The Mask's Thread

[The_Mask]

Where I post shit I am interested in/ find interesting, that wouldn't really fit anywhere else.

[The_Mask]

Tyranny tips and tricks:



Conquest:

• 1st stage of conquest: by far the weakest part of the game, because none of the choices actually matter, unless you decide to go for a full Disfavored or Chorus run.

• 429 TR: Lethian's Crossing: "The Cult of Sirin" gives you Loyalty (Chorus choice) with Sirin.

• For the 3rd stage of the conquest *always* choose Vellum, and *always* make Sirin happy. Also *always* give the Sages the 1 day warning.

Mechanics:

• Basic attacks take 1.0s to activate. Characters performing multiple attacks at once take proportionately longer (2.0s for x2 attack, 3.0s for x3 attack). This appears to be the same regardless of weapon type. Weapon DPS numbers do NOT take attack activation time into account, so fast, low recovery weapons are much worse than they look. This also means high recovery weapons are a LOT better than they look.

Addendum: if you're fine with the micro, this means that Kills-in-Shadow is probably the best DPS character in the game, behind any decent Fatebinder caster. (Thank you, Chris Avellone!)
Addendum 2: Kills-in-Shadow seems to have a ~0.5s base higher base time than everyone else. Make sure you resist the urge to upgrade useless stats, and upgrade her speed first.
Addendum 3: Take Kills-in-Shadow in the Stone Sea.

• Lantry's Quicken seems to be the quickest combo in the game. (2s Fatebinder/ 3s Lantry)

Addendum: %based healing seems to apply the highest one, making the Emerald Pin probably the worst item in the game.
Addendum 2: speaking of %based: the best spell in the game seems to be Sigil of Atrophy + Sigil of Focused Intent.

• Experience seems to be gained the more damage you do. How do you more damage? Might for weapon users. Wits for magic users. But always increase Speed first. Remember DPS = Damage Per Second.

Addendum: DoT spells give experience proportionate to the damage dealt.
Addendum 2: DO NOT use DoT spells against Disfavored, before getting sever Ashe. Ashe's Protect dispels and nullifies experience gain.
Addendum 3: Healing spells seem to give experience ONLY to Control Life (nothing to Lore), and they give more the more the character in question heals. The conclusion would be that the Fatebinder, ideally, should never ever learn healing, or use it.
Addendum 4: The above statement seems to explain the unreasonable amount(s) of free Lore Lantry gets.
Addendum 5: Non-damaging buffs/auras seem to give experience directly proportionate to the damage that character does. This means that tank Barik and Lantry should almost never be buffed with spells, but abilities instead. (Good luck with that! LOL)

• Subterfuge can be increased on all characters by stealthing into every combat encounter, just make sure the eye turns any shade of yellow. No eye, no experience.

• Increasing Accuracy seems to be bait. Tested: accuracy does NOT increase exp gain.

• The best bow for Verse as far as experience gain seems to be Relentless, since it fires 3 projectiles/round. Found with Tychus in Lehtian's Crossing.

• Verse's Fury's Embrace ability attacks 8 times. Each hit applies a stack of the DoT, each of which deals damage independently. This means that Dual-Verse with weapons that apply DoT, or DoT on crit, can decimate anyone but a Disfavored.

Addendum: Bleed and Corrode seem to either be categorized under Raw Damage, or they simply do not have any resistances to them. This would, theoretically make them OP against everyone but Disfavored.

• Unproven/Untested theory: dual wield seems to lower recovery time regardless of character build. This is either a bug, or intended mechanic. (need to check)

General Strategy:

• Spire order should be dictated by the armour the Fatebinder wants to wear.

If Light: Training Grounds -> Forge -> whatever
If Heavy: Forge -> Training Grounds -> whatever

• Research/ Smithing starts when the Fatebinder gains exp. This also means training.

• Try going to the Stone Sea first, to get 2 Spires right away, and not have to deal with any Havocs in the process.

Addendum: if Cairn boon can be obtained, this makes it even better.

• Try to get Favor with Bleden Mark as soon as possible, and ask for his braces.

• Always take Lantry with you in the Stonewalls, but remember to remove any spells given by his free slots when you kick him out, because of the spell bug.

