site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   2400 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 6, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

0
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Last week @Lizzardspawn asked why none of the sequels to the first two Terminator or Predator movies have been any good. Having only seen the first Predator and Terminators 1 and 2, I wasn't really in a position to comment on the inferiority of the sequels, but offered my two cents anyway based on my secondhand knowledge of Terminators 3-6. This got me thinking about Terminator 2 and I ended up reading the entire Wikipedia article (and the sub-article dedicated specifically to its special effects). Last Friday we sat down to watch a torrented version of the rerelease for Blu-ray which includes all of the cut scenes. It still looks great, although annoyingly there were a few points in the first half of the movie in which the colour grading would change dramatically in consecutive shots (I don't mean consecutive scenes: I mean consecutive shots in the same location), which was distracting and a rather glaring oversight for a rerelease apparently overseen by Cameron himself. It also ends with the corny, sentimental ending I criticised last week, rather than the "open road" ending from the theatrical release. But all that aside, the film still holds up, many of the visual effects still look positively jaw-dropping thirty-five years later, and the film is a true landmark in action films.

This got me thinking about my favourite action films, in no particular order:

  • Terminator 2: As above.
  • The Matrix: Perhaps the only film that can rival Terminator 2 for innovation in visual effects, and a spellbinding sci-fi romp on top of that.
  • Die Hard: my brother and I have a tradition of watching this every Christmas, to the point that I daresay I could probably recite the entire film from memory with some prompting. Nothing beats bellowing "no more table!" in a thick Teutonic accent with a glass of Bailey's.
  • The Rock: probably my single favourite action film ever. Whatever one might think of Michael Bay's "chaos cinema" style more broadly, it works here. Nicolas Cage's goofiness had not yet veered into outright self-parody, Sean Connery remained as wryly charismatic in his sixties as peak Bond, and Ed Harris lends palpable gravitas to an anti-villain whose motivation is more sympathetic than any of the protagonists' (it's amazing to me that Harris never served: he's completely convincing as a military man). It's an action film in which violence is deployed both for cathartic escapism and for heart-rending pathos (the scene in which the SEAL team is gunned down in the shower room is a moving audio-visual statement on the pointlessness of war), without any consequent feeling of tonal dissonance. It's an unusually cerebral and literate action film which offers thought-provoking meditations on the morality of American military adventurism, while still finding the time to have fun and give us great lines like "Your besht? Loshers always whine about their besht. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."
  • Speed: I was positively obsessed with this film as a small child, a testament to the power of raw sound and image to overpower one's critical thinking faculties. Even ignoring the film's brazen disregard for the laws of physics, one could fill a book with the plot points that don't make a lick of sense or are dependent on contrived coincidences – and yet, in the moment, one simply doesn't care. Probably Keanu Reeves's best performance ever (admittedly not a terribly high bar to clear), his chemistry with Sandra Bullock* is believable and irresistible, Dennis Hopper offers perhaps the most entertaining action-movie villain since Hans Gruber, and the soundtrack is memorable, exciting and emotive.
  • Saving Private Ryan: More of a war film than an action film proper, although its impact on the genre is impossible to dispute. Even people who don't like the film as a whole will concede that its depiction of the Omaha beach landing set the tone for how action movies would look, sound and feel for decades afterwards.
  • The Fugitive: I only watched this film quite recently, but it deserves its place in the canon of action-thriller films for grown-ups. On a second watch I was struck by how vacant and anonymous Harrison Ford's leading man turn is: Tommy Lee Jones is the film's real protagonist, and steals every scene he's in.
  • Total Recall: As discussed here. The film which best encapsulates Philip K. Dick's entire aesthetic, and the best Paul Verhoeven film I've seen (I'm curious about Starship Trooopers and Showgirls).
  • Heat: Like Saving Private Ryan a marginal example, and more of a crime thriller than an action film. In a runtime of nearly three hours, it only contains two or three real action setpieces, but one of those happens to be one of the most tense, nerve-wracking and explosive shootouts in cinematic history, so it would be remiss of me not to include it.
  • Predator: Right up there with Terminator 2 as far as action/sci-fi goes, and I like that it's not as self-serious in tone.

Are there any recurring patterns here? Nostalgia obviously plays a major role: several of these films (Speed, The Rock, Terminator 2) were films I watched repeatedly on VHS as a child. Relatedly, there are no entries from this century (excepting the marginal case of The Matrix Reloaded, which I'm counting under The Matrix). Every film is also American: I've heard great things about Asian action cinema, but both times I tried watching Hard-Boiled I turned it off about half an hour in.

What would you say your favourite action films are? Are there non-American action films that I really must see? Are there any from this century that I really ought to check out? (Before anyone mentions John Wick: I will concede that its action sequences are expertly choreographed and filmed, but when I watched it a few years ago I came away feeling distinctly underwhelmed, finding it stylistically confused and at odds with itself.)

*Rumour has it that no other than Ellen deGeneres was the frontrunner for the role. I feel quite confident that, had they gone with this, it would have derailed the entire film.

Predator

The problem with Predator is that they want to expand the lore but went with the "planet of hats" trope where they are a race of hunters.

So when they try to show anything more than the Predator hunting it comes off as lazy and unsatisfying writing.

It'd be better if they started dropping hints that the ones we see are aristocratic safari hunters engaged in illegal poaching. "Dutch the Human" actually has a big fandom on their homeworld for killing one.

Make a movie where a group of Predators comes to earth, then mid movie the authorities show up to try to arrest them, and then the humans are stuck in the middle of the unexplained chaos.

The Terminator series has a similar problem. You can keep going with humanity vs Skynet, but the terminators start feeling shoehorned in. Skynet should have more than one trick.

In general action movies suffered from competition with video games. As the home gaming experience got better movies couldn't compete with the over the top action experience.

This was exacerbated by a push to strictly enforce R ratings and limit the marketing of R films. The fun gunplay and boobs films stopped being made. They became serious adult films or nerfed PG-13 adventures.

The other problem is that in the CGI age filmmakers became convinced that everything had to be frame perfect. But no one who is enjoying a movie is actually going to care about minor visual problems you can see in slow motion. Schwarzenegger movies are a great example of this. In Commando stuntmen are launched into the air when he throws grenades and you can see the catapults launching them if you look closely. In T2 you can clearly tell stunt doubles are doing the bike scenes if you look closely. No one cared.

Hollywood was always the king of big budget action spectacles and they are easy to dub into a new language. Other countries couldn't really compete directly so they went with things with more local flavour. Hong Kong does good action scenes but there are usually some plot points that are harder to understand as a westerner. China has been making some patriotic action movies lately that with some over the top depictions of Americans that end up being hilarious.

I'm curious about Starship Trooopers and Showgirls

Lindsay Ellis did a great review of Showgirls.

Starship Troopers is actually very interesting from a CW standpoint. Verhoven grew up in Nazi occupied Netherlands. He always had a guilty soft spot for the Nazi propaganda aesthetic. After Showgirls bombed he went to the studio to pitch an idea about fascist humans fighting communist bugs. The studio thought it sounded like Starship Troopers and got the rights to Starship Troopers. Verhoven tried to read the book, didn't like it or finish it, and let his screenwriter work on adapting it.

As a result there's a big split where the left thinks that the humans are clearly supposed to be fascist. But the actual movie depicts a functional society with suffrage limited to those who complete military service.

On a second watch I was struck by how vacant and anonymous Harrison Ford's leading man turn is: Tommy Lee Jones is the film's real protagonist, and steals every scene he's in.

Tommy Lee Jones can Act and ends up being the protagonist in almost all his movies. Harrison Ford kinda shows up, and kinda showing up and being Harrison Ford turns out to work sometimes. I could probably count on one hand the number of times it's worked since 1983, though.

Have you seen Shrinking? I think it proves Ford can act when he wants to, he just doesn't usually bother.

I've only seen a half dozen or so Tommy Lee Jones movies, but you'd think that would be enough to prove to me that he can act, and yet I have to say it wasn't. It did prove that he could act the hell out of one particular fantastic character archetype (highly competent authority, caring in actions but very sparing with warm words, clever with a little dry wit but otherwise blunt and no-nonsense), but that's not always the same thing. Can you suggest anything I should watch that exhibits more range from him? (Please don't say "Batman Forever"...) Some of my favorite movies to watch for the first time were ones in which a popular-but-typecast actor goes way outside of their prior comfort zone (e.g. Jim Carrey in "The Truman Show", Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Twins" or "Kindergarten Cop") or at least plays a part where their usual comfort zone is just a small facet of a more complex character.

It's been many years since I saw it, but he was a villain in Under Siege and I remember him being noteworthy. Also the villain in Blown Away, but again many years since I saw it (edit - I remembered now that his accent was really bad, though). I think Cobb would count for him playing against type.

Three Burials and Valley of Elah might be too similar to the authority role you describe.

I've never seen a Steven Seagal movie and I always figured if I did it'd be "Under Siege", but man, even the (VHS release?) trailer on IMDB excitedly sums it up as "Die Hard on a battleship", and IMHO the Die Hard On An X genre is a pretty risky one. There are some decent TV episodes that got enough mileage out of just putting familiar characters into that situation, but for a movie you've got to have some great idea on top of the "Die Hard" premise to make it feel like anything other than a cheap knock-off.

"Cobb" I'd never heard of before, though, and it looks surprisingly interesting. The trailer alone makes me think I was too skeptical of Tommy Lee Jones. Thanks!

I have an as-yet unexplained fondness for Demolition Man.

If it counts, The Street Fighter (1974) was a rather dark masterpiece. Do not watch for entertainment.

I have an as-yet unexplained fondness for Demolition Man.

