Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kuildeous

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 232
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 15, 2019, 10:04:01 pm »
Once again I got sucked into another pointless Facebook vortex. I had to caption this.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 12, 2019, 11:09:21 am »
People just suck at prefixes, man.

Prefixes are words in front of other words that, while being part of the same term, are still visually divided by a space. An example would be "counter measure"'s "counter". What you mean are antefixes, units that are part of the very same word,such as "ante" in antefix.

I like to make stuff up on the internet for fun.

It was very well done too.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 11, 2019, 03:09:41 pm »
The contentious definition of bi-annual has reared its ugly head again. I tried to politely suggest that due to all the confusion that has formed around that word that we refer to semiannual since at least that word is unambiguous (and I hate it when people refer to bi-annual as twice a year).

And then I get proven wrong by someone saying that semiannual means four times a year. I can't guarantee I kept a good enough poker face at hearing that one. But she looked it up and realized the mistake, but it still flummoxed me that that definition has been going around.

People just suck at prefixes, man.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 11, 2019, 08:41:28 am »
that may just be the "postman" effect.
What is the postman effect? I tried to read up on it, but all I found was why dogs bark at the postman.

Well, actually I think I meant post office. Basically where one person repeats another person but interjects some possible inaccuracies.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 08, 2019, 06:27:28 pm »
Man, it's been 2 days, and they haven't posted the answer yet. I am vexed right now.

Okay, I'm stumped on this riddle. Considering that I'm having a hard time finding it on Google, I question how viable it is. It's not a popular one obviously. It may have originated in England, judging from the use of "dice" as singular, but it might not exclusively be an English thing. Any ideas? It sounds vaguely board-game-y.

I am a king but I do not move one space.
Roll the a dice and I start a fast race.
Begin my reign, I make bucks.
My land is not free, it is my crux.

I almost want to say Monopoly, though that game does not have kings. Perhaps it is used figuratively. But everything else could apply to it.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 06, 2019, 12:53:27 pm »
Sorry, I copied this riddle from another source from where I first saw it. I first saw it as an image, which I couldn't copy. In that version, it said "Roll a dice" and I didn't pick up that the second version was different. It does make more sense when it's not a single die, and that may just be the "postman" effect.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 06, 2019, 12:14:00 pm »
Okay, I'm stumped on this riddle. Considering that I'm having a hard time finding it on Google, I question how viable it is. It's not a popular one obviously. It may have originated in England, judging from the use of "dice" as singular, but it might not exclusively be an English thing. Any ideas? It sounds vaguely board-game-y.

I am a king but I do not move one space.
Roll the a dice and I start a fast race.
Begin my reign, I make bucks.
My land is not free, it is my crux.

I almost want to say Monopoly, though that game does not have kings. Perhaps it is used figuratively. But everything else could apply to it.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: February 05, 2019, 12:02:46 am »
I watched the first two episodes of Deadly Class. I'm still not entirely certain about the entirely ridiculous premise. It certainly puts forth a lot of style, and that's amusing to a point. It does have Benedict Wong, Henry Rollins, and Brian Posehn, so there is some fame attached to this.

It is chock full of cultural stereotypes and school cliques. To the point where one has to wonder what is a secret school of assassins even doing with a cheerleading squad?

I think I'll keep giving it a shot, if only because really bizarre premises can win me over with their sheer absurdity.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: February 04, 2019, 03:50:05 pm »
We were waving our arms out the window of a fast-moving passenger train, acting in an irresponsible fashion until the engineer whose back had been turned and who we thought would find us highly amusing quickly swiveled his head around, and his face which was a paper-white mask of evil sang us this song.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 31, 2019, 09:33:50 am »
It threw me off when I saw someone talking about a biannual review of a process that's been in place for only a year, and then I realized that she probably means a review twice a year.

And that's why the word is dead now. Same with bimonthly.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: January 29, 2019, 01:30:56 pm »
What? Serenity was a great movie. Philistines!

Well, I guess it can't be the best movie ever. I rather enjoyed it.

Firefly was indeed a very witty show. Obviously the network didn't think it paid off, which is a shame. It probably wasn't that expensive to film, but it was still fancier than many other shows. Just not enough people watched it while it was on to justify Fox pumping money into it, though I'm sure they're aware of the missed opportunity.

I was one of those that helped Firefly to fail. I never watched it when it was on. I watched the episodes after it was canceled. It just did not interest me enough to give it a view. When I finally did, I had a great appreciation for the writing and borrowed someone's DVDs to watch the rest.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 24, 2019, 08:26:51 am »
That's going to the correct thread. I don't know who the TC was, he's a user I've not seen before.

