Game theory: how many lives did I SAVE by nuking a population center with little military capability?
GreenTeaRedFlag
joined 3 years ago
Honestly? Marginally better. Oil and gas aren't being wasted on them and more people can enjoy them.
pretty sure he sold off the company
Read the article, talking in the abstract. For the specifics, they can't prove they forgot/stole the brain yet, and saying it with qualifiers sounds weak as hell.
Precision and efficiency seem not to be your strong suit. You could have just responded to my comment, much faster than copy paste the whole thing. Your argument is not strengthened by putting the whole thing.
You're just wrong. Although the obvious assumption is that someone did it, and you're almost certainly correct in that assumption, until you can point out who or why you don't know that for sure. The best way to communicate the case efficiently is to put up the facts. Then you ask the questions who and why in the article. People complain about passive voice too much here. Cops get the same treatment as others by passive voice because "13 dead, 6 injured in school shooting" is just as common as "man killed by cop." The phrasing on cops usually separated then more or makes the victim seem less sympathetic, which is the issue, but the passive voice alone is not the problem. In this case, they are not removing a single bit of blame, just presenting what is known as clearly and precisely as possible.
Least awful: there were dangerous conditions they wanted to keep hidden. Could be lead, drugs, concussion, something the prison they wanted to not get out.
Most likely: medical research on brains
Most evil: someone ate it.
Could be any of the above, or more.
No it fucking isn't. So far they have the body. "Some guy finds prisoner's corpse" communicates rhe same information with the focus on the finder, not the corpse. This is actually a great time to use passive voice because what was found mattered more. Yes I agree it was most likely the prison that stole his organs, but we don't know that yet and "prison may have stolen organs" is an awful headline.
He didn't lie, trick anyone, or steal anything. I can see why you'd dislike it, but people voluntarily giving up their own labor is not something I get worked up over, especially when we don't know if he even used it.
The idea is there's either some project they're working on, or some other problem that's currently out of public eyes they're avoiding.
He's really not. It's clear he's out of the cockpit, and he has no involvement at this point. He made a company and developed a solid formula for video making, carved a nice niche. Why close down the business when he could just leave? Anything that happens at this point doesn't reflect on him, unlike AVGN who was still reading the scripts and claiming the content.
I feel like they'd have a better grasp of the situation than you would, because they're inside and privy to more information and experience of how it works. I can also imagine some people see the same thing they do and are using the strategy you've suggested, but we can't see that. Tom Scott and matpat both try to avoid problems and real controversy, so if they felt something coming they would naturally dip before getting close to it.
You're only understanding it in the context of how it fit into mainstream culture at the time, in the anime subculture it was firmly established as a pillar of the edgy side of anime. It sits at the boarder between shounen fans and more mature shows, having a protagonist who's simply not conventionally good, some exploration of themes, and frequent depictions of death and disturbing concepts. It may be clumsy or juvenile at times, but it's a core piece of media to anime fans, and watching at least the first season is part of the shared culture and media in that sphere.