What needs to be explained about that? It's Demolition Man!

If martial arts are your thing, the Raid and The Raid 2 are both excellent and showcases for silat. The first in particular is about as lean and as tense and insane as an action movie can get with limited resources. Second one is larger and nowhere near as tight but is far grander in scope and execution. In the same vein, The Night Comes For Us is also great but requires a strong stomach as the gore in it is extreme.

Donnie Yen has a patchy filmography, but Ip Man and SPL are genuinely good films even ignoring the action. I have a soft spot for Raging Fire as the goodbye for Benny Chan. We've passed peak Donnie, though; he was faster earlier on in his career. He's improved as an actor and as an action director, but physically he's past his prime and there's no real replacement.

I still recommend trying to power through Hard Boiled because you about stopped at the point it starts to get truly batshit. However, if you seek realism in your action, that's not where it's at.

If you enjoyed Heat, I recommend watching Cold Eyes, a Korean flick from a while back. It's not really an action film, but it includes some impressive action regardless and some tense, well-constructed sequences.

Mad Max: Fury Road is an ode to tricked-out car chases, to excess and beyond, with exceptional production design. Bullet Train is a remarkably funny and sharply edited movie, a fun distraction full of bright lights, charisma and cool people doing cool things even if the final act is subject to a bit too much CG nonsense.

The first Raid movie was the first time I watched a martial arts film that sold me on the "these guys aren't choreographed, they're hitting each other for real" element.

Which simply means that they were immaculately choreographed, but the EVERY strike was delivered like they wanted the other guy dead. And still maybe only time I've seen a two-on-one fight where I truly believed the two weren't holding back and the one was still winning.

There are a significant number of hits in that movie that were not pulled. People just ate hits for the action gods, and it was filmed in Indonesia, so paltry things like actor safety, insurance, etc. were not a primary financial concern. They also went through about half a year to eight months worth of physical training to even pull it off, and were lucky enough to have Yayan Ruhian involved.

Yeah, it surely helped that these guy were absolute no-names so no need to get prissy about the physical demands/possible injuries.

Which created a bit of a contrast when Ruhian and Rahman showed up in John Wick 3 and the fact that it was choreographed and they were pulling punches and waiting their turn was blatant by comparison. Not really buying it, even if they bother to spotlight the respect the fighters have for him.

Sorry John, if it is hand-to-hand then Mad Dog solos you.

Okay, to contrast and add to the point, the OTHER time I saw a two-on-one was that was a believable challenge is that infamous Mission Impossible fight. "Yeah, I can accept Henry Cavill getting bodied by an Asian half his size, that guy is badass."

I'm realizing while reading this list that I never liked traditional action movies. It's the big spectacle that I enjoy. Sci fi and fantasy movies with massive battles. Or large explosions in modern settings.

Marvel movies have been a boon for me. I unironically enjoyed the Transformers movies. I have fun watching Michael Bay films. Star wars original trilogy was my favorite as a kid. And I loved the huge starship battles in episode 1.

I don't really like action, I like thrillers, but action movies, not really. But you people also say that Princess Mononoke is action film, which I did not see coming, but here is my brief action list.

  • *Castle of Cagliostro *. I actually like it for other reasons, but I hear the film buffs used to call the car chase scene the best car chase ever on film. If you don't like a romantic heist movie, perhaps skip the rest.

  • Pacific Rim. I sort-of liked Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein, so I decided to check out his other work ... which I had dismissed for reasons I no longer remember. One thing I did learn, he is massive anime nerd and somehow managed to make the best real robot action movie of 2010s, in Hollywood. Shonen tropes served with overload of cheese, but it is the finest mozzarella.

  • Dredd. As far as I remember Dredd as 2000AD character, the comic has silly plots and is supposed to make satirical commentary about America, the man, and the authorities, like all 80s British comics are ... but it is drawn gritty, nearly seriously. In film medium, it works when it looks like a serious, gritty film. Well executed, too.

Not exactly a recommendation but possibly worth consideration: Craig-era James Bond. Gadgets and hacking are too silly and plots disappointed me given how "serious" it attempted portray Bond, but I think the action scenes had je ne sais quoi, class?

I hear the film buffs used to call the car chase scene the best car chase ever on film

You must watch The French Connection. Friedkin was risking, not just the lives of his stuntmen, but those of random passers-by as well. The man was a nutcase.

To Live and Die in LA has entered the chat.

Already downloaded it, been meaning to watch it.

Castle of Cagliostro

Funny, I've never seen this one but reading the name jogged my memory. I think I saw a trailer for it on my Ghost in the Shell DVD years ago.

Not exactly a recommendation but possibly worth consideration: Craig-era James Bond.

The only one I saw was Casino Royale and I did enjoy it (breath of fresh air after the silliness of the Brosnan era). Probably more of a spy thriller than an action film.

Pacific Rim

I've never watched a mecha film, or TV series, or anything (watched the first few episodes of Evangelion before giving up on it, may try it again). This one piqued my curiosity primarily for featuring my one-time celebrity crush, Rinko Kikuchi, who starred in the excellent film adaptation of my favourite novel of all time, Norwegian Wood. The only films of del Toro's I've seen were Pan's Labyrinth (decent, but didn't really love up to the hype) and Hellboy II (bland forgettable capeshit slop). As far as the three big men of Mexican cinema go (del Toro, Cuarón and Iñárritu), I think he's the weakest link.

Evangelion starts with a too whiny main character and unbelievable premise, I never got far with it either. Some of Gundam is OK.

Pacific Rim is also nonsensical and silly, but del Toro is very good at distracting you with giant mechas fighting Kaiju and destroying scenic cities in process.

Great write up. I'd explain the decline in action movie quality to the complex dynamics of genre filmmaking as a whole: pure action movies, rom-coms, and comedies used to be huge at the box office, attract big stars, and attract big budgets, but over the last 15ish years, all three genres have been demoted almost entirely to low-tier streaming fair. Action, romance, and comedy still exist on film, but on the biggest budgets they are packaged in super hero films and cross-genre blockbusters. In 1994, you could get Nick Cage and Ed Harris and Sean Connery to work together on a $100 million blockbuster like the Rock, now you can only get that money for a Marvel movie where the actual action is a secondary concern (at best). Meanwhile, pure action movies are left to Jason Statham, rom-coms are pumped out on Netflix, and comedies are almost dead entirely.

comedies are almost dead entirely.

This is what baffles me a bit about the current landscape. Growing up comedies were usually some of the biggest movies in a given year. Superbad, Tropic Thunder, Zombieland, whatever Will Ferrel movie came out that year, and Seth Rogan's Oeuvre.

Inevitably those would be the films people would be quoting at each other forever thereafter.

And they're really a footnote these days. My guess is its just been subsumed by television series.

Or, as you point out, subsumed by Superhero movies. Deadpool still does big numbers while being more pure comedy.

The explanations I've heard for the decline of comedies:

  • Foreign box office is much more important now than in the past (especially China) and it's hard to do cross-cultural humor.
  • Comedy movies used to make more money in the VHS/DVD phase than in theaters (often 2-5X as much), but now that whole sector is basically dead, streaming isn't as dependent on marginal movie value.
  • In the olden days, movies were the best way for a comedian to get their content out. Now we have many more televised specials, YouTube, podcasts, Twitter, etc., all of which are far lower cost and less risky than a comedy movie.
  • As you say, tv comedies are still alive and well, and pumped out at a faster rate than ever in the streaming era. It's still easy for Shane Gillis to make a little Netflix show like Tires, but if he was around in the late 1990s, he would have been paid $10 million for a $40 million budget movie.
  • And yeah, the genre bending of modern blockbusters seemed to have consumed much of the desire for movie comedies. Even the action-comedies like Men in Black or Beverly Hills Cop seem to have fallen off.

That all makes sense.

But still, Superbad did $121 million domestically. Relatively unknown cast and director, a non-sequel, just carried on the strength of writing and acting.

And somehow, near as I can tell, the 'vulgar teen/coming of age sex comedy' is literally dead as a genre, and I partially blame MeToo, since borderline rapey interactions are a source of some of their humor.

Gen Z Came of age without any equivalent cultural touchstone.

I think that's mostly explained by the normal ebb and flow of comedy trends. The vulgar teen coming of age sex comedy era was basically 1999 (American Pie) to Superbad (2007), with Road Trip and Van Wilder and a bunch of others inbetween (I don't think 21 Jump Street counts, too meta), maybe with Project X as a limping capstone (2012).

But I also can't think of the defining comedy trend of the 2010s. I asked AI what the biggest comedies of the 2010s were, and it said: Deadpool 2 (2018): $785.8 million Deadpool (2016): $782.8 million Men in Black 3 (2012): $654.2 million Ted (2012): $549.3 million — the decade's biggest "pure" live-action comedy The Hangover Part II (2011): $586.7 million 22 Jump Street (2014): $331.3 million (It also noted Bridesmaids for cultural importance, which is true, but also vaguely fits into coming age but from the other gender).

What's the trend of those movies? Sequels and IP I guess. The better and boringer answer for "what was the comedy trend for Gen Z" is just Marvel movies, or rather, a sanded-down, repeated ad nauseum derivative of Joss Whedon comedy.

Or maybe Marvel is still the late millenial trend, and the real gen Z trend is that they don't care about comedy movies at all, and their comedy world is memes and streaming and nonsense like "6-7."

The vulgar teen coming of age sex comedy era was basically 1999 (American Pie) to Superbad (2007),

Have to disagree, since my dad had VHS copies of Revenge of the Nerds, Porky's, and Earth Girls are Easy. I was not allowed to watch.