Is TC a synonym for OP?

Maybe Topic Creator?

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: January 16, 2019, 11:50:31 am »
Unbreakable is also really boring for certain crowds, but it was also a really good movie.

I'm intrigued by Burning. I like going into good movies blind, though even those movies tend to have a bit more information than this. But I can't ask for more information without spoiling something presumably.

The weird scenes mentioned are probably more like content warning. If awkward scenes do bother you, then maybe that movie won't bother you. But I've also seen Irreversible and Spanking the Monkey, so I can usually handle uncomfortable scenes. Maybe I won't enjoy it, but I won't avoid it.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 14, 2019, 08:40:22 am »
If you recall my quote:
Not sure I'd want something with that degree of granularity

Nobody wants FATAL. I don't care how many zeroes they put after the d.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 11, 2019, 11:25:37 am »
Of course, you can also just get an actual d100.

I'm generally not fond of the d100, but that's because I'm impatient. I'm happier with rolling two dice without waiting for dice to stop.

But I cannot argue its fairness. It is technically the simplest way to roll 1-100. It's just not my favorite.

Someone asked me if rolling d10000 would blow my theory out of the water. After evaluating the dice, it looks like it still works—provided the smallest die goes from 1 to 10 while the others go rom 0* to 9*. So you get 10k by adding 9000+900+90+10.

But I don't play any games that require a d10000. Not sure I'd want something with that degree of granularity, but I could be persuaded.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 10, 2019, 01:15:20 pm »
What would make most sense to me is one die that has 00, 10, 20, ...,90 and another that has 1,2, ..., 10, then just add them. This gives a range of 1-100 without any "Aces high or low" confusion on the 0 or 10.

That's exactly what I was saying. Gendo's right that I overexplain things. I just wanted to give people who didn't know what a d10 was an idea of what I'm getting at. I probably should've assumed everyone knew it and just explain when someone asks for it.

Just get rid of 0-9 altogether. I've only seen one RPG that requires a roll of 0-9. I've heard that there may be some war games that use 0-9, but I don't know them.

And 00-99 is a perfectly cromulent use of percentile. When you roll for a 27% chance, say, then only rolls 00-26 succeed. In essence, roll under the number and not under or equal that number. But it runs into the same issue of stating your intent so people don't call bullshit on you. But it is also consistent, and that is pleasing.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: January 10, 2019, 08:45:43 am »
I find this confusing, but perhaps you over-explained.

Possible. I tend to do that.

One issue is that the die says "0" on it, so you do have to mentally change that "0" to a "10" if you roll it, don't you?

But really, I think the only real issue is expectation... the method that will be used for generating the number needs to be clearly established before the die roll. If everyone watching you roll thinks that a roll of 30 and 0 should equal 30, and you roll it and declare that you rolled a 40, then of course people will cry fowl.

Which is why I'm making the switch to d10s that read from 1 to 10. Then if I need to roll percentile dice, then it obviously is not a 0.

The expectation is key here; you're right. If this ever comes up (I am not currently playing any games where percentile is important), then I'll declare that I'm adding the dice as I roll them.

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: January 02, 2019, 09:51:34 am »
For those of us who don't do Netflix, can someone explain how a "choose your own adventure" thing works? Assuming that each "differing path" is basically the same thing as a different "episode" of a TV show... is it as simple as "pick one of these two episodes to watch next"?

All of what Silverspawn said.

The technology is only available on some devices. I launched the movie on Google Fiber, and it played a different "movie." It was a collection of clips from Black Mirror of the various characters saying "sorry." Then the voiceover explains that the current device does not support interactive television. Various suggestions are made.

But I do have a smart TV, which was one of the suggestions. So I logged into Netflix through that. There's an icon to show that the Netflix title has interactive capabilities (I expect to see this a lot in kids' shows in the future). It's pretty smooth, though if you're the type to get sucked into the moment, then these branching trees will suck you right out. Still, it's a neat concept, and this particular episode of Black Mirror works perfectly for it. I wouldn't try this experiment with any other episode.

It's a really long, drawn-out Dragon's Lair. You have your "death scenes" where you have to go back and make different choices. There are multiple endings.

My favorite is how the episode completely mocks you if you don't make any decisions. As a matter of course, I chose the default option (often the first) so I could better identify where I need to branch off in subsequent viewings. Well, if you only choose the default option, then that's functionally the same as letting the episode run with no interaction. And you get roasted for being so boring. It was brilliant.

