u/Dizzy_Kaleidoscope95

PLEASE NO SPOILER

So i just finished episode 1, i love the cinematography, the acting, the premise, everything is exceptional.

But

I need to know, and please be as vague as possible or straight up just answer "yes" or "no", does this series have some sort of payoff later for all the atrocious suffering these women go through?

Because I don't wanna start getting invested and spend hours of my life and end up in some "Funny Games" (if you know you know) ass scenario in which at then end of all this paind and suffering the evil guys win and then it just ends like that.

I really need there to be payoff for the viewer or I will just drop it cause I would feel to frustrated otherwise lol.

Hope somebody understands what I mean

This of course is excellent cause this dude has long overstayed his welcome but I think that the way that it's happening is actually fascinating.

It's not a slow decline into obscurity. The daily wire is fucking sinking and his personal channel is too. he lost 85% of his viewers in the past 2 years and the decline really accelerated when he started defending the Israeli genocide (duh).

I genuinely wonder what the next move is for caterpillar brows. Maybe he should just sell his dying business and move. But the question as always is: SELL IT TO WHO BEN?

EDIT:

I am not saying that enjoying the show is wrong or attacking people for enjoying it, you don't have to agree with me in the comments, but please talk about the show and don't dismiss it with the classic argument of "why are you talking about it if you don't like it" cause it's a bad argument.

anyways, what a catastrophic run this show has had, Status Quo repeating season after season after season, an extremely pointless chase to an ending (next week) which will be disappointing no matter how they choose to wrap up this disater.

We had 23 hours of TV from Season 3 of The Boys up until today and of those 23 hours i think that the events that actually have an impact on the plot, bring the story forward or are MEANINGFUL could be all shown in a 2 hour movie, everything else is pointless.

Long and convoluted checkov guns shown which end up being totally meaningless in the long run:

OH LOOK INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE

nah it's ai, everyone will believe this

OH LOOK DEADLY VIRUS

nah not deadly

OH LOOK HOMELANDER IS EVIL

yeah but people really don't care

everything is so deeply unsatisfying.

Also Homelander, the main antagonist of the series, has become dumber and dumber to the point that not only is he a parody of himself but he is not believable at all as a villain nor does he feel like the same person as he was in the earlier seasons,

Homelander was a psycho, a sociopath and a narcissist, but making him evil Patrick Star with superpowers is genuinly so uninspired, he has had an IQ of 20 for the past 2/3 seasons.

Anyways, the complaints are many and it's really a shame cause this show HAD POTENTIAL and it got completely stripped away by the showrunner's desire to turn The Boys into a parody of itself instead of a parody of the world.

Oggettivamente Allegri ha fallito su tutti i fronti, giocando una partita al mese non è stato capace di competere in nessuna delle tre competizioni in croce che aveva.

eliminato dalla coppa italia agli OTTAVI

preso a pallonate dal Napoli in supercoppa

Campionato ridicolo e probabile (se non certa) europa legue o conference a fine stagione.

Eppure sento gente dire che in realtà lui sta facendo il meglio che può con la squadra che ha etc etc.

questo è ridicolo, allegri nelle ultime 8 partite (cruciali per la qualificazione champions) ha una media punti identica a quella del Verona, il Milan ha certamente una rosa mediocre ma è evidente che la piaga livornese non è capace di infondere nemmeno le più basilari idee di tattica o strategia.

è tutto fatto totalmente a caso, ogni azione da rete (quelle poche che fa il milan) è totalmente individuale e dipende da sprazzi di bravura e invenzioni, il resto è noia e una caterva di gol subiti.

la cosa assurda è che la maggior parte dei milanisti lo sostengono, incredibile hahah.

Cassano e Adani sono dei deficienti ma su una cosa ci hanno sempre azzeccato: allegri è un ex alllenatore da ormai 4 anni

THIS IS EXTREMELY SPECIFIC BUT THE NERDS AMONG YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

the monty hall problem is the most famous probability "paradox" (it's not a real paradox but whatever) in history and almost everybody has heard of it at least once before.

there are 3 doors, 2 lead to empty room and 1 leads to a room containing a car. You are called on stage by a gameshow host who asks you to pick a door and whatever door you choose he always opens a losing door because he knows what's behind each one and he always picks a losing one regardless of your pick, he then asks you to switch and you should switch to have a higher chance of winning (from 1/3 to 2/3), everyone has heard of this.

Most people struggle a lot to understand it but a good chunk of them seem to actually get it.

BUT MOST OF THEM REALLY DON'T, and this can be proved extremely easily, just ask them if it's still advantageous to switch door in a world in which the gameshow host is ignorant about the contents of the doors and he opens an empty door by accident.

example: you pick door 1 and the host opens door 2 which happens to be a goat (could have been a car for all he knows)

is it convenient to switch?

NO, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT, it's a 50/50 in this case but EVERYBODY I KNOW says you should still switch because it's identical to a classic monty hall problem. it's not, it's absolutely not, and the fact that people don't realize it's not proves they didn't understand the original problem in the first place and just regurgitated what they heard from a youtube video or something.