By 2001 the genre was played out enough that they produced Not Another Teen Movie as a full on parody of the entire thing. Which introduced me to Cerina Vincent('s breasts). I think it's just been a mainstay of Hollywood since the 80's until circa 2012 (Project X), and now is just gone. Might just be the fact that kids watch actual internet porn now, so titillating tease movies don't have the appeal they used to.

and the real gen Z trend is that they don't care about comedy movies at all, and their comedy world is memes and streaming and nonsense like "6-7."

Streamers and Youtubers.

The fact that Markiplier made a pretty bad (by most accounts) indie horror movie that nonetheless made $50 million is a sign of something.

Also, Horror as a Genre is still plugging along extremely well, which mildly surprises me, since imo the genre hasn't had much originality to offer for decades.

Have to disagree, since my dad had VHS copies of Revenge of the Nerds, Porky's, and Earth Girls are Easy. I was not allowed to watch.

Ah, fair enough, but I'll nitpick to say that American Pie was a resurgence of the trend, and it definitely increased the gross out angle of it. Totally agree that internet porn put a big dent in the appeal of this stuff.

Also, Horror as a Genre is still plugging along extremely well, which mildly surprises me, since imo the genre hasn't had much originality to offer for decades.

I'm surprised you think this, I think we've been in a horror renaissance since the mid 2010s and really kicking off with Hereditary (2018). Since then, we've had other Ari Aster movies, Jordan Peele, Robert Eggars, the Philippou Brothers, Zach Creggor, Osgood Perkins (more mixed), Empty Man, Smile (at least Smile 2), Together, etc. To me, this stuff is waaaaay better than almost all pre 2010 horror movie, except some of the true classics like Exorcist or the Shining.

My personal benchmark on Horror films is The Ring which was innovative as it was a monster movie but the monster doesn't appear until the end, after the fakeout that things were 'fixed,' and most of the horror is the sense of dread that permeates the film.

And that movie only 'works' because of that brief period where CRT TVs, VHS tapes, and landline phones were the most common tech of the day. I don't think you could remake it effectively now!

And as I understand it the recent crop of horror films avoid this issue by making the horror come from psychological conditions that may or may not have a literal personification onscreen, sort of a 'the monster is inside you the whole time' concept, or more abstract "racism/sexism/right wing politics/relationship drama" as the looming allegorical danger.

I think what I mean wrt horror films is that they inherently play with the same tropes over and over again. Body Horror, Jumpscares, indestructible/implacable entity that wants YOU, specifically, dead, straight up gore (hello, Terrifier 3), psychological uncertainty (am I crazy or not?), various metaphors for sexual assault, and the occasional thick layer of existentialism.

I haven't heard of one that really breaks the mold of audience expectations in a while. Cabin in the Woods was innovative for satirizing how formulaic they tended to be.

I watched Weapons last year, and it was a satisfyingly entertaining movie, and the ending was great. But after the initial mystery of "Where the fuck did those kids go" resolves, I felt pretty disconnected. The film wisely switches over to 'action' mode whenever the pace starts to lull. And the concept of being 'locked in' and conscious whilst your body is compelled to commit violence against people you care about is indeed horrifying.

I just feel no need to watch the film again!

Perhaps the most 'innovative' recent horror movie I saw was 2014's The Guest. And it was innovative in the sense that the 'horror' element was hiding in plain sight, then escalates to the point where its basically a straight-up slasher movie... but also with competent action. Oh, also Bone Tomahawk (same year) for hiding behind a Western facade for 90 minutes and whipping out the horror only after you've gotten comfortable that the movie plays by the standard Western rules. I feel a need to watch the film again... but not sure if I can stomach it.

I guess I just like Horror movies that masquerade as something else so you don't KNOW what they're trying to do until it is too late. Straight horror movies generally have me anticipating most of the scary bits well before they happen. Also it always annoys me when the core danger in the film could be handily solved with a gun.

But I do have to retreat from my argument about horror not doing much innovative for decades. I've also heard good things about Nosferatu and Midsommar.

More comments

Dredd, as mentioned.

The Raid: Redemption and its sequel. Absolutely insane Indonesian martial arts flick, but the director is Welsh. Launched several of its actors to greater fame. It will probably ruin any other modern martials arts movies for you. I don't know how they filmed that without anyone dying.

Mad Max: Fury Road. Watch the rest of the series too, but this one set a new standard for cinematic balls-to-the-wall action.

The Bourne Trilogy. Okay, there are more movies... and they're not terrible. BUT the story and character arc of the original three are perfectly executed. Great action (especially the 3rd) but a lot of people really dislike Greengrass' shaky-cam style in the second and third. Bail out if you're getting motion sickness, it doesn't get better.

Hot Fuzz. Probably in the running for the best action-comedy of ALL TIME and the jokes and interlocked plot elements are so dense you'll need to watch like 3 times to catch most of 'em.

Upgrade. Very 80's-coded... but they put effort into using modern techniques and it should surprise you a few times with how clever it is.

Shoot 'Em Up. Parody of a particular brand of late-90's early-2000s action schlock that is self aware but not offensively so. I love the soundtrack, personally.

The Expendables 1 and 2 (skip 3 and 4). Equal parts funny but inelegant satire of 80's action movies and a loving tribute/sendoff to some of the top stars of the era. Tried and very much failed to pass the torch to a new generation of action stars. I blame superhero movies.

Taken. This movie doomed Liam Neeson to doing action roles for 20 years. Everyone really only knows THAT scene, but the whole thing is quite the entertaining ride.

300. My God. Its like the purest distillation of "12 year old boys playing with action figures" movie I've ever seen, but Zack Snyder was BORN to make this film. It has a distinct look and feel that has simply never been replicated since.

Hardcore Henry. Also not a movie for those sensitive to motion sickness, but extremely impressive achievement that falls just a tad short of greatness, but is also full of "how the hell did they film that" moments.

Some Honorable Mentions:

The Accountant

Crank (and the sequel)

Equilibrium

Kingsman: The Secret Service. This movie justifies its existence on THAT church scene alone.

The Edge of Tomorrow.

I think you would really like Snowpiercer if you haven't seen it. Also, @FtttG if you want foreign but don't mind zombies, Train to Busan is pretty fun.

TENET is absolutely moronic in its plot but is a fun movie visually and action wise. Inception too I think makes that list even though it's not intrinsically an action movie, yeah? Well, maybe not. Not sure.

I'm curious how y'all feel about the modern set of Mission Impossibles. I feel like in a lot of ways them (and maybe the Fast and Furious movies, to a worse and lesser extent, plus maybe marvel if you stretch) are the inheritors of the movie niche the 80's type action movies inhabited, even though vibe-wise and spiritually they are plainly very different.

Funny, the only Mission Impossible film I've seen is the first one. Brian de Palma is such an inconsistent director. Scarface is an obvious masterpiece, and Carrie is great, but The Untouchables is overrated as hell, and despite being marketed as thrillers both Blow Out and Body Double were so boring I turned them off halfway through. I was fully onboard for the first half of Mission Impossible when it's a tense, nervy thriller, but by the time the climax rolled around and it had turned into a silly action film I'd completely lost interest. The Prague operation that opens the film and the climax on the train feel like they belong to two completely different movies: it's no surprise it went into production without a finished screenplay.

Curious if any of the sequels are any good.

Curious if any of the sequels are any good.

I remember the 4th one being a nonsensical mess plot-wise, even by action film standards, but being very competent as an action movie. There's a part involving a chase in a dust storm, and the direction is such (by Brad Bird) that it's easy to keep track of everyone and what they're doing despite it feeling like it should be a confusing mess. Oh, and Cruise climbs some big building.

Oh, that was the one with Simon Pegg, wasn’t it? I remember it being good. The action was rather formulaic - if any plan was announced explicitly or implicitly, you could guarantee something would go horribly wrong within five minutes - but it was just really nice to see someone who had a very good formula apply it so well.

The action was rather formulaic - if any plan was announced explicitly or implicitly, you could guarantee something would go horribly wrong within five minutes

Are there many movies that don't follow that trope? If so, how? It seems like an exceptionally difficult cliche for screenwriters to avoid. If you announce the plan and nothing goes wrong, you just wasted everybody's time telling them something redundantly before you show the same thing later. If you don't announce the plan and something goes wrong, you've just confused everybody. If you announce a plan and it seems to go wrong but the real plan is going right then the added levels of contrivance are just a more played-out and mockable trope.

The MI series truly peaked with 4. Tom climbing the Burj Khalifa still puckers my butthole to watch.

After that they had the formula perfected so they remain extremely entertaining and work on the strength of their script and the chemistry Tom has with everyone. So they're all eminently watchable.

I love 50% of your list, and haven't watched the other 50%, but it's all going on my list.

Buddy and I watched Raid II and then took a lunch and watched Winter Soldier in theater for both. Should’ve done it the other way - still one of my least favorite comic book films.

Raid II is just film perfection.

Saw Raid II in theaters and was BLOWN AWAY. High expectations from the first one and they topped it in every conceivable way.

Even the goofy bits (girl with hammers and batboy) worked really well in-context.

That giant brawl in the mud pit at the prison is one of my favorite scenes because all the 'skill' sort of goes out the window as everyone is slipping around barely able to stand, but the brutality of the moves are still fully there. Another of those "how are those guys not dead?" movies.

For non-American Memorable Examples.