I went through the episode twice, and I'm done. I'm starting to get tired of seeing some of the same scenes over and over, and if I can't figure out how to get to a path I wanted to try again such as telling Kitty that Colin jumped instead of just turning my back on her then I don't really want to sift through it so fastidiously. It'd be better if I can actually fast-forward through the scenes to the decision point, but I cannot.

So kudos to those people who are obsessed with finding every little path, including the hidden golden eggs. I have no doubt that those require some revisiting to other scenes where you may do the same thing twice or even more. But I'm not interested in following it that closely. From what I read online, I've hit most of the known endings, and I’m pretty good with that. Though I am bemused by the claim that one ending apparently has Jerome F. Davies (I think that's his name) kill you in the past. I mean, how does that ending come about? 

But you know, I may watch it a third time in a few months.

For some reason, I just really dig Colin's voice and speech pattern here.

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: December 26, 2018, 01:13:05 pm »
I was expecting to be annoyed by Spider-Ham. He was just in small enough doses that I was able to accept him.

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: December 26, 2018, 08:31:27 am »
The only "problem" I have is that the third act really dragged on. Kingpin and Miles fighting after all the goodbyes felt awkward. The plot in general felt a little thin.

Agreed. That didn't feel nearly as climactic. But it was short-lived, so it was good for me.

I'd say this was the most comic-book movie made. That sounds like a strange adjective to put on there, but there is a nod to the medium that live-action movies like the Avengers and X-Men don't quite capture. And that's a choice obviously. I get making the Avengers more into a mainstream movie with conventional filmmaking methods.

But Into the Spiderverse embraces its heritage and melds comic book with movie. The closest I've seen up until now would be Scott Pilgrim vs the World, but that pales in comparison to Spiderverse.

I was enamored by the animation. It was vibrant and evocative. I wouldn't mind seeing more movies like this.

I want my wife to watch this, but she has severe arachnophobia. While there aren't many spiders on the screen, they enter the scene rather suddenly without warning, and that can cause problems.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: December 20, 2018, 03:43:02 pm »
Holy shit, you guys. Hulu is releasing a Catch-22 miniseries. The 2-hour movie only got a smattering of the novel, so it'll be interesting to see how the miniseries handles it.

At the very least, I am intrigued enough to subscribe to Hulu for a month.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: December 20, 2018, 11:19:14 am »
Gamers can be an oddly conservative bunch. They get into a specific routine, and any change to that is met with hostility. Many gamers are pretty adaptable, but the ones who aren't will often make their displeasure known.

My recent observation on this is how gamers generate a number from 1 to 100. If you don't already know this, it's been established since at least the '70s that you can generate this number with two ten-sided dice (d10). You declare a die as the tens digit and the other as the ones digit. Whatever you roll in the tens digit, you multiply by 10. Then you add the other die. But there are a couple of tricks that we use.

First, when rolling 1-100, the 10 on the die actually counts as a 0. Most d10s on the market are printed this way. It is actually a source of bemusement among new players when they roll the d10 and proclaim they got a 0 and not a 10. So, for example, a roll of 8 and 4 becomes 84. A roll of 0 and 6 becomes 06. And a roll of 2 and 0 becomes 20. This gives a range of 00 to 99, so any roll of 00 is counted as 100.

It's a bit convoluted, but it works. You have an even distribution of 1through 100.

Fast forward to around 1992 (the earliest I've heard someone claim he had one) and the introduction of the percentile dice. This is a pair of d10s, but one of them is numbered differently. Instead of 0, 1, 2, it is numbered with 00, 10, 20. The idea being that you no longer declare the tens digit. It's already established by this die. You roll a 20 and an 8, and it's 28. But the rule of 0 still applies, so 30 and 0 gave you 30, while 00 and 0 gave you 100. New players could especially be confused if they roll 10 and 0 and are told that is not indeed 100.

It occurred to me that you don't need to use that method with the percentile dice. Instead, you could take the dice at face value. First off, you have to acknowledge that the 0 on a d10 represents 10. In most games, that counts as a 10, but for 1-100, people tend to automatically think of it as 0. Of course, if the die is printed with a 0, that makes the shift easier. For a d10 that is printed with a 10, then adding the dice works pretty well.