I hate this.

If you can't optimize a game on UE5 don't use it, the engine is new, it sucks, don't make games with it if your requirements REQUIRE FRAME GEN TO HIT 60 fps.

I can't stress this enough, there are people right now who are playing CRIMSON DESERT at 50/60 fps native resolution with medium/high settings WHO WON'T BE ABLE TO RUN A LEGO GAME.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

if i hear people justifying it with "well it's a new game" yeah so are CD and RE9

or even worse with the "big open world" excuse i'll go crazy

crimson desert's map is 72 times bigger than this one and it has infinite render distance basically AND HAS LESS DEMANDING REQUIREMENTS

If you can't optimize a game on UE5 don't use it, the engine is new, it sucks, don't make games with it if your requirements REQUIRE FRAME GEN TO HIT 60 fps.

I can't stress this enough, there are people right now who are playing CRIMSON DESERT at 50/60 fps native resolution with medium/high settings WHO WON'T BE ABLE TO RUN A LEGO GAME.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

if i hear people justifying it with "well it's a new game" yeah so are CD and RE9

or even worse with the "big open world" excuse i'll go crazy

crimson desert's map is 72 times bigger than this one and it has infinite render distance basically AND HAS LESS DEMANDING REQUIREMENTS

"Yeah of course you should pull the lever to move the trolley on the track with 1 person to save 5 people!"

"NO a surgeon SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT harvest organs from one patient to save other 5 patients!!!"

The same exact problem.

Would you sacrifice one life through your action to save 5 lives?

In one case it's an obvious yes for most people and in the other it's an obvious no for most people.

The same happens with the button problem

"Press blue if you wanna jump in the meatgrinder hoping it jams!"

"Press red if you wanna kill everybody who disagrees with you"

"Press blue If you want to be saved and force people to do it when you could have just not put yourself In danger"

"Pushing red is like voting for a dictator who kills the opposition"

Every single different way this problem can be phrased makes people sway one way or the other and everybody feels misrepresented but nobody is. It's just that there is no right answer

i mean yeah the old argument of "it's just far cry 3 reskinned and slightly worse each time" is absolutely correct.

Far Cry is the definition of mediocrity BUT IT SCRATCHES AN ITCH NO OTHER GAME SCRATCHES.

I love clearing out outposts stealthily, i love roaming around the map and just creatively killing enemies, or just chilling with a cute puppy in a car.

The narrative is bad

the gameplay loop is extremely repetitive

there is nothing really "excellent" in far cry games nowdays BUT comforting slop is better than revolutionary masterpieces sometimes.

I know at least some of you agree and feel exactly the same as I do

I somehow missed this thing. I have no idea why. But a screenshot of the original post appeared on my feed so I thought about it for like 3 seconds and my first thought was that the red button is just like the only rational choice..

I mean the blue button is literally just "kill yourself maybe". The red button is "don't kill yourself"

Am I missing something?

I saw a post presenting this problem as some good vs evil thing or a "nihilist" vs "humanist" thing.

It's not

It's a "I wanna risk dying for no reason" vs "no thanks" thing.

I genuinely don't understand why people should pick something which has no benefit other than risking suicide. But maybe I'm missing something hence the "I just found about this"

I literally just did 10 minutes ago lol. Please help me.

Everybody loves the Von Savant story about the smart scientist who outsmarted everybody else and realized that YES in fact you should switch your door if given the chance etc etc.

We all know the story, thousands of letters all making fun of her and her solution but she was RIGHT!

Yeah too bad she wasn't.

Use your brains for like 10 seconds, do you think that hundreds of PhDs and mathmaticians would not realize that it is better to switch? monty hall is an extremely banale and starightforward little puzzle which a middle schooler could figure out...so what was the confusion?

Von savant was wrong, she worded the pr0blem incorrectly, she phrased it in a way which would make it seem that switching is advantegous NO MATTER THE INTENTIONS of the conductor, (even if he opens the goat door randomly), this is obviously false and extremely dumb and she got rightfully called out for her incompetence,

She then CORRECTED herself but people always think that she was a lone genius or something,

guys

no mathmatician ever would fail to realize the solution to monty hall if phrased correctly, use your head.

Peace

Imagine that you heard the news of a random billionaire somewhere in the world who is found out to hold parties with tens of children in a special room in his manor, a room which had special alarms to let him know if someone was coming in, and then he is also found out to have SLEPT in the same bed as these kids.

Then you examine this room and find extremely questionable and borderline p*rnographic "art" involving young adults and kids. Which is technically not p*rn​ but still extremely dubious.

Then you find out some of these kids can describe some birth marks that this billionair had close to and on his genitals.

Would you be like "Oh well this really isn't enough proof. He is just a kid at heart"

No of course not. You would obviously think he is a disgusting weirdo at best and a pdf at worse.

But all of a sudden if this weirdo is an extremely talented musician and excellent singer..well...excuses and excuses.

It's genuinely depressing. Poor kids.