Kung Fu Hustle : Stephen Chow's magnum opus, and there's reason it gets referenced as an inspiration everywhere from Exalted to Chuubo's. Incredible action sequences throughout the entire film, incredible clarity and color grading, a great set of character arcs, and defined its own aesthetic. While it wears its western influences on its sleeves (there's a Looney Tunes segment and a reference to The Shining), a very strongly Hong Kong work. It's not perfect -- the CGI is dated in places, the pacing around the denouement is a little too fast, and some of its parody elements are no longer parody enough -- but I don't know of anything better in its genre. If you really like it, Shaolin Soccer and God of Cookery motion around the same concepts and themes, but they don't really hold up.

Drunken Master II (aka Legend of the Drunken Master): the film that put Jackie Chan on the international map. I don't like it as much as Kung Fu Hustle, myself, since it's much stronger for its fight scenes than for its themes or plot, but it's significantly more grounded and less parody.

Princess Mononoke : it's long, it's (cartoonishly) gory, and some of its thematic commentary gets kinda confused, but one of the strongest Ghibli movies and I'd argue the strongest adult action Ghibli movie. Great characters and complex motivations, deep introspection on virtue, and better sense of things existing in a real space during fight scenes than some live-action works. Howl's Moving Castle is a close second in quality and a better introduction to Ghibli in general, and maybe Marnie and the Witch's Flower, but they're far less action-focused.

Ghost in the Shell : the philosophy is a little dated (and way too wordy) at this point, but when the worst you can say about a film like this is that it didn't predict LLMs perfectly, that's praising with faint damns. The more serious problem is just that it's slow-paced and all of the fights are very much curbstomps one direction or the other.

Akira: I'll have to give a disclaimer, here: it does have a famously bad ending, made worse that the original manga's somehow not any better. Like Jet Li's The One, I can't call it good so much as I can call it interesting. Still, there's reason it's inspired a literal generation of animators, and it's still something I like watching.

08th MS Team : technically an OVA instead of a movie, but basically just a movie. Forget all of the newtypes and super prototypes and hyperweapons and one-men armies. It's a war drama as much or more than an action film, and while it's not realistic, it's got an emphasis on realism. If you want a mecha action film that treats fights seriously, this is about as close as you can get, and it's backed up by fantastic animation and great pacing.

The more serious problem is just that it's slow-paced and all of the fights are very much curbstomps one direction or the other.

I rather liked that feature, since it is pretty true-to-life if there's a significant skill/strength differential, which in a world of cyborg bodies... THERE WILL BE. The art is in portraying that gap in a pleasing way.

Also GitS: Stand Alone Complex is maybe the first anime series I seriously engaged with.

And Kung Fu Hustle is a MUST-SEE.

I adore Ghost in the Shell and Akira, and probably should have included the latter in the above list. I'm of two minds about including GitS in a list of action films, as I'm not sure that one chase scene and one fight against a tank really an action movie make.

I saw Princess Mononoke for the first time a few months ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Far more violent than I was expecting from a Ghibli film.

I loved and still love Dredd for its absolutely relentless pacing, Verhoeven-levels of over-the-top action and gore, and its ability to play a fundamentally somewhat silly concept (from a comic book, after all) completely straight.

My favorite thing about Dredd is that Stallone refused to wear the helmet. Urban refused to take it off.

The Sylvester Stallone version?

I assume he means the 2012 Karl Urban version. And seconded on Dredd as an excellent action movie.

The funniest meme so far from Iran:

Special military operation is just situationship in military speak

I giggle every time I see “Operation Epstein Fury”

Best Hindsight Trader: If, around 15-25 February, you thought trump was going to attack iran in the next weeks, what should you have done ?

Buy oom USO calls expiring march 20 for 1500 % gain. Which are just repackaged oil futures, but I'm not fucking with margin.

What I did instead: bought oom spy puts expiring march 20. Exited yesterday for modest gains.

Very interesting that the other possibility, short-term oom calls on american oil companies, also wouldn't have worked. Despite the record rise in oil prices, they barely moved. Apparently the market thinks this will all blow over in a week? OK, buying oom calls on oil companies.

Despite the record rise in oil prices, they barely moved.

Presumably they have oil assets in the Gulf which they can't access/drive ROI from, which depresses their earnings as much as the temporarily higher margin from currently higher oil prices boosts them. Plus huge amounts of risk their assets get damaged in the conflict.

I have no idea which companies have regional assets there, I'm just speculating.

It might've worked if you closed the position right at market open, when the euphoria was at its peak.

Resource producers (almost) always lag these kind of spikes because they can't really profit that much from them unless the change is confirmed to be structural.

I don't believe the market anymore. I imagine my counterpart: a guy in glasses looking at the discrepancy between the rising oil prices and the unmoved oil companies; not reacting, because he thinks he knows those companies, their current balance sheets, he has status quo bias; he thinks that surely things will go back, trump will taco, and the future curve has a reassuring bend; but in reality, this is merely probable, it's not sure at all. They are not the same companies they were a month ago; the possibility that the hormuz strait stays closed should be priced in, and it isn't.

"The market can stay irrational longer than you stay solvent" is definitely the investing phrase of the decade.

the possibility that the hormuz strait stays closed should be priced in, and it isn't.

How do you know it isn't? In a counterfactual world in which Ukraine pulls off some epic drone based operation that causes the Russian oil industry to completely collapse such that oil prices rise to the exact level they are at, I'm assuming oil company stocks pump. Given, as you've said, that oil prices are way up but American oil producer stocks are flat, we can assume there is risk priced in.

Also there's the "Trump put" effect, or in this case it would be the "Trump call" (I know this fell apart in April, but likely relevant here if not the S&P). If oil prices pump (hah) too high for too long he loses the midterms really really bad. There is literally nothing the median American hates more than a high gas price. So if the straights closed in a serious way I'd assume all of a sudden negotiations with Iran would conclude, America would "win" something in the negotiations, and the war would immediately end and the straights would re-open.

Sure, but:

  • Just because the stock prices would likely pump then (when it is 100% obvious production is fucked for X time), doesn't mean they're correct not to pump now (when things are more complicated, timeline-wise). Even a blind man will start running when he hears everyone panicking.
  • if, hypothetically, oil stocks would refuse to move then, you would still hold on to your assumption that the market knows better, and propose alternative explanations!
  • there already is some damage to middle eastern oil facilities

I love your name btw

I don't entirely understand your comment, but reading it though the lens of "Tintin thinks the market is underpricing oil stocks" helps

To your bullets

  1. my assumption is that the market is generally good at pricing things, so given the stocks aren't up, it's likely (not guaranteed) that the gang knows things I don't. This is a low bar as I don't know much about the oil industry. I just know a lot about finance and valuations in general.

  2. in that hypothetical I would be quite confused actually as that seems like a windfall of "the resource you're extracting is nore expensive now, your costs are the same, party time". I was able to come up with a plausible reason the oil stocks haven't gone up right now, I got none for my Ukranian oil shortage one. I could just be biasing my own ideas, but I'm at a loss.

  3. that kind of supports my thesis that the increased margin (which should lead to higher stock valuation) is being offset by the damage and risk to their oil assets?

A totally fun aside, while I'm generally a supporter of the weak-form efficient market hypothesis, an incredible counter point to it has been the SAASpocolypse. All the information causing the SAASpocolypse was theoretically known in late Nov 2025 and was painfully obvious over Christmas break when everyone on Twitter started posting about vibe coding. But the selloff didn't start until ~Jan 29. Huge hit to the EMH.

Video Game Thread!

Anyone playing Slay The Spire 2? :D

I'm a filthy noob at this type of game but I'm having fun with it. I abandoned my first run on the second map after realizing I picked what was by far the worst bonus at the start of that map.

Playing my second run I'm using an unlocked character called The Silent. My max hp increases by 5 ever time I rest (a bonus).

Not sure if I should seek out the Elite enemies on the map...?

Also - I'm getting the sense that a smaller deck with stronger cards is better because the deck keeps getting recycled over an over in combat. So should I not pick the normal grey 'add a card to your deck' option at the end of battles?

Yes, I've beaten A20 with all 4 characters and put hundreds of hours in StS. I was hyped for StS2, and I'm loving it so far. Great game, I'm trying to determine how much of a sea change it is, versus Slay the Spire: The Second Time Through. I keep comparing it to pokemon generations. Pokemon Gold is the same game as Pokemon Red, almost entirely, but more. That's what makes it great. This is more different than that, certainly.

Also - I'm getting the sense that a smaller deck with stronger cards is better because the deck keeps getting recycled over an over in combat. So should I not pick the normal grey 'add a card to your deck' option at the end of battles?

This is the first thing you learn in deckbuilding games (see: Dominion). Skipping is better than adding much of the time. Removing is so good, they can't let you do it too often. An ideal deck is the same 5 cards drawn and played every turn (after setting up powers, and exhausting, you can do this with many decks).

So no, don't pick every card. Start skipping at the end of act 1 when your deck is good enough to beat the act 1 boss. You can start seeing upgrade card rewards starting in act 2, and the rarity also improves.

Got it! I've taken to removing un-upgraded strikes/defends on most chances I get. And I'm skipping some mediocre card rewards.

I've got a decent Ironclad run going right now. Just reached act 3 and picked up The Distinguished Cape. :) He's got Barricade+ and Impervious. Those two are pretty good cards.

When I've checked youtube vids of boss fights though, they seem to have conjured up way better decks than anything I've ever had. I'll probably lose to the act 3 end boss for the third time, if I even reach it. But I discovered that there are only 3 acts in the EA, so I've been very close to beating a run.

Got any more solid advice you can spare for a newbie? I've searched for guides but there's little solid info out so far, mostly just clickbaity bloated low-effort videos and few good websites with info for the sequel specifically.

