Do we have yous/youse? According to my understanding that’s technically not a real word yet, it’s slang.

2nd person singular used to be thou/thee back in the middle ages, but it all eventually melded into you.

I feel like y’all is the newer American version of 2nd person plural, while yous/youse/yinz are the non-American English counterparts.

I have always used you guys in a gender neutral manner historically, but people occasionally got offended by that. So I started using y’all several years ago and it’s been going pretty good. Although I did initially spell it like ya’ll until someone corrected me on reddit 😅

Yeah most of the ones in the second list at least had a couple of notable things about them that kept them off the first list. I was hoping people with local experience would chime in if they had reason to dispute my rankings; I’m sure there’s some cool aspects of these cities that I might not be aware of.

Carson City is nearby Lake Tahoe which is pretty awesome. Lansing is actually a decent sized city and has Michigan State University. Topeka is reasonably close to KC, and presumably has some other notable features 😅

Montgomery and Jackson are pretty dire but there’s not really any better cities/options in Alabama or Mississippi, so I gave them an A for effort.

There’s honestly a lot of lame state capitals in the US, Europeans might be surprised. In Europe the national capital of each country is typically the biggest and most cosmopolitan city. This is not the case when it comes to state capitals in the US. Several of the most boring ones (Montpelier, Augusta, Pierre) have already been mentioned, so I’ll just add a few others.

Indubitably Boring

• Frankfort, Kentucky
• Jefferson City, Missouri
• Helena, Montana
• Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Slightly Less Boring (honorable mentions)

• Carson City, Nevada
• Jackson, Mississippi
• Topeka, Kansas
• Olympia, Washington
• Lansing, Michigan
• Salem, Oregon
• Trenton, New Jersey
• Montgomery, Alabama
• Springfield, Illinois
• Tallahassee, Florida
• Concord, New Hampshire

Wow, that’s a crazy experience. Somebody jumped in and saved you?

Holy chrimbus! Nice activity bro. You’re like ThePicardManeuver of cats and anime

I was only making a joke…

It’s all about the marketing. They probably wanted German audiences to know its a romantic comedy and not just an action movie

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man_(2023_film)

That one. Glen Powell actually showed some serious acting chops in that movie, I really enjoyed it.

DM me, I’ll hook you up 😇

I got you

Yeah the more I look into it, I see that it takes direct inspiration from Total Annihilation and SupCom. I messaged my friends who used to play Forged Alliance with me and at least a couple of them have already played this game.

I’ve been waiting for over a decade for a new game in this mold. It’s not just an RTS, it’s a very specific kind of strategic RTS that has a much greater scale than a tactical RTS like Starcraft. I like that it’s more focused on macro than micro.

And the fact you can do 16 player matches is just epic. Supreme Commander was originally limited to 4v4 and then they eventually modded in the ability to play 6v6, but it would frequently cause the framerate to drop to slideshow levels. Can’t wait to try this game out!

Wow this actually looks amazing. Reminds me of Supreme Commander, I used to play Forged Alliance Forever back in the day. Good times.

This guy mosquitoes.

A) It’s not literally every post

B) Stop using reddit. Problem solved.

Ok I didn’t realize you were just a troll. Good luck with that.

If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess.

Seriously? What a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest false equivalency. Why not respond to the remainder of my argument? Do you actually doubt whether the Ancient Greeks existed?

To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.

Pure empiricism is pure nonsense. Objective truths exist independently of individual minds, while subjective truths exist within minds.

History is composed of a series of events that physically occurred on Planet Earth within the past ~5k years, and were recorded in written form by human beings. Human beings were born, did certain things, wrote them down, and died. We can dig up their remains and verify many of the things they wrote via empirical, scientific methodologies. You can choose to doubt various interpretations of the facts, but your delusions cannot change the inherent reality that lies within.

Your choice to contest the validity of history is demonstrative of a profoundly irrational mindset, because you are rejecting verifiable information in favor of your own subjective assumptions. You would prefer that history not be objective, because you wish to believe your own subjective version of history as an emotional coping mechanism.

There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess.

A lack of absolute certainty does not equate to a lack of objectivity. You’re right that history is necessarily written by individuals who have biases. But it is also written by many individuals from different perspectives and correlated with a variety of other sources of knowledge, such as archeology, geology, etc.

For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?

They are conflicting on some things, but they also agree on many things. For instance, I’m sure we can agree that the Greeks and Persians existed, controlled large empires, fought wars against each other, etc. Historians are trained to analyze all of the documents available from all perspectives and arrive at the most objective conclusion that they can muster.

I strongly oppose the postmodern attitude that everything is subjective. It’s good to remember the limits of our knowledge, but to completely discard an academic field such as history as entirely subjective is quite absurd.

Indeed, I agree with you on that.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate art more than most. But there’s an exclusionary aspect that exists with art, wherein only some people can truly appreciate various aspects.

In contrast, nature is more universal and primal. Everyone, regardless of language or culture or education, can appreciate natural phenomena. The beauty of nature speaks to us on a fundamental level, whereas the beauty of art requires a certain degree of acculturation and intellectual effort to grasp.

Furthermore, human art is a reflection of nature and indeed a part of the beauty of nature, as you say. However, that inevitably positions it as a subset of the all encompassing beauty of existence as a whole. Artistic works are small mirrors reflecting back aspects of reality in interesting ways. But because they can only ever represent fragments of the greater whole, they are somewhat less awe inspiring.

Often, works of art can prompt us to engage with the beauty of reality, so I’m not condemning them in any way. I’m just saying that the representation can’t be better than the real thing, even if humans wish that it were.

Modern people lack an appreciation for the beauty of existence and the physical world. The most intricate and aesthetically pleasing creative achievements of the human race pale in comparison to the inherent beauty of nature.