[The_Mask]

Lani Minella's voices:

StarCraft: Terran Medic, Dropship Pilot
StarCraft 2: Medivac Pilot
Diablo I: Adria the Witch
Diablo II: Andariel, Blood Raven
Diablo IV: Andariel
Revenant: additional voices (if you ever re-play Revenant... which?)
Skyrim: Dravynea the Stoneweaver, Aranea Ienith
Mass Effect 3: Eve
Torment: Tides of Numenera: Callistege
Subnautica: Sea Emperor

Why do I like her? She stands out. You can always tell it's her.

Back when voice casting used to be a thing, and skill and talent was rewarded, she would've been like Jennifer Hale, imo.

[The_Mask]

Ironic, isn't it?

[The_Mask]

Sweet Baby Inc. list:

https://store.steampowered.com/curator/ ... -detected/

[The_Mask]

Sydney Sweeney on SNL posters/stills:

[Acrux]

Am I supposed to know who that tart is?

[The_Mask]

Am I supposed to know who that tart is?

It's basically the next Scarlett Johansson. And I like the fact that she totally went for the lady in the red dress trope to get the men watching SNL.

Simple. Effective.

She's also attractive.

[The_Mask]

[rusty_shackleford]

Thinking of making meatloaf for dinner.

[The_Mask]

Thinking of making meatloaf for dinner.

I recommend Vegeta, as a condiment for whatever you do. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegeta_(condiment)

It comes in a version with no MSG, if that's a thing you want.

Complements pretty much anything.

[The_Mask]

The more I learn about US history the more I realize that Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the worst presidents in US history. (although we got to give points to Biden for trying!)

Also... "Yiddishe kop" sounds barf-inducing the more you repeat it out loud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/p ... nixon6.htm


By George Lardner Jr. and Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 6, 1999; Page A31

Beset by the leak of a top-secret history of the Vietnam War and rising unemployment statistics that were hurting his standing in the polls in summer of 1971, President Richard M. Nixon lashed out repeatedly at "the Jews" he saw at the root of his problems.
"The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.

Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added:

"But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"

Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart. They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us."

Elsewhere on the tapes, Nixon denies being antisemitic, but his attitude toward Jews was starkly displayed in the approximately 445 hours of White House tape recordings made between February and July 1971 and released yesterday--the first comprehensive disclosure of confidential discussions between Nixon and his closest advisers. Only portions of recordings dealing with the Watergate scandal and other abuses of governmental power, along with semi-public meetings in the Cabinet room, had been released before.

The newly released tapes give an unprecedented insight into the workings of the Nixon White House, punctuated by the president's frequent coarse comments on prominent figures, including Supreme Court justices, leading newspaper publishers and officials in his own administration.

They show Nixon talking about selling ambassadorships, railing against Jews and other minorities, complaining about the drinking habits of leading members of Congress, and exchanging conspiracy theories with Kissinger and other top aides.

In many cases, Nixon's tirades were touched off by news leaks and political setbacks, such as the occasion at the beginning of July 1971 when the Bureau of Labor Statistics released figures showing that unemployment was on the upswing. Concerned that news of the joblessness was hurting him in the polls, Nixon demanded the ouster of the director of the bureau, Julius Shiskin, and asked his hatchet man, Charles Colson, to investigate the ethnic background of officials in the agency.

"They are all Jews?" Nixon exclaimed when Colson listed the names.

"Every one of them," Colson replied. "Well, with a couple of exceptions. . . . You just have to go down the goddamn list and you know they are out to kill us."

In a later conversation the same day--July 3--Nixon and Haldeman discussed Jewish penetration of the National Security Council staff. "Is Tony Lake Jewish?" Nixon demands, referring to a young Kissinger aide who went on to become national security adviser under President Clinton.

"I've always wondered about that," Haldeman replies.

"He looked it," says Nixon, without reaching a firm conclusion. [Lake is not Jewish].

When The Washington Post gave front-page coverage in April 1971 to a survey showing 60 percent support for antiwar demonstrations among residents of affluent District neighborhoods, Nixon complained that the results were loaded.

"Bob," he explained to a receptive Haldeman, "there's a hell of a lot of Jews in the District, see . . . The gentiles have moved out."