Yes, burn the strikes on everyone, especially defect. Those remove bonuses at the beginning are extra good, as are transforms. Defect especially, not sure about the two new characters. Silent has a bigger starting deck, but the most innate draw, so it balances, but removals are not as good for her. Don't neglect the cost of drawing the cost of drawing the card. You get 5 draw and 3 energy each turn, and every card costs 1 draw. The more cards you add, the longer it takes to cycle your deck to get to the good cards.

In general, you want to consider your immediate future: how do I survive the next fight, how do I beat the upcoming Elite for gold and a relic, how do I beat the Act Boss. That means cards in deck, relics, current HP, and potions. Potions are a great way to get through elite fights and scale your deck.

Try to take 0 damage each round (unless Ironclad), especially early. You will take damage, but you need to have enough HP to get through the Act and beat the boss. Spending HP in fights costs you upgrades if you Rest instead of Smith. You get healed at the start of each Act, so use that HP to get rewards. It's a resource, so spend it, but spend it wisely.

The first few rewards, you simply want to improve your deck. You need damage early, so add it. You can add ~5 cards in Act 1 without worrying too much, but after that you want to start being picky about adding unupgraded cards and synergy you don't have yet. Find a way to deal single target damage, clear multiple opponents, and block.

Don't add cards that require cards you don't have. Really, this is the toughest one, and you can start to relax it as your build comes online and you accumulate relics, but adding dead draws is the surest way to slow down a deck.

Plan your moves. Consider your relics. Look at your draw pile. Read the text of that tiny little icon on the enemy. Do the math on block. Use your potions.

For the characters specifically:

Ironclad has a lot of vulnerable and strength, which multiply. Bash is a decent early upgrade for this reason. Don't be afraid to draw down your HP.

Silent has the biggest starting deck. Neutralize upgrade is great for the second round of weak.

Defect loves removes and loves upgrades. Zap upgrade early is critical, Doublecast upgrade is nice to have, too. You want to be mindful of where you're getting damage, and where you're getting block. Defect has great cards for both, but your orbs can't do everything all the time.

I don't know much about the two new ones. Regent's sword seems like a trap. Necrobinder seems weak overall. None of their starting cards look like good upgrades to me.

I appreciate you taking the time. :)

It seems to me now that one of the essential things to get a character that can finish a run is to put together some kind of synergy; to plan out a deck as soon as you've got a few rewards because they point you in some direction(s). This is where a newbie has little or no knowledge to feed on to put together that plan. If I knew a few strong builds for the character by heart I could easily decide on a path from an early point and build the deck for synergy.

One related issue I seem to run into is that I try to be an all-rounder with both decent defense and decent attack. Ending up with not having massive attacks and not having massive blocks to survive the most difficult act 2 bosses/act 3 bosses.

I will give Defect another go in the coming days. I failed early when I tried him. The zapping/dual-casting is pretty cool though. Regent seems more hit-or-miss than any other character. But I like his style. I reached the act 3 boss with him. Necrobinder's aesthetic is kinda cool too. I see people getting very strong Silents but she's not my cup of tea. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(I think I will stop taking the Greed card (+333 gold for an eternal curse that can't be removed at the shop). It makes the run more reliant on RNG; if you don't see something good to spend that gold on in the first shop, you've clogged your deck for no reason. I found a decent guide/rating system to the Ancient rewards here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3680984107 )

I've played a couple of hours and have finished a run with all the characters.

I wish I could say that the game was a clear step up in every way from the first one but as it currently stands it isn't (but it still seems to be a great game!).

First off, there are plenty of things that are better. Animations, character models, relic art, background art, event art, number of character, sound design, act variations etc.

There is a lot of stuff here that is very good and with some refinement will likely be clearly superior to sts.

However, two fairly important (to me) areas are significantly worse: Music and card art.

It's easy to see how things went wrong with the card art because if you view the cards one on one in their enlarged state the new art is superior both in detail and quality. The issue however is that that isn't how you interact with the art 99% of the time. 99% of the time you're looking at the small thumbnails on your hand, and in that case the art is worse than the old, fairly simplistic art of the original because it becomes cluttered and hard to read at a glance. This is unfortunate but perhaps not a major issue as you get used to the cards.

The second and to me pretty major issue is the massive downgrade in the quality of the music. Wtf happened here? Is it a placeholder? The new variation of the main theme is perfectly fine but most of the rest is pretty ass.

Whatever, I guess I can turn the music off but these are such strange things to fumble imo.

Damn, you're quick. So the game is kinda short? If you can run through it in like 30 minutes if you know what you are doing.''

I agree on the music. It's not inspiring or catchy. I think the card art is ok. I didn't play the first game but I've looked at screenshots and the art in 2 is a step in the right direction, though still a bit too 'flat' for my liking, perhaps.

Btw, which of these start-of-map-rewards would you recommend? 'whenever you play 2 or fewer cards, take half damage' vs 'add apotheosis to deck (upgrade all cards for rest of combat) vs 'fill all empty potion slots with random shit at start of combat'?

I didn't mean literally 2 hours, I've played for like 6 hours and I played the first game almost 1000 hours so it was pretty easy to get the hang of things and winning on ascension 0 isn't that hard even when you don't know what the enemies do and what cards there are. Ascension 0 is in some ways the tutorial.

I think the card art is ok. I didn't play the first game but I've looked at screenshots and the art in 2 is a step in the right direction, though still a bit too 'flat' for my liking, perhaps.

I think the art is fine, it's the art design that is lacking in the second game. The first game had a much more clever art design that it perhaps first appears, with rules about color coding for different types of cards, the directions things face, contrast between foreground and background. The art was designed for use in the actual game as opposed to art for it's own sake and I imagine they thought a great deal about it. In the second game it feels like they've handed this off to the artist to a much greater degree, only that person doesn't understand the game design as well as the founders.

Btw, which of these start-of-map-rewards would you recommend? 'whenever you play 2 or fewer cards, take half damage' vs 'add apotheosis to deck (upgrade all cards for rest of combat) vs 'fill all empty potion slots with random shit at start of combat'?

It depends. If you have the potion belt then the potion thing is incredibly strong. Apotheosis is only valuable if you have a lot of un-upgraded cards which you might not in act 3 (which I assume this is?). The play 2 or fewer cards is too situational to recommend. I don't think it's a good idea generally, you should already have your block strategy worked out.

If you want to learn more about the game and you like watching streams, I'd recommend Baalorlord. He is one of the best players, friendly and goes into detail of pretty much all his decisions so even newbies can follow along.

Visual clarity is one of the most key aspects of creating graphics for games, so I get you.

I died at the end of act 3 with The Regent, despite having a pretty good setup, far better than on my previous runs. The boss was called Queen, and she had a very strong 200 hp summon who dealt 12x3 damage quite often. And the boss had 400 hp and kept "binding" my cards.. I had no chance to win, it seemed. Feeling a bit demoralized now. :')

Baalorlord seems ok!

Also - I'm getting the sense that a smaller deck with stronger cards is better because the deck keeps getting recycled over an over in combat.

That is generally true in deck building games, though IDK about StS specifically. Usually, having a small deck means you can have just a handful of high powered cards that you get to keep drawing over and over. It's not the only strategy, but it's often a good one.

There is a reason that MtG imposes minimum deck sized in various formats, but generally not maximum deck sizes (beyond the practical restriction that you have to be able to physically shuffle your deck). Even without turn-one combos defaulting the win to whoever goes first, it would enable efficient, hyper linear decks to an extremely boring degree.

Yeah, I never really understood that rule (being extremely unfamiliar with Magic)... until I started to play Dominion a bunch. Then it made sense to me.

The first time I won a game of the first part was with a huge deck and a card that depended on the deck size. I remember that because it coincided with the "huge d[i]ck energy" meme and I found that funny. Other than that, keep it slim.

Not sure if I should seek out the Elite enemies on the map...?

You've gotta.

I haven't played 2 yet, but in StS1 (and Inscryption, Astrea, etc.) the long-term benefits of high-power fights are nearly required to beat the end bosses. If you fight two elites per Act, you'll reach the end boss with six (non-boss) relics. If you fight four, you'll have twelve. If you play it safe, then you'll be underpowered by the end, and almost certainly lose.

Got it! Seems like fighting Elites is better economics, considering that the regular enemies can hit really hard and produce difficult fights anyway.

Played 8 runs already, enjoying all the weirdness of the enemies and events.

Re strategy: It does make sense to skip card rewards, especially as you get later in the run and have a stronger deck. You want to take a card if it raises the average strength of cards in your deck (or if you need it so you can scale higher in the fight for powers).

Alright. You can actually just press Skip after viewing what cards are available, if none of them improve your deck. :)

I'm having better luck with my 4th run. I've been served some very good cards in some of my draws. Gonna try to make this a good run. Playing The Regent. The reward I picked at the start of floor 2 let me throw out 5 picked cards and get one of them back in upgraded form after each of the next 5 combats. I now have almost nothing but green + cards in my deck. :D

Strangely, if you click Save and Quit and later Continue, it will put you back in at your last decision to re-do it. Weird.

This one is a "feature" that aows you to undo misclicks. I really just wish there was an Undo button for misclicks in the base game.

StS2 is on my list, but not buying it yet because I just recently got Esoteric Ebb (Disco Elysium-esque "chat with your head while the plot makes fun of politics" but in a fantasy setting) and Mewgenics (turn-based XCOM/Into the Breach-like tactics, but you control ugly cats and have to breed more of them between runs), and nowhere near done with those.

In StS, having a thin deck is generally very strong for the reasons you stated. You still want to add cards to your deck at the start because the starting cards are subpar (all of my advice is based on the first game but should hold for the second if they didn't change the formula completely). Just make sure that your build is somewhat coherent.