And this is where the clash with traditional gamers happens. Because now I no longer view the dice as 40 and 0. Now I view them as 40 and 10, which is actually 50 and not 40. I don't have to mentally switch from 10 to 0 or from 00 to 100. I can roll as low as 00 and 1 (for 1) and as high as 90 and 10 (for 100). The vitriol is alarming, even by internet standards. It produces a range of 1 through 100 evenly distributed, but because it wasn't in a way that people first learned (and I have 30+ years of that habit in me), some people have taken offense.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: December 19, 2018, 10:53:07 am »
I've been sitting on the Gifted since it first aired. Finally watched the pilot this week. That's a pretty strong pilot actually. Hoping the rest of the series follows suit. It has pretty decent ratings, so I'm hopeful.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: December 10, 2018, 10:17:40 am »
I finished up Jessica Jones Season 2 this weekend.

It's pretty decent. The appeal of JJ is that she's super, but she so very human. I've known people that perpetually depressed, and they are certainly exhausting. It's understandable how her friends could get exhausted dealing with her. And then there's the added burden of people near her possibly getting in the line of fire.

As usual, the entire season is a giant downer. Even the victories are tainted or short-lived. For example, Jeri's revenge against Inez and Shane was satisfying to watch, but it's a guilty joy at cheering on someone who is pretty much a rotten person anyway turning to a darkness that ultimately ends two people.

I was a little bit incredulous at the reveal that Jessica's mother not only lived but was also a super, but I found the explanation episode to be sufficient. By the end of that episode, I was accepting of the incredible reveal.

The saddest moment, I felt, was with the replacement head of security. She was respectful of Alisa's boundaries and even did her a favor by ensuring the television was within sight. And it was that act of kindness that ultimately cost her her life (or possibly crippled her). No good deed goes unpunished in this show.

I found the Trish storyline to be pretty good. She has some demons within her, and I feel they did a decent job of presenting them. She recovered pretty quickly after going into a system collapse and nearly dying in the hospital, but then we see a teaser that the process did enhance her after all, and that is a reasonable explanation

The story of Oscar seemed a little forced, but that's probably because it's hard to tell how much time has passed. Some corners may have seemed to have been turned too quickly due to the show's format. I was accepting of it, but I could see where it seemed chaotic to some people. His inclusion was also a little too convenient for what was needed later on in the season.

The thing that bothers me the most is Cheng. His inclusion as a nemesis really seemed forced. He feels the need to muscle in on another PI's territory. Does he do this to all PIs, so did he just have a hard-on for Jessica? And then there's the fact that he was positioned for a perfect shot to take out Alisa, and he failed. Yet, Trish took her out with a handgun against a moving target. I suppose one could argue that the Ferris wheel provided a predictable pattern vs. her moving around in the apartment. And Cheng was a PI, not a combatant; hell, Trish probably has more time on the firing range than Cheng. So maybe my complaint isn't quite as solid, but it's still there.

And Kilgrave's return felt gratuitous. Like, hey, we know you love David Tenant, so he's back! On the other hand, his scenes put into words Jessica's inner struggles. They say you should show and not tell, but those feelings can be difficult to show, so they copped out and brought in Kilgrave to spell it all out for us. It wasn't a deal-breaker for me, but it's ham-fisted.

Great performances though, and the story actually kept me interested a lot more than Season 1, which had a rubber-banding effect that kept the episodes running long after I stopped caring about the cat-and-mouse game between Jessica and Kilgrave.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: December 04, 2018, 08:54:34 am »
Damn, I just read on wikipedia that

According to Bloomberg L.P., the fifth series [of Black Mirror] is expected to be released in December 2018

I'm super ready for more Black Mirror. It still drawfs all but a hand full of others shows in my book. And I was always wondering why they'd stop after four seasons, given that it's a) successful and b) can obviously be continued with no inherent disadvantage to earlier seasons given the episodic format.

And I don't think there was any quality decline throughout the first fours easons, so season 5 ought to be just as good.

While I would have loved to get more Black Mirror sooner, I am perfectly happy with them working on getting the new season right. How many times do we complain about a show going downhill after so many seasons? Usually that happens because writers are in a hurry. The benefit of the Netflix format is that they aren't trying to pop out weekly episodes to the point where their resources are strained. Basically they're filming a giant movie. But with Black Mirror, it's a bunch of little movies. Looking forward to this.

I also started Jessica Jones Season 2. I had heard good things about Daredevil Season 3, but I thought I would finish up JJ first. Maybe Luke Cage.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 232

Page created in 0.126 seconds with 18 queries.