Such complaints were overshadowed by the controversy surrounding publication of the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War, that first appeared in the New York Times and later in The Post and other newspapers. Two days after the articles first appeared, the Justice Department moved to enjoin publication and the battle soon moved to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the government June 30 in a 6-3 decision.

The decision dismayed Nixon, even though he told Colson he had expected such an outcome. That afternoon, he expressed special chagrin at Justice Potter Stewart, whom he described as "a weak bastard" who had been "overwhelmed by the Washington-Georgetown social set." The next morning, in a telephone conversation with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, he said he hoped he would "outlive the bastards" on the high court.

"We have got to change that court," he told Hoover, adding that the "stinking decision" had stolen the headlines from his own visit to FBI headquarters, where he had given a tough law-and-order talk.

The two men exchanged views on "a conspiracy" among leading Washington journalists and the man who leaked the classified history, Daniel Ellsberg, to embarrass the government. Hoover observed that he had seen Post Publisher Katharine Graham on television the night before commenting on the decision, and described her as "an old bitch."

"She is a terrible old bag," agreed Nixon.

The tapes shed more light on the sometimes tortured relationship between Nixon and Kissinger. At one point, in March 1971, the national security adviser threatened to resign because of critical articles in the news media that he blamed on a jealous secretary of state, William P. Rogers. "I produce an almost pathological reaction in him now," Kissinger told Nixon. "I am such an offense to his ego."

Nixon consoled Kissinger, but later commented to other aides that Kissinger was attempting to gain total control of "everything that comes to me" on foreign policy. "What he does not realize is, I don't read his goddamn papers . . . I just skim it."

Nixon praised Kissinger as "the man that has the greatest influence on me," but said he did not want to rely on him entirely. "Sometimes he is as wrong as hell. Sometimes Rogers has a good idea, not very often."

[The_Mask]

A good read:

Y'all notice that the solutions proposed by the left and the right on this issue never actually solve the problem?

The problem isn't female education, the problem isn't birth control, the problem is wage-earning males.

The crux of the fertility decline has been danced around by both ends of the political spectrum, with neither side hitting the nail on the head, I suspect intentionally. The left is interested in abject erasure of any ghosts of the past, this has resulted in habitual commentaries, media campaigns, etc., that are intended to discourage the formation of stable families, and especially to discourage women from having kids.

While the left harps on about patriarchy, the right bemoans moral decay and the loss of traditional values, but both are trying to distract you and both are wrong.

We are talking about two wings of the same bird here, and both of them are primarily interested in keeping the C-suite coffers churning out contributions. So what is the C-suite interested in?

Cheap labor, Reducing the leverage of labor, and sabotaging stability.

Stability means you have higher standards for yourself, your family, and your community.

They have accomplished this through the economic castration of the wage-earning male.

This is not about undermining the strides towards sex equality or education. Far from it. In fact, I believe that forcing women into the workplace who would rather be raising their children actually does a massive harm to the women who like to work and are interested in other things. I am suggesting that instead of just allowing the outliers of the sexes exist as outliers, whatever thay may look like, we have been the victims of a multi-generational attempt at ushering in a technofeudal system.

Corporations want all women to work. They also don't want women to have kids. They have a vested interest in selling the lie that equality requires representative parity across the board. It doesn't. The key to "equality," is not restricting the outliers among women and men alike who are not dispositionally oriented towards their traditional role, not forcing both sexes to play both roles arbitrarily.

This allows for there to be representation for women's research, women's interests, etc., through those female outliers in the workplace. You do not need 50/50 parity for your interests to be represented.

So why has this idea been pushed that we will be a regressive woman-hating society until we achieve 50/50 parity?

It's obvious. Worker leverage. More applicants in the pool combined with a fiscal policy designed to apply downward pressure to wages, obliterates employee negotiation power.

Over the past 50 years there has been systemic economic shift that seems to have been intentionally designed to undercut the earning power and bargaining leverage of the average working man.

We've seen a concerted effort to ensure that living costs gallop ahead of wages, a situation exacerbated by corporate greed and a Consumer Price Index (CPI) that seems almost designed to underestimate inflation.