Fighting elites is desirable when possible because (in StS1) they give a bonus relic.

The game is making me feel dumber than I am. I died on act 2 with The Silent, and then again on floor 2 with The Regent.

I hunted some elites with the latter and then died to one of them just prior to the boss.

I'm starting to think that mapping a good route from the first choice on the map is essential.

I just run out of hp at some point and have no healing potions or the like.

*Act, not floor.

Do you mean on floor 2 or act 2? It's pretty impressive to die to floor 2.

Oh, perhaps I used the wrong terms. I meant, the part after you beat the first end boss, the next map! So tower 2 or act 2 I guess. Assuming that it is each combat that is called a 'floor'?

Yeah

@orthoxerox

@George_E_Hale

I'm invested in you guys' search for fragrances. Did you guys decide on anything? Hopefully you guys were able to find what you're looking for.

I'm still on task. I've smelled MFK 724, Byredo Blanche A d P, the two MM you mentioned, as well as Gentle Night, and a few that the girls insisted I smell because they were presumably trying to move merchandise. Also Freesia Mist. All this has taken considerable straying from my usual scheduled route, but that's a good thing.

I'm quite impressed with all of them. But we're not quite there yet. I feel like you mentioned Aqua di Parma Colonia which I haven't yet found. It's nothing in Tom Ford, which some dude who was dressed extremely well took many minutes spraying on little business cards and waving them like he was snuffing out a shrine votive candle (which you should never blow out with your breath). I extracted myself by lying.

I'm not a great shopper. I like to buy what I want and be done with it. It's a worthwhile search, though, in this case, though I expect many question my testosterone levels. I appreciate your assistance.

Does anyone else collect coins or stamps?

I never had much respect for the goldbugs until I inherited my dad's coin collection. It's remarkable holding a series of coins from 10 consecutive years and the first 5 are worth 60$ a pop because of the silver content while the next 5 are worthless nickel alloys worth their face value despite being a 70 year old coin. I was also blown away by some cool historical pieces I never imagined my dad had (and I'm not sure he was even aware of their value) - British currency from the early 19th century, a dollar bill from the first year the US printed dollar bills, some other antique American and Mexican coins worth a couple hundred dollars with fascinating stories. Not to mention just how based some of the older currency was; the detail on some of these coins is amazing, the pre-euro French and German currencies are beautiful pieces. And the old silver and gold coins have such a nice feeling of heft. There's some primal human magpielike desire to accumulate precious metals and I wasn't even aware of what we'd lost by transitioning entirely to bits.

Not to mention I found out that some ancient Roman and Greek coins are so common that you can own a 2000 year old coin with nice detail for tens of dollars, or 60-90$ for the silvers. It's mind-boggling to me that there isn't more interest and that these pieces are just available for anyone to own rather than being on display in museums.

I've gotten really into ancient (mostly Roman) coins recently. I was shocked at how affordable the more modest pieces are, especially if your tastes tend not to perfectly coincide with general collector trends. The pride of my collection is what I call my "end of the world" set: one coin issued by Heraclius the year before his mega-campaign to win back the eastern provinces, one coin issued by Khusrow II immediately after he conquered said eastern provinces, and a coin issued by Abd Al-Malik shortly after the Arab conquests and before the Islamic taboo on graven images was established (the earliest Arab coin I could find).

I've also gotten really into cleaning and identifying crusty coins straight out of the ground. You're mostly going to be finding low-grade bronze coins from the late empire that aren't really worth anything (especially once you take into account the dozens of hours of labor you put in), but it's so fun trying to figure out what you've got, then realizing you're the first person in 1800 years to see the design you've revealed.

I have a couple Roman coins. Should get more, they'd be a nice way to label my collection of pebbles from historic sites.

I am not, currently, but you've put down to paper my overall attitude about it. Frankly I know that once I started I'd turn it into a medium intensity hobby, like watches, and I just can't take another one.

That said.... Where would one purchase some roman coins?

Pre-cleaned, your best option is vcoins.com. They have a 100% money back authenticity guarantee for everything sold on their site. Probably best to avoid auctions until you know what you're doing and have a sense of how much coins should cost, but that's where the real deals are. I also buy uncleaned coins, sometimes in bulk, from nerocoins.com.

Avoid ebay like the plague.

Premium Crusty Uncleaned Roman Coins

I haven't tried it yet myself so no idea which are best/reputable, but these were recommended by reddit:

https://www.apmex.com/category/58170/roman-empire-coins?f_metalname=silver&_=1772898324974&sortby=priceasc

https://www.vcoins.com/en/coins/ancient/roman-coins-2.aspx?category=roman

My wife, having finished bearing and nursing kids, just had a breast reduction and she's spending the night at an Airbnb with her mom so that the kids don't crawl all over her.

It was quite necessary. They were huge to the point of causing back pain and impeding exercise and just being a bummer. It'll be about 6 weeks before she can resume normal life, but she'll be back home in a few days.

Anyway, what can I text her besides "send nudes"?

For my own wife, breast reduction came naturally after a short time post-nursing. Obviously this must have been accounted for? You mention the kids crawling all over her though suggesting they're quite young.

I've had at least 3 women I've been in relationships with complain about the inconveniences associated with big breasts and their plans of getting a breast reduction at some point. I was never very happy about that prospect, and I offered to carry them in my palms to help relieve the burden. For some reason, they never were as keen on taking up that offer as I was extending it.

You have my condolences.

For some reason, they never were as keen on taking up that offer as I was extending it.

women, who understands them?

I expose my counter-signaling gay elite taste (as per the Evil Vizier blog) by saying this, but medium and below is the patrician's choice, primarily because of self-sufficiency regarding support and longevity.

How dynamic was the sizing? My wife's shrunk quite a bit a few months after nursing, it's a huge range.

They shrank like, 10% after she stopped nursing. Still enormous.

Damn the human body is so dynamic. It's 85% or so for my lady, she's very self conscious of the difference and the fact that they expanded so much the skin has stretched.

They were on the big side but, like, almost okay after the first two kids. But the third kid sent them into the next dimension.

Why 6 weeks? Are the scars huge?

Her surgeon suggested a full six weeks before she can resume 100% of activities, though can function as an independent adult after 1-2.

My condolences.

/s hope she makes a full recovery

If you don't mind, update me on how it goes. I strongly suspect that Mrs FiveHour is going to be on a similar track, long before pregnancy she was on a strict yoga regimen to avoid back pain from her tig ol bitties.

ETA: Asked Mrs. FiveHour, she said to emphasize how natural they look when you do see them.

Oh, good idea Mrs FiveHour! I thought her surgeon did an amazing job but I'll be sure to let Mrs Analog know since I'm sure her mind will wonder anyway.

I see this is the bragging corner of the Motte ;-)

The least of the things I would brag about regarding Mrs. FiveHour. By far the greatest blessing in my life. Though, also, yeah, I'd brag about it.

Motte conspiracy theory. I think @self_made_human and @faceh are the same person. Of course this is total bullshit. Faceh is a lawyer in Florida and Self made human is a doctor in Scotland. A mere examination of the distribution of their posting times shows that they probably are different people. Faceh is also much more gender war focused, while self_made_human has his fingers in almost every pie on the forum. The thing that makes me tongue-in-cheek suggest that they are the same person is a similar writing style: blocky paragraphs with an abundance of links and an abundance of quips.

Damn you. Now that that secret is out, I have to ban both of them.

fails to punish obvious rulebreaking until literally three days later

Typical lazy moderator. I bet you'll make some weak excuse like "nobody reported it, so I didn't see it until just now". It is your obligation to monitor every single comment that is posted on this website 24/7.

Damn you. Now I have to ban myself.

Yes, I can confirm that @faceh and I are the same person. Sorry for pulling the long con, but it was a good run!

Shush they haven't identified the third one.

LMAO.

@self_made_human is one of my favorite posters. Whenever I find myself nodding along with a comment thinking "oh yeah that's about what I would write" more often than not its one of his. So the resemblance is definitely noticeable.

And to be fair, if I still cared about OpSec, setting up a second account with a completely different profile, then scheduling comments to be posted during my sleeping hours, is definitely something I might do.

I'm really not 'focused' on the gender war per se. I still read all the other topics, and I used to engage a LOT with everything, going back to the reddit days. But Gender stuff is now one of the few areas I feel like I have decent insights, and the topic is getting more heated by the week. Other than AI, it is the topic that is having the single largest impact on political and economic trajectory in the next 30 years, so I find myself engaging with it a lot in part to help myself refine my understanding.

but lol, case in point, I HAVE, in other forums, used the tactic of creating a different account that focuses more aggressively on posting about one particular topic so that it doesn't create too much controversy for my main account, since I prefer NOT to become known as "that guy who only cares about one thing."

@self_made_human is one of my favorite posters. Whenever I find myself nodding along with a comment thinking "oh yeah that's about what I would write" more often than not its one of his.

Only increases the chance that you are the same person. Rov_scam is one of my favorite posters. Everything he says is brilliant and I agree with it 100%!

The thing that makes tongue-in-cheek suggest that they are the same person is a similar writing style: blocky paragraphs with an abundance of links and an abundance of quips.

I regret to inform you that's just because they've both been subsumed into the Motte egregore. I genuinely find it startling reading over comments I posted here years ago: gradually but unmistakeably, my writing style has shifted closer to the Motte centre of gravity over time.

There are worse egregores to be subsumed into. Reddit might be the worst.

Most of my writing style is informed by legal training, I think. Balancing conciseness with clarity, and verbosity with accessibility. I think I use too many words yet I want to make sure I'm conveying the meaning as I truly intend it. Because that meaning IS my Motte, and I will defend it with honor.

