendays autistic person of the same type as me. Can’t function in society, but has no emotional thinking to cloud their logic. The thing is, no matter how logical the advice was, and how much it made sense in the moment, it may not have been applicable to normal people. Though I am of course aware of the nature and source of my clarity and try to keep it in mind when giving advice. Unlike the wise hermits of old.

Not to say I am always right, and not to say logic is always the correct solution. But it often is, and I often am.

Clean your windshield, inside and out, and polarized sunglasses, or sunglass clips for glasses. And make sure any level of astigmatism you may have is known and corrected for.

If after washing your windshield, it still scatters the incoming light too much, it is probably pitted. You may have to consider replacing it. It is part of maintaining a vehicle. It may suck to be surprised with an expense like that, but the surprise expense of an avoidable accident is much worse. And might not only be expensive.

Is that not what the other commenters here are arguing? Cuz even when I ask them if that’s what they are saying they keep answering like it is what they are saying, that I must not have gone to an american school. No, I didn’t go to an american school, is it really that bad there? Like Canada is right next to the states, it can’t be that much worse just crossing one border.

I don’t get what you are saying? The kids didn’t do anything wrong? Or they shouldn’t also be in trouble? I don’t get why everyone is saying the kids should be allowed to steal?

Yes I have been to high school, no kids didn’t steal food from the teachers in my high school. But even if they did, they would have been wrong to do so…

Is it really a common thing nowadays for kids to steal from teachers? And not considered wrong when they do?

I really thought the reason it didn’t mention the trouble the kids got in was just cuz including underage children in news articles has to be so redacted as to essentially be pointless unless they are the main focus of the article. Not that they are considered to have not done anything wrong nowadays.

I’m not arguing that she wasn’t wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He’s arguing the kids aren’t wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.

So, it’s your opinion that the kids did nothing wrong by stealing and eating the teachers food? They aren’t even partly responsible?

So the parents get their kids home and they are ok with the kids stealing the teachers food, the teacher shouldn’t have had food in the classroom since kids are allowed to just steal whatever they want.

Eating a parents food is a little more understandable, though still not something a kid should do without permission. Eating a teachers food, is down right actual stealing. It is different even if the teacher is supposed to act like a parent, though I haven’t heard of that being the case, if anything teachers are restricted from acting like parents to the children.

They may have some legal burden, but it doesn’t mean it should be treated exactly as if they are the parents in every situation.

But I did say it was fair that the teacher got in trouble, just thought it odd initially that it doesn’t mention the kids repercussions, til I thought about the hurdles involved in writing that bit of the article and assumed they just didn’t bother.

While I definitely get that she shouldn’t have left them sitting out, is it not the fault of the kids randomly eating other peoples food without permission that the food ended up being much more “not for them” than it already would have been?

Well, I suppose just cuz the article doesn’t mention the kids getting in their fair share of trouble doesn’t mean they didn’t, including underage kids in a news article is a hassle and barely worth doing when they are the main or only part of a story.

Edit: more info exists now. Haven’t updated my assessment, this was based primarily on what was in the article at the time.

Zhou tells PEOPLE in a statement she included Renner in her projects “because I thought and promised to me we were in an evolving love relationship.”

That right there really discredits her claims… if she thought they were in a relationship, why would the messages be considered unsolicited by her?

Kind of seems like she got the wrong impression and then got embarrassed/defensive about it and escalated stuff.

They probably did get in text arguments, and if any of what she is saying turns out to be true, it would be nice to at least see context. The ICE comment is a weird thing to be fabricated, but I could see it being something that was either a knee-jerk reaction, or potentially blown out of proportion. Either way, would really help to see context.