The roots of this debacle can be traced back to the 1980s under Ronald Reagan's presidency. When the U.S. started hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs due to a burgeoning trade deficit, Reagan's administration, through figures like Donald Regan, practically herded businesses overseas in search of cheaper labor pools. Concurrently, Reagan took a sledgehammer to unions, effectively disarming the workforce's collective bargaining power. The fallout from these decisions has lingered, manifesting in a precarious economic landscape where a staggering 37% of our GDP is now wrapped up in debt-backed securities.

Adding insult to injury, Reagan's push for no-fault divorce laws added a layer of economic peril to marital dissolution. Suddenly, the stakes were higher, especially for women who might forgo career advancement for family. In a no-fault divorce scenario, finding oneself without a job, marketable skills, assets, or leverage to secure adequate legal representation becomes a terrifying possibility. This risk factor has undoubtedly contributed to more women joining the workforce, thereby increasing labor competition, depressing wages further, and diluting the negotiating power of individual workers.

Note: I am not advocating for a total repeal of no-fault divorce, but I am saying that it should be much more difficult if there are children in the home.

Moreover, a plethora of studies have firmly established that the financial stability and wage levels of males are paramount in predicting the stability of families and fertility rates. This body of research unveils a clear correlation: the economic fortitude of the male breadwinner plays a crucial role in decisions surrounding marriage and childbearing. As wage-earning males find themselves better positioned to provide for a family, the likelihood of stable family formations and higher fertility rates increases.

Conversely, when males grapple with economic insecurity, marked by stagnant or declining wages in relation to the cost of living, we witness a notable reticence towards establishing or expanding a family. This direct linkage not only highlights the profound impact of economic conditions on family stability and growth but also underscores the insufficiency of current political discourse that fails to address the economic pressures faced by wage-earning males in today's society.

Notice how Republicans NEVER talk about male-wage earners as being a main causal factor here.

You can tell a lot about the motivations behind a narrative by how the narrative is framed, and what is intentionally left out of the discussion.

They succeeded, because the left has women blaming men for their woes and the right has the men blaming the women, all but ensuring infinite distraction from the actual problem here.

If you always have an alternate scapegoat to point the finger at, ad infinitum, that means the real culprit is never ousted.

Contemporary politics is just bread and circuses all carefully constructed to distract you from the fox in the hen house. It is designed to intentionally not solve your problems, because solving your problems is not beneficial to mass industry and banking consolidation. It's harder to control the game if the people playing have the stability and self-assurance to choose not to play.

[Norfleet]

I see this as a simple economics problem: The fact of the matter is that the supply of labor is too high. Thus, like with anything that exists in excessive supply, the price of it becomes low. When people stop breeding, this is simply the market response to the inadequate demand for people. As with all supply/demand imbalances, this will ultimately correct itself in time.

[The_Mask]

I see this as a simple economics problem: The fact of the matter is that the supply of labor is too high. Thus, like with anything that exists in excessive supply, the price of it becomes low. When people stop breeding, this is simply the market response to the inadequate demand for people. As with all supply/demand imbalances, this will ultimately correct itself in time.

As far as logical and economical thinking your analysis is flawless. The problem is that this is a socio-economic issue. While economy might be completely ice-cold logical to this, socially it is turning into a disaster.

Men are working for nothing, to get nothing, to then kill themselves at 67 because a life without a woman after you're done with work is hell.

[Vergil]

Dontcha just looooove Halloween?

[The_Mask]

Dontcha just looooove Halloween?

To be honest, the fact that I am Transylvanian is a very good excuse to not wear a costume.

[Norfleet]

Men are working for nothing, to get nothing, to then kill themselves at 67 because a life without a woman after you're done with work is hell.

Just a market correction: Suppliers of the labor market are exiting the market due to insufficient demand. Not really a problem. As the supply shrinks, an equilibrium will be reached when the supply and demand points once again intersect.

[Vergil]

Dontcha just looooove Halloween?

To be honest, the fact that I am Transylvanian is a very good excuse to not wear a costume.

I didn't know you were Romanian that's very cool.

[Tweed]

Thank you for self-quarantining

[The_Mask]

Thank you for self-quarantining

That's a witty way of admitting you're not as interesting as I am.