But yeah, the shape of my style has been formed by trying to argue effectively with people who can pick apart tiny inconsistencies and will notice when you omit certain words or add unsustainable premises, yet also retain civility. Grandstanding is rarely rewarded, but you have to be a bit entertaining if you hope a few dozen people (at least) will read your text walls.

My friend Dylan and I are embarking on a quest to read as many quality books as we can about US history this year. Although I've been having a very hard time with Indigenous continent (I think it's an awful book), I really enjoyed Ian Toll's The Pacific Crucible both from an entertainment standpoint and from a scholastic one.

Pacific Crucible starts dramatically at Pearl Harbor, backtracks a little bit to explain the US naval doctrine from the Spanish American War onwards and the reasons for Japanese militarism, and then proceeds chronologically until the Battle of Midway, alternating between the American and Japanese perspective. Although there were aspects of these first few months of the war that I feel like Toll covered too quickly (the battle for the East Indies), or even missed entirely (the submarine war on shipping for example), I learned a ton from this book.

  1. Fascist elements in the Japanese military began to take over the country in the early 1930s as a result of the Great Depression and perceived slights by Western Powers against the Japanese Empire. These elements were allowed to eventually overthrow the Diet because Hirohito was extremely weak-willed. The invasion of Manchuria and the rest of China was a direct result of this military coup, and the Pacific war was a direct result of this because the US eventually refused to sell oil to Japan anymore.

  2. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were both big believers in naval power, although this naval bias played into a long US naval tradition of excellence at sea because of a need to protect global shipping. FDR actually started a massive carrier buildup in 1938, which made it such that new US carriers were ready as early as the end of 1942, which was incredibly important for faster victory in the Pacific.

  3. Lots of racism from both sides which caused incredible lapses of judgement at Pearl Harbor and the Malaya campaign, and at Midway/Coral Sea.

  4. At this stage in the war, Japanese pilots seemed to be far superior than the American ones. What prevented more Japanese victories at this stage in the war, as well as the collapse in capabilities from 1943 onward was poor command at a higher level (rivalry between the army and navy, lack of strategic vision or sober analysis of Japanese strength), and poor husbanding of human and material resources (veteran pilots got no break and were not used effectively to train new pilots, but were rather ground down completely by campaigns of attrition.

  5. These naval battles seem incredibly confusing and unsettling. All your ships are miles away from each other, and you don't see the enemy basically at all, unless you are a bomber pilot. I suppose this has gotten even worse with the advent of drones or ballistic missiles, which have made carriers obsolete in the same way that carriers made battleships obsolete.

  6. It's interesting how propaganda has completely changed our perception of WW2. In this book Toll notes that most Americans weren't super happy to be going to war, but were resigned to get the job done. Very different from how WW2 is portrayed now, as the "good war".

That book sounds awesome.

I’ll repeat my recommendation for Thunder Below!, a sub captain’s insane account of combat patrols in the west and North Pacific. Like many memoirs, it’s more concerned with the tactical than the strategic, but that’s a bit different for the commander of a boat. Spoilers: When they run out of ships to sink, they land a party on Japan and blow up a train.

I also greatly enjoyed Massie’s Castles of Steel. It’s much more concerned with British and German procurement and doctrine, but in the second half, it gives a great explanation of the politics of “unrestricted submarine warfare.” America was really the elephant in the room. There’s a quote from Teddy Roosevelt saying if Wilson doesn’t stand up for shipping, he’d flay him alive. I believe him.

I have a couple of Civil War stories in my queue. Planning to cover any of those?

I'll have to check out both of those books. If I have one criticism of Toll is that this trilogy is a 100% focused on the USA. Australian and British efforts are a complete sideshow.

In terms of Civil War, we are planning on reading Bruce Catton's Army of The Potomac Trilogy.

My friend Dylan and I are embarking on a quest to read as many quality books as we can about US history this year.

May I recommend Albion's Seed? Fascinating book for anyone interested in the history of America or the Anglo diaspora.

confusing and unsettling. All your ships are miles away from each other, and you don't see the enemy basically at all, unless you are a bomber pilot.

Even for them. I remember playing a flight sim in the Pacific Theater back in the day (CFS2, I think?) and being struck by how little you'd be sure of if you didn't have the minimap and unit text helping you out. Here's a representative video.

The enemy is just a smattering of specks on the horizon. At that distance, you probably can't even make out what they are. Could be friendlies. Could be unprotected bombers. Could be a fighter patrol. You'd be figuring that out in real time with a lot of radio back and forth. Hence Spotter Cards to train recognition.

And once the action kicks off, it'd just get even more chaotic.

which have made carriers obsolete in the same way that carriers made battleships obsolete.

Which is to say, not obsolete at all? The idea that the battleship was made obsolete in WWII is a) untrue, and incidentally b) a highly american-centric one based on experiences in the pacific. The only way battleships were made obsolete by carriers is in carrying the role of primary offensive arm of naval strategy (ie- sail your Grand Fleet towards the enemy Grand Fleet, blow them to pieces and then blockade their coast and shell their harbors and raid their shipping with cruisers was replaced by launching airstrikes against capital combatants from long distance and submarine warfare against their commerce), in a tactical and operational sense they were still very much relevant.

Looking at the Iran situation, it would be incredibly helpful to have a vessel that was not particularly vulnerable to drone and missile stikes (through whatever combination of armor and defensive armament) that could cheaply return fire on shore- and small boat-based launchers that we could park in the straight of Hormuz right anout now.

Also, carriers can also serve as highly efficient drone launch platforms, to say they are obsolete in an era of drone warfare is circular logic.

not particularly vulnerable to drone and missile stikes

There have been several generations of armor and anti-armor development since WWII, and I wouldn't bet on the 12+ inch steel belts stopping modern weapons anywhere near as well as they used to. A modern, man-portable Javelin missile claims more armor penetrating power than the Iowa class was designed against, which at the time was something like a 16 inch shell that might have weighted well over a ton and left the barrel at 1700mph. Shaped charges had only started appearing during WWII.

I doubt anyone has ever tested it ("it belongs in a museum!") but I'd bet the latest AT weapons could penetrate a battleship turret. I believe this is part of why modern navy ships are armored only against much smaller shells and depend more on active protection systems.

Nah, AT weapons simply arent at a scale they can pose any threat to a battleship armor belt or turret faces. A javelin may have a spec 800 mm of RHA penetration, but the 12.1" Class A monolithic plate that makes up the main belt on an Iowa is something north of 1000mm RHA equivalent (though RHA equivalent testing is really only done for much thinner tank armor, not naval armoring). Also, there are a minimum of three layers of armor to penetrate the citadel (decaping plate, main belt, spall liner or bomb, main, and splinter decks) with feet of standoff distance between them, that alone would defeat an EFP warhead designed to punch through one layer of tank armor.

Modern naval ships are much less heavily armored for a wide variety of reasons, but armor not working isn't one of them. Economics, geopokitics, and submarines would be the big three IMO.

When I last looked at this, I was specifically looking at the turret armor, which doesn't have the extra layers of ship around it. It might be able to knock out a turret (with some luck on powder handling), but probably not the whole ship barring Jutland-type cascading failures Iowa's designers were aware of. But I also didn't really have much faith in comparing ballistic numbers from the 1920s with modern claims: it's unclear if "RHA equivalent" really is a static comparison and if all the sizes really scale linearly.

Okay maybe obsolete isn't the right word. I think I mean counterable. Until cheap drones and long range missiles, the only thing that could effectively counter carriers were other carriers or land based air forces. The same is true with battleships. Before carriers, the only thing that could consistently counter a battleship was another battleship.

Until cheap drones and long range missiles, the only thing that could effectively counter carriers were other carriers or land based air forces.

Forgetting submarines here, which of course is how the submarines like it.

In an age of ballistic missiles and cheap drones, carriers continue to have a huge advantage because unlike airfields they can move around, and very very quickly. The disadvantages carriers have compared with an airfield is that it's probably easier to repair the airfield, particularly from relatively minor damage, and you can't really fly large aircraft like strategic bombers, transports, or airborne refueling aircraft off of them.

It's also an added, compounding layer of difficulty and complexity launching and landing on them. A country being able to build carriers is impressive, but not as impressive as one that's able to launch planes like from them like clockwork with few accidents bar rounding errors, under stressful war conditions.

100%, although it seems to have gotten much less difficult recently. The US Navy used to always train carrier landings in trainers. Now, thanks to advances in avionics that can enable a more precise control mode behind the deck, they've removed the carrier landing requirement from their next trainer.

Lots of interesting things here, including the likely permanent passing of a difficult rite of passage.

Indeed, it was a submarine that ultimately finished off the Yorktown. How could I have forgotten.

I finished watching Blake's Seven earlier today. Spoiler-free rating: 7/10 for the first two seasons, 4/10 for the third and fourth. Spoilers below.

Things I liked:

  1. Blake is really-a-terrorist and really-a-hero. Even Trek DS9, which makes a big deal out of having Kira Nerys the terrorist as First Officer, mostly fails to show her being a heroic terrorist. She does very little terrorism on-screen, and when her background does come into play she generally turns into a psycho killer whose justifications don't hold up. Blake's different; he clearly tries to minimise casualties, but he's willing to accept them, and the Federation is such a horrifying dystopia that he's still clearly in the right.

  2. There's a reasonable amount of real science mixed in. I'm not 100% sure, but I seem to see a pattern of older shows assuming a more technically-inclined audience.

  3. For the first couple of seasons, at least, most episodes fit into the big picture in some way. It's ground-level, but there's clearly a larger plot going on.

