u/WantonReader

Hi

After I moved, I got a very niece kitchen isle from my new neighbor that I though would function great as a combined desk and cupboard. Well, the cupboard part was right! I can use it as a desk but after about one hour my lower back is complaining and since I'm not the most athletic, I thought that I should seriously look into an adjustable height desk.

I am located in Sweden and found two that look intriguing, the Ikea Mittzon and the HomeOne from Desktronic.

I did check out Mittzon in an Ikea store, and it looked fine. It is in the right size and even has an opening in the back so cables can run from the floor to the desk without creating a gap between the wall and the desk. But the Homeone is 'cleaner' lack of a better word, and generally seems a bit higher quality.

I would honestly just get the HomeOne right way if it wasn't for the fact that it looks like it is assuming that its users won't use cables?! The desk is shows no plan for how cables should go from the floor to the tabletop. The control panel has a USB C connection, but that wouldn't even work with my laptop, and I'm planning to use a full desktop.

Is there anyone with more insight that can help me out? Perhaps one that has experience with either one (or both)?

I know this one came out a long time ago, but I only got to it tonight by happenstance. I don't know if I should have rewatched the theatrical cut before this edit, but as far as I understand it, the major changes are to the third act.

What is, of course, often an issue, is how to make the new edits flow within a professionally made movie. I think it mostly works well here. There is one near the end that is quite obvious. I assumed that there were quite a few more that I didn't notice where the edit was made. But I wonder if the new edit doesn't create a plot issue?

(Spoilers for the Wolverine)

Wolverine has to protect a Japanese heiress who gets kidnapped by guys in suits. Turns out they work for the heiress business father...who in turn lose the heiress to ninja kidnappers. In the theatrical cut, this gets explained by the ninjas working for the secret villain. In the JMR, this villain is cut out. So...why do the ninjas care about the heiress? Maybe there still is an explanation and I just missed it. I will say, if I was watching this for the first time, I wouldn't have realised that there was supposed to have been a secret villain at the third act.

Edit done by Wakeupkeo and Silver Samurai.

PS. One thing I wished was done more often, was to include a message from the editors at the start to just explain that this is a fanedit and what it tries to do and what the edit is named. It makes it much easier to remember the goals and to talk about it later. I know some like to make the edits feel like they are the "real" movie. But I actually like when it's recognized that this is a fanedit.

As a gamer who is older, I came to recently think of one of my core childhood revolving gaming, that time when Civ 3 taught me to be not just cruel, but to become a cold, calculatingly evil.

I had everything I needed. I had a prospering civilization on two large islands and was at least 20 years ahead of everyone else in science. I had space rockets while everyone else had biplanes. But then fate dealt me a bad hand. I discovered the power of the atom, but alas, I had no uranium!

The only place I could get uranium was from a nation located on a massive continent. They knew what it was and could sell it to me, since they still didn't know how to use it.

So I strangely found myself at a resource dilemma:

Option 1. Trade for the uranium forever and hope they will sell it to me even after they research what it can do. (I did not think they would do that)

Option 2. Trade for the uranium and build only nuclear warheads until they research what it can do. Then destroy the civilization, destroy whatever is left and take over their uranium.

I wanted to keep my scientific advancement, I wanted to keep my place as number one. I wanted to win. Before I was happy with just being the smartest civilization, but now I realized that if I wanted to win, I had to plan a pre-meditated, nuclear doomsday over a civ. Unless I see them become the sole nuclear power on the planet.

.

Modern day me would either have accepted the challenge and not buy any urnaium, or gleefully accept my fate as the bringer of nucleaer doom. But childhood me? Well, there is a reason why I still remember that game session and not others. While still having a cartoonish art style, the devastation and fatalism my plan brought was...something. And I had to halt production of other things, like buildings and even a lot of military units just to make sure that I had enough warheads for every target city. I've played other games with nuclear weapons. But none has quite made me feel like Civ 3 when I realized what I had actually done to what had been, my peaceful trading partner.

This is, I assume, a simple language question. In gLuke 10:27, Jesus tells a man to love his neighbor as yourself. Seems simple.

However, I've only seen this word choice in English bibles. In Swedish, it is never "neighbor". It is either "Näste" (next one, the one beside you) or "medmänniska" (fellow man). Now, is isn't hard to see that these deliver almost the exact same meaning.

But I'd like to know, what does the original Greek actually say? And since (I believe) gLuke is riffing on the pentateuch here, what does the original Hebrew say? Isit literally "neighbor", or is that an appromixation by English translator?

When I moved, my TV for some unknown reason decided to not connect to the internet again. I've tried everything, including return to factory settings. Nothing worked and now the VLC app is uninstalled.

Could I potentially install the app again without any internet, like using a USB?

The TV is a Sony Bravia KD-65AF8.

Full reveal, I am not a big Superman fan. I've enjoyed some comics, the Smallville show when I grew up and the latest movie but not really otherwise.

But I have noticed that there are (as with other hereos as well) these two common depictions of Superman. One seems to be that he is a normal guy with super powers (seen in Gunn's 2025 movie) and the other that he is a super being with superpowers (seen in Superman All Star).

The first is relatable and really just like us, probably going to a baseball game in his spare time. The other is a distant idol, pushing past any limit he can find, including time-travel and dimensions.

I get that most versions probably have a mix of both of these, a Superman who fixes his neighbors issues with a rock he found on that one space travel he did last year.

But I'd like to know from fans, which side of the spectrum do people prefer? More Everyman or more Beyondman?

I was always a little curious about Call of Duty games, but I didn't have a console that could play them growing up. Recently I got my hands on COD: Black Ops from 2010. I remember thinking that it looked cool when I saw others play it and it reminded me a bit about Spec Ops: The Line, a game I do like.

So I thought I'd try it.

Man, it was bad. I understand that COD has a reputation for having kinda thrashy, low attention, flashy even jingoistic narratives. But to actually see it was kinda chocking. Not that it had those things all the time or didn't have cool moments too, but it did feel like someone took a cartoon like GI Joe, mixed it with a political thriller and then made it PG-13.

The villains are two stock Russians that plan to use a nazi invented poison to attack the US with sleeper agents using a secret broadcasting station. And you play an amnesiac, (formerly?) brainwashed American CIA soldier. You win by going to Vietnam, Russia, the Phillipines and shooting everything that your companions shoot at while cool rock music plays and occasionally the US air force shows up to bomb every enemy in sight (*badass rock music plays*)

Your CIA handlers says that you are on the brink of war. I would assume we already are at war considering how many times US forces intruded into Soviet territory and killed its soldiers, but what do I know.

Overall, 5,5/10. No real interest to play again but I didn't mind finishing it.

I recently moved and brought with me my big TV (Sony Bravia KD-65AF8. Serial number 6050405). The issue is that whatever I do, it won't connect to the internet. It worked fine in my last flat, and the internet provider is actually the same in both.

I got a new router with my new flat, when that didn't work I got my old router out from storage and it didn't work either. I called my internet provider and they changed some settings on their end but still no change.

Whatever I do, the TV will say that it either couldn't connect because the password was wrong (it's not, I double check before hitting Enter) or that it did connect, but there is no internet.

The TV will literally say "Connected, but no internet" and show that the signal strength is excellent.

I tried hooking up the TV directly to the router with an ethernet cable and still got the same response. I tried restarting the TV, even setting it back to factory settings, but no change.

Thing is, my internet (both routers) work fine with my other devices. No different from my former flat. Even on my PS4 - which is older than my TV - it works fine.

Not a regular comic reader, not even that regular superhero movie appreciator. I just had a free evening and I like going to the cinema, especially blind (I also haven't watched any Supergirl trailer, but am still going to see it because I liked the last Superman movie).

Well, the Flash was a great cinema experience. It was like something a kid thought would make a great movie going experience. I had some issues, sure, but overall, had a great time. I almost stood up in my seat when Supergirl appeared.

I bought the home release when it came out and watched it again. On second watch, with hind-sight and having read a few reviews, sure it wasn't as good as the first time in cinemas. But I still don't get all the harsh critique it gets.

The CGI people in the time-travel balls, I get it, they look real bad - especially since in one shot, they used actual footage and it looked....way better. But the CGI doubles outside of them, I didn't really mind, they looked fine to me or they were clearly needed to make characters do cool stuff. Some have issues with how it connects with the other DC movies. Since I didn't follow them that much, that kind of stuff didn't really touch me.

Overall on second viewing, still a fun movie with some heart.

This is is inspired by discussion I've seen and thought about for a long time, and before I start, I want to say that I am a fan of Spider-Man....

but come one! Organic web-shooters make a lot more sense.

Peter Parker is bitten by a spider and gains spider-powers. What is the one, creature specific power we'd expect from a spider? Webs! Can Peter Parker do that? No, no he cannot. Okay, is there gonna be some interesting story about how he is a spider-based hero without webs? No, because he will immediately invent his web-shooters.

A 15 year old kid will invent a machine that shoots non-harmful webbing that can disarm and capture criminals and is affordable enough that a kid from a poor background could afford all the parts and all the web-ammunition he'll ever need.

And with this great anti-crime invention, will he patent and license it out to the police departements? No, he'll make it only for his crime-fighting persona. A persona he initially creates so he can earn some money as a wrestler. Peter Parker is smart, but he also lives in Marvel's New York. He probably isn't even the smartest guy in is borough. But no one ever figures out a way to replicate his web-shooters. Not even Tony Stark, a guy who owns an arms corporation focusing on defensive and non-deadly arms industry.

Do you know what could solve all of these issues? Organic web-shooters. Then the theme song would finally make sense: "Spider-Man, does whatever a spider can".

I am not asking for any advice, as per the rules. I am asking about how it works in general.

A little context: I was watching Heretic, which features a maniac removing a birth control device from someone's arm and claiming it was a mind control device. That lead me into a reading about borth control devices in general, and there I read about IUD.

As I understand it, a T shaped device (often made from copper) is put through the cervix into the uterus where it stays.

But the cervix is has an opening a few milimeters large. How does it get inserted and how does it come out if it's shaped like a T the whole time? It sounds painful but I also stumbled upon some stories of it just...falling out? Like it wasn't noticable enough to be noticed right away?

EDIT: People have been very kind and spent time answering my questions. Thank you.

Jag flyttade min bokhylla från Ikea och insåg hur tunn och lätt den egentligen är. Bra när man ska flytta den, men den känns inte hållbar. Hyllorna är tillsammans lika tung som resten av bokhyllan.

Det leder mig till min fråga: var kan man finna rejäla bokhyllor? Dom som av mörkt trä och har lådor i botten. Behöver inte vara gjord särskilt för böcker utan kan även vara för tallrikar eller ting.

I am aware that Semitic languages like Hebrew and Arabic uses a kind of "consonent root" for its morphemes. The typical example I've always heard is that k-t-b is "book" in Arabic and things related to books all use these consonents in that order, but everything else, prefix, vowels, suffix depends on the word you want to make.

I understand that from a purely intellectual level. But what I don't understand is how such a language deals with loan words!

Loan words would (I assume) import a whole mopheme, not just a consonant root. I guess it could work if someone just imported a noun or a name, since maybe those don't get inflected or derivated very much, the same as it would work with languages that mark for noun classes.

But let's say that a new concept or invention emerged and one language quickly names it and that name spreads globally. It's a noun, a verb, an adjective and part of daily conversation. How would a language with consonent roots deal with that without resorting to something like a loan calque or neologism?

.

For a real world example if needed, let's say the word is "hacking". Would a Semitic language look at it and go, okay, new root: h-k-n, now we can say "hacking", "hacker", "hackee", "hacked", "hackio" (like studio)?

I am aware that English can use the word ONE as a standing for when describing something with an adjective, like "the red ONE" or "a nice ONE". And I know that you can pluralize it ("ones").

But what I recently realized is that I am unsure what rules apply when ONE is left out! This is especially relevant when watching fantasy or science-fiction where this construction is common. So far I see three possiblities.

"The Chosen" (or a different adjective, "The Rich", "The Tall", "The Brave") is

1. Singular
2. Plural
3. Fully ambigious and can be used as either.

However, if it is number 3 (my current main suspect) then what about when/if it gets pluralized?

"Have you met the Reds? Or the Chosens?"

Location: Colorado, USA.

There was an independent film made 20 years ago called The Man From Earth,shot in Colorado, and if you search for it on Youtube, there are several videos that is just the whole movie, with no modifications to trick Youtube's copyright program.

The reason for this, that I've heard, is that the American film makers didn't get a distributer and just decided to release the film online for anyone to see. Then I think some people put it on Youtube but also on piracy websites.

My question is about these piracy websites. Are the websites illegal and therefore its illegal to put anything on them - including material that you are the sole owner of, - or is it just illegal to download movies from them that you explicitly don't have any right to?

I tried looking up subreddits for having serious discussions in a open and constructively way. I am not interested in win-or-lose debates but want to both express my opinion and hear others on the same subject.

I specifically wanted to discuss how characters and stories are adapted when it comes to skin color, race and background. I did try r/ seriousconversation but it didn't lead anywhere.

As I said, I am not interested in pushing my opinion on others. I just want to express whaat I think and hear what others think so that I can get more insight into the topic.

Thanks in advance for any help.