[Xenich]

I see this as a simple economics problem: The fact of the matter is that the supply of labor is too high. Thus, like with anything that exists in excessive supply, the price of it becomes low. When people stop breeding, this is simply the market response to the inadequate demand for people. As with all supply/demand imbalances, this will ultimately correct itself in time.

Well, its a part, but a lot of it is due to vaccines, social engineering through entertainment and policies, food additives, medicines, etc...

Japan had issues and a lot was caused by social engineering combined with video game escapism (males seeking relationships/sex through sims and the like while women were encouraged into the work place to become empowered, single women)

[The_Mask]

Well, its a part, but a lot of is due to vaccines, social engineering through entertainment and policies, food additives, medicines, etc...

You get it.

[Norfleet]

Well, its a part, but a lot of it is due to vaccines, social engineering through entertainment and policies, food additives, medicines, etc...

Japan had issues and a lot was caused by social engineering combined with video game escapism (males seeking relationships/sex through sims and the like while women were encouraged into the work place to become empowered, single women)

Well, sure. It is in the interests of parties that demand labor to encourage the supply of it to increase so that the price they ned to pay for it decreases. But ultimately, the effect is that the supply now exceeds demand, and in response, suppliers are cutting back by not producing more of it.

[maidenhaver]

Do better, males.

Fuck off.

[OnTilt]

These problems are metaphysical at their roots. Pretending it's simple economics is short-sighted.

[Xenich]

Males are targeted.

Fuck off.

Again, I am not placing blame on males, and I am speaking directly to the issue with population decline.

How were the young men to know what was going on when the last several decades, they have been targets of a detailed campaign to push them away from the family unit, lower their focus on such things, and demonized by women as well?

Males (as well as women) have been targeted to lower rates and they use all kinds of tactics to do it.

They are blaming males, because... well... males are the punching bag and these devious minds keep blaming them for what they are doing.

So I am not blaming males, no, I am saying this is targeted and has been for many many years.

The ultimate goal nobody sane really wants, but they are too mixed up in the game to realize they aren't the players, they are the pawns.

[Norfleet]

These problems are metaphysical at their roots. Pretending it's simple economics is short-sighted.

Your "metaphysical" is simply the emotional experience of supply and demand. People feel purposeless, redundant, and useless because they ARE purposeless, redundant, and useless. They serve no actual purpose in the economy as the supply exceeds demand. The way they feel simply reflects the reality of the situation. Ask yourself: What would you even DO with these people? Answer: Nothing. They aren't useful. They serve no purpose in society. Since people have this need to be useful, this makes them unhappy. There's nothing metaphysical here. This is simply supply and demand experienced on a personal level.

[OnTilt]

These problems are metaphysical at their roots. Pretending it's simple economics is short-sighted.

Your "metaphysical" is simply the emotional experience of supply and demand. People feel purposeless, redundant, and useless because they ARE purposeless, redundant, and useless. They serve no actual purpose in the economy as the supply exceeds demand. The way they feel simply reflects the reality of the situation. Ask yourself: What would you even DO with these people? Answer: Nothing. They aren't useful. They serve no purpose in society. Since people have this need to be useful, this makes them unhappy. There's nothing metaphysical here. This is simply supply and demand experienced on a personal level.

There's all these brown shit hole countries that don't have these problems. They're still having babies despite there being no jobs, and sometimes not even food. People aren't avoiding having families because they're unhappy about the job market. Frankly that's retarded. What's worse is that you're boiling the purpose of a man's existence down to an economic function.

The lack of children tracks one to one with women's rights. It's metaphysical because these ideas originate with the enlightenment, which was mans most recent rebellion against God and his order.

[Norfleet]

There's all these brown shit hole countries that don't have these problems. They're still having babies despite there being no jobs, and sometimes not even food. People aren't avoiding having families because they're unhappy about the job market.

Those people still exist in environments where their manual labor is used locally, is the thing.

Frankly that's retarded. What's worse is that you're boiling the purpose of a man's existence down to an economic function.

That's exactly what it is when you engage with the rest of society, yes. Your value to society is your economic function. If you don't like it, move to Outer Bumfuck and embrace autarky. If your supply and demand is entirely contained within yourself, you won't have this problem. If you suddenly depend in your exchange with society to live, then yes, you are your economic value.