Things I disliked:

  1. There are a few basic mistakes that were re-used far too many times, particularly as the series went on, to the point that it's just the idiot ball to have them keep happening. The first is "yelling desperately instead of just pushing the teleporter switch when somebody stops responding". The second is "letting Vila be a single point of failure", most notably by leaving him alone on the ship to operate the teleporter (he's also, IIRC, the only one who ever sold them out for real; the correct response to that one was seen on Firefly). The third is, well...

  2. Servalan. I get that Jacqueline Pearce played her excellently, but seriously, her plot armour is a mile thick. If they wanted to keep her around, they should have had a lot less situations where only idiocy prevents her death. Blake lets Travis go again and again because Travis is a moron who's of negative value to the Federation (the period between the Federation pulling the plug on him and his death should have been shorter, though). Servalan, though, is high-up enough that killing her is actually a big deal, and yet Blake's crew never does it (sometimes for believable reasons, but too often without). And, uh, how many plots are "some fuckwit actually believed Servalan's promises"? There's that old saying regarding worldbuilding, "there wouldn't be stories of deals gone bad if deals always went bad, because if they did, no-one would make deals". Is there literally anyone in the entire series who actually profits from dealing with her? By the end it's clearly well-known that her word is written on water, and yet people keep jumping into the lion's mouth. She should have either been someone actually worthwhile to deal with, or someone who doesn't (need to) make deals. And she should have been either an actual magnificent bitch who never lets the crew get motive/means/opportunity to kill her, or she should have died.

  3. The loss of Blake (and Jenna) basically decapitates the show after season 2, because Blake's the one with an actual goal. Having Avon go nuts for a couple of episodes is one thing; a couple of seasons, quite another.

  4. Season 4 appears to have had a rule of "every named character outside the main cast dies by the end of the episode". What the fuck was going on there? This isn't even a question of in-universe stupidity, it just makes no sense and is so obvious I was basically crossing people off in my head by the end.

Servalan starts off genuinely intelligent (and Jacqueline Pearce's casting was wonderful because physically she's this big-eyed waif type whom you would not expect to be the ice-cold ruthless manipulator who survives everything), but of course over the course of the series she gets over-powered.

Mainly by the cast being idiots - though Avon has always been not as smart as he thinks he is - Tarrant, though, definitely was not thinking with his brain when he was stranded with her.

I love that the SFX are done on the cheap, because this is the Beeb, and the title sequence is done in cross-stitch(!) and one of the space ships is a hair dryer cut in half and glued back together.

The ending is fantastic. It's really, really a shock when you see it the first time because you're hoping that there will be the heroic ending of the plucky, scrappy underdogs winning over the villainous tyrannical regime (like every American movie and show does). It's as if Star Wars ended with the Emperor having killed off the entire Resistance, and he got Luke to do it.

I think the "killing off everyone" was maybe (I don't know this for sure) to knock on the head any calls for a renewal of the show (the BBC has tended to look down on SF shows that get popular, see Doctor Who, as being Not Serious Broadcasting or Worthy Artistic Productions), plus it's very much in the downbeat, cynical British tradition (the plucky, scrappy rebels have been reduced by attrition and by previous successful Federation campaigns to a disorganised, fragmented bunch on the run trying to rebuild and being driven from every base they find, and in the end the organisation of power and resources in the Federation, as well as internal treachery, in-fighting, and loss of direction*, is just too much for them. The Bad Guys win because this is how the world works, and this was before George R.R. Martin tried the same thing in A Song of Ice and Fire to turn all the traditional tropes on their head).

*We see this when Blake disappears. Avon is "to hell with principles, I wanna be rich" but even there, their attempts to be space pirates go hilariously wrong (the fourth season episode Gold is wonderful with double-cross over double-cross).

It's really, really a shock when you see it the first time because you're hoping that there will be the heroic ending of the plucky, scrappy underdogs winning over the villainous tyrannical regime (like every American movie and show does).

I was fairly confident a full heroic ending wasn't in the cards by that point; one episode wasn't enough for a real finale and no groundwork had been laid. I wasn't expecting the actual ending; I wasn't really expecting an ending at all, because I figured the show had sucked for two seasons and gotten cancelled (I had long since said the eight deadly words).

Also, if they wanted to shock me, they probably shouldn't have had the slow-motion.

I will say that shaggy-dogs are unusual for a reason, particularly when they leave a lot of Chekhov's Guns unfired (remember the Federation agent in "The Way Back" who orchestrated the massacre and killed Blake's lawyer? Because I do). I will also say that I find the best twist reveals to not be those that are shocking, but those the audience works out approximately five seconds prior.

I don't love the SFX being lousy. I don't care about graphics as long as I can understand what's going on (for a videogame example: Civ2 and X-Com are good enough; Dwarf Fortress pre-graphics and NetHack are not), so I just didn't really care about them one way or the other (which is why I never mentioned them).

Avon is "to hell with principles, I wanna be rich" but even there, their attempts to be space pirates go hilariously wrong (the fourth season episode Gold is wonderful with double-cross over double-cross).

The problem with showing this is that, well, eight deadly words. I cared about Blake/Jenna/Avon/Gan/Cally, not Vila/Orac/Tarrant/Dayna/Soolin, and above any of those I cared about Plot. Stuff actually happens in seasons 1 and 2; episodes fit into a broader picture. Most of the season 3 and 4 episodes have no broader impact.

I still follow The Onion on Facebook, and it's sad how anodyne and unfunny their content has become. Every so often I stumble across one of their older articles, and it's heartening to be reminded of how funny and perceptive they used to be.

This is one such case: "‘This Here Is Probably Our Bestselling Love Seat,’ Says Man Who Would Have Been Powerful, Revered Warrior 4,000 Years Ago".

From that comedic premise, the entire article is a tour de force.

There's also a number of hilarious throwaway jokes in the chyrons for their ONN videos.

"Deranged mathematician commits first truly random shooting."

A few articles that will live in my head forever:

Stereotypes Are A Real Time-Saver

Area Man Goes And Gets Himself Hit By A Goddamn Bus (I especially think of this one whenever someone manages to get hit by a train--what, did it jump the tracks and chase them down?)

And this one I thought was the Onion, but it's actually some other site:

'I Deserve a Little Treat,' Says Woman Who Has Never Denied Herself Anything (occurs to me anytime I think about treating myself to something; remarkably effective at killing the urge to do so)

Reductress can be funny from time to time, I think about this one a lot: "Stomach Flatness Checked in Mirror after Massive Dump".

They used to put out some LEGENDARY videos.

Michael Falk, Autistic Reporter was a good bit.

Hahaha! They used to be sharply on-point.

Yeah they did. I was just thinking about this gem yesterday. I'm guessing it was too expensive to make those videos, but either way it's a shame they stopped. Almost every video they did back in the day was pure gold.

I was just thinking about this gem yesterday.

To be fair to him, hair metal did AFAICT get mainstream airplay during Reagan's first term, so that's at least one campaign promise filled!

It must be the Millenial in me, but somehow, "take any staid, stodgy, formal, professorial, restrained affair or institution and add raucous profanity and exaggerated reactions while otherwise playing things straight" is instant comedy gold for me.

"Jesus H. Christ, we're on the fucking moon" delivered in the standard professional NASA tone has me cackling.

I just realized there HAS to be some market for accurate, quality reporting delivered with this exact sort of style, and LLMs should be able to provide it.

I'm gonna have Grok do this for any articles I read from now on.

Yeah I also think it's hilarious. Another example I love is Thug Kitchen (or did love, back before they became lame about it and started to say it was racist to do that schtick). I also don't think it's a millennial thing per se. South Park uses that kind of tonal dissonance to great comedic effect, and Trey and Matt are GenX. I think the only real requirement is to not be uptight about swearing (so, I have a hard time seeing boomers appreciate it).

True. Although I note that I find it easy to overdo, many writers think "profanity in odd contexts = funny" without the recognition that you have to balance it so it is actually dissonant rather than just obscene.

I enjoyed the first Season of Stranger Things where there was dissonance from the young heroes occasionally dropping F-bombs under stress. The later seasons they made them ALL potty-mouths, even in front of adults, and even the younger kids.

It has to be somewhat unexpected to work.

See also This video.

Genius.

This fun map displays the 28 European and Middle Eastern territorial issues that the players are called on to settle in the board game Versailles 1919 (1 2). (The game also includes nine African and Pacific territorial issues that do not fit conveniently on a map, as well as 16 non-territorial issues that cannot be shown on a map at all, for a total of 53 issues.)

This game does not allow the players to dismember Germany, but it does allow them to smother Turkey, Yugoslavia, and Intermarium in their respective cradles.

Why is it sideways?

The map is rotated 50 degrees counterclockwise so that it fits the relevant territories neatly into a rectangle without including a bunch of extraneous land in the upper right and lower left corners.

Points deducted for not including the Saarland.

IMO, changing the relevant option of the Rhineland issue from "owned and occupied by Prussia" to "Saar Basin owned and occupied by winner of plebiscite (Prussia), remainder owned and occupied by Prussia" is unnecessarily verbose when it ends up the same anyway.

Also, Paradox Development Studio didn't see fit to draw a province matching the Saar Basin's borders. I did make some edits to Victoria 3's base province map in order to properly represent Fiume and the Dalmatian Islands, but I don't think that redrawing a province to match the Saar Basin is worth the effort.

Nice work!

Though…what’s the deal with the United States box east of Crete?

It is possible for Armenia to become a United States mandate. The box is provided so that a person editing the map can use it as a source for applying the US's map color to Armenia.

Edit: I now have moved this color reference to a location that makes more sense.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats