u/rawr4me

I just finished Red Alert 2 campaign as my first C&C game, obviously there was a lot of learning about how to do basic controls, about units and so on. I thought Yuri's Revenge is a standalone game within the same story, but even the early missions I am struggling just as hard as with the later Red Alert 2 missions...

Holy crap, Fallout isn't the mission I've spent the most time on but the one that has been the most emotionally devastating... over and over again seeing 2-3 Dreadnoughts rock in and wreak the base beyond repair within a single minute.

So I just wanted to share some thoughts and tips but mostly to get this experience off my chest.

• In the end I won in 20 minutes, but why is the par time 80 minutes when it's impossible to take that long to win?
• The very first things I do are send 5 GI to garrison the southwest light house, build Prism Towers ASAP, 2-3 to protect the southwest refinery, the remaining GIs to garrison the buildings on the right. And the next point simultaneously:
• Keeping the north bridge blown up is essential (because the tank invasions are just too brutal), you can do this by training a navy seal and putting them on a loop where they automatically try to blow up the bridge every 2-3 seconds. Don't make the mistake of making the loop too big because there are literally like 40 engineers constantly being paradropped all the time when the bridge is broken (wtf how do they have more engineers than soldiers?!). It's pointless trying to guard the repair point on the other side, as rocketeers get sniped by Sea Scorpions and blowing up the bridge will kill whatever's on it anyway.
• My next priorities are to defend the north refinery with 1-2 Prism Towers plus a few pillboxes. Meanwhile I spam a bunch of power plants and then build 2-3 Patriot systems near the Airforce Command to neutralize enemy Dreadnoughts so that none of their missiles will reach my structures. I'm 90% sure that building a War Factory triggers the enemy to produce and send Dreadnoughts immediately just so they can target it first. That's why I don't build it until the Patriots are up. (Side rant: whoever suggested to build Dolphins to defend against Dreadnoughts, that's literally impossible for the first wave...)
• Similarly, you don't necessarily want to build the Chronosphere (unlocked through Battle Lab) too fast because that sets off the 20 minute deadline earlier than usual.
• Man, squids and enemy submarines are brutal, even if I outnumber the enemy 2:1 I still take heavy losses, I don't know how anyone manages to have ships as part of the victory condition. Help a newbie out if you have some tips.
• So now the sea and land attacks are 95% neutralized automatically (the occasional Sea Scorpions gives some trouble and you still need rocketeers or something else to take out Dreadnoughts). By that point you can just focus on building Battle Lab, tanks, and Chronosphere.
• The end game plan is to teleport 9 tanks onto the enemy island. At least 5 Prism tanks and at least 2 Mirage tanks. Mirage tank is necessary because they counter troops and can blast through the walls (Prism tank cannot), and the Prism tanks obviously for the safe long range fire power. Do not teleport onto green grass because the Prism tanks take heavy radioactive damage, somehow the Mirage tanks are immune though. My suggestion is to pick a spot just outside the base wall and outside the range of their Tesla Coils. On normal difficulty the 9 tanks should be enough to destroy their missiles, but to be safe you can also keep building another 9 tanks for a backup Chronoshift batch.

>A habit is a regular action or way of behaving that you repeat so often it becomes nearly automatic. You do it with little or no conscious thought.
A routine is a regular sequence of actions or tasks that you do over and over in the same order.

I heard someone claiming that habits are so powerful because the thing you're doing basically becomes effortless in the sense of the activation cost of choosing to do that thing. I know for a fact that habits aren't achievable for everyone, e.g. it's almost impossible for me to form a new habit (due to neurodivergence), and I've worked with other people who are in the same boat. I can do routines (with some difficulty) but even 10 years on (e.g. showering in the morning, brushing teeth before bed), it has not become a habit. I.e. it is not automatic and the activation cost is never insignificant because a conscious choice from willpower has to take place in my mind.

Nevertheless, I am curious whether the above claim is hyperbole or is actually true for anyone at all. As though you can do find yourself starting a task by autopilot without conscious choice simply because it's "time to do that thing".

I've been practicing with a follow who from other dance styles is only used to armwork being light. Not used to using tension, even as we attempt blocks, doing simple moves more elastically, Madrid/diamond step, forward leans, counterbalance, etc. I haven't found a way to ask for her to give me resistance or maintain tension in open hold except for verbally.

I explained to her things like "match the resistance you feel me giving you", but that hasn't really clicked for her, and I also realized I don't really understand what this means either -- specifically, how does the resistance or tension even begin that makes it different to light armwork?

As an example we've tried: Say we are standing still in open hold. The hand connection is light. If I push her hands away from me, she will move them back and even allow her elbows to go far behind her. (Bad habit but not relevant to the resistance concept.) What I want to do is end up with her leaning back and holding on more with her hands as I am. So I reset back to neutral, then try to send an impulse forward and then keep my hands fixed equidistant from us. However, this just makes her arms go back and then forward with no changes in tension or her upright position. Next I try squeezing her hands and doing the same thing, the result is the same -- there is no tension and she doesn't squeeze my hands back. I also try having us both leaning forwards instead of backwards (like an "A") shape, but similarly there is never any tension so it can't be done.

I know some people might explain this as "her frame needs to be engaged", but I'm not convinced that that's a good explanation either -- there are obviously times when one's hands/arms are connected and influence one's whole frame, but still there has to be something that initiates that transition or activation. So what kind of movement or activation is supposed to happen to kick things off?

I'm playing C&C for the first time starting with Red Alert 2 from the Ultimate bundle. Practicing some keyboard shortcuts by playing through campaign missions I've already beaten, but I can't figure out how to use Attack Move which people say is Ctrl + Shift then Left Click.

Tutorials say Attack Move is used to move a unit to a location while attacking anything that comes into range, and is especially good for kiting enemies, i.e. fire at them, then move to dodge their projectile, then fire at them. My specific issue is:

Tanya's fire range is huge and she can one-shot enemy GIs and attack dogs, if I use 'g' for guard then a dog will never reach her before she kills them first. However, Attack Move on Tanya doesn't target enemies at all (only retaliation) unless I click while the cursor is green+red, but if I have to click on enemies then isn't that basically identical to normal left click to attack? When I use Attack Move, Tanya dies to the dogs :(

I tried Attack Move on other units as well, sometimes I feel like it works and sometimes I feel like it doesn't. I.e. sometimes the units proactively attack a crowd, other times it feels like they only retaliate.

I'm 34M and for the last few years I've been really protective about my social energy, if I don't find a convo interesting then I'll just walk away or disengage. However, this year I realized my behavior was a bit too extreme, for a couple of reasons: 1) boring conversations can still build rapport which can lead to better conversions later 2) people generally can't / don't match my preference for intellectual conversations, but instead of giving up I can still steer towards other things like playfulness 3) people can always be surprisingly interesting later but it may not emerge if I give up too soon or give off too serious a vibe (i.e. many people need small talk to feel safe first).

While I am successfully moving in the direction of being more chill and building rapport without trying, there's still something I can't get over and to be honest I don't know if I should or not. Basically I very highly value Ne or also non-Ne users who have the ability to stick to a conversation thread. If I'm talking to someone and it feels like we're never able to talk about the same thing because they're just sharing random unrelated things in the same ballpark, frankly it does bother me because it generally means things like 1) they don't understand what I'm asking when I show curiosity about them 2) they don't show understanding of anything I share about myself with them. Don't get me wrong, the vibes can still be positive and friendly, but a part of me is also dying inside because the content of what we say doesn't matter at all. I definitely feel that the vast majority of people talk around topics rather than about them. And this is true even for highly intelligent people, experts, and so on. How do I learn to enjoy conversations that are completely all over the place or don't really have meaningful content, just vibes?

One thing I've noticed from video demos of famous lead artists: For pure Urban Kiz they are looking down the whole dance. Leads have their neck angled by up to 45 degrees from vertical. Whereas Kizomba leads don't have to look down as often, and fusion leads can be somewhere in between.

If world class Urban Kiz leads are looking down the whole time, does that mean it's a necessity? Or is it technically just a natural habit that could be reduced with significant practice, given that Urban Kiz can also be danced double blindfolded? What exactly is most useful for leads to look at? Is it the lead's own positioning or the follow's? Or foot connection needing to be visually tracked? For example I notice Albir staring down even in reverse shadow position, in moves where lead and follow both seem to have 100% information even if they closed their eyes.

I'm looking for an online course that covers absolute fundamentals. I have danced for many years including Kizomba but am new to Urban Kiz, I want to know the genuine Urban Kiz that is danced in Paris, not simply fusion that has imported leg lifts and tricks.

I don't care about sequences, I need weight transfer explained, how to take basic steps, frame, connection, lines, Wi-Fi, etc. I've seen many kizomba courses / channels online and the vast majority of them just do sequences and figures while not actually explaining the rules of Urban Kiz or the mechanics of leading and following.

Also looking for a detailed explanation of cross / hook steps, I want to know what the lead/follow connection feels like doing V, J, or rectangular hook steps, again I'm sick of seeing videos that are just "now the follow automatically does the cross here" -- like does leading a J hook require only a diagonal direction of travel for the frame? Or is there a subtle hook shape being led by the frame? How does the lead's frame move when doing their own cross?

I'm curious about MetaKizz -- anyone know how much it costs and whether it fits my description?

In my late 20s, I didn't need any special conditioning in order to attend everything at a festival and also do as much social dancing as possible and also recover within a few days. Now in my mid 30s, aside from being out of shape as well, I've been getting injuries and niggles left and right that prevent me from dancing more. I want to travel next year to do multiple festivals, but after a local test run, I've realized I can barely survive one festival, let alone one per month.

What are your tips and strategies on this?

Also, I know for sure that I need to do some serious conditioning, but I'm confused about who I should be seeking help from, e.g.:

• A physical trainer can help me strengthen but they might not know what I need for dancing?
• A physio can help me identify weaknesses after I've already been injured from it, but most physios don't understand dancing
• A dance physio -- anyone had experience with these? Will ballet specialists be able to understand the stresses in other dance styles?

Or is there a specific and finite group of exercises or muscles/conditioning that if I get strong at all of them, I'll be festival ready? I have almost a year to work on this but not sure how to cover all my bases.

In my local dance scene, most people have learned a blend of Kizomba and Urban Kiz rather than either style in a well-defined way. I genuinely believe that only a small percentage of us understand "pure Kizomba" while literally none of us understand "pure Urban Kiz", like even the most advanced fusion leads among us could not demonstrate the Urban Kiz version of the saidas if asked.

Only more recently has our community started being able to distinguish Kizomba from Urban Kiz, due to attending festivals and weekenders from international guest teachers. One thing has stood out:

I haven't met a single follow who prefers Urban Kiz over Kizomba. By far the most common complaint is that Urban Kiz requires too much thinking, and they'd rather relax and not have to think so much while dancing. This doesn't bode well for me because I want to learn Urban Kiz fundamentals, and even after attending the same Urban Kiz workshops as the follows, many of them instantly revert back to Kizomba steps after the class and during social dancing.

Anyhow, is Urban Kiz actually more cognitively demanding for follows than Kizomba, or is this simply what any unfamiliar style feels like?

Going by Wikipedia, "objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing."

It seems that objectification to some degree is completely unavoidable, due to the mere fact that we aren't able to hold capacity for all of the human complexity for every individual without us. Someone would say that objectification is inherent in all human attraction, to which most people probably wouldn't say that human attraction is therefore wrong.

So, if there are varying degrees of objectification and they range from neutral to bad, when person A calls out person B for objectifying someone, is it more about how person A feels or the objectifier?

Example: You're eating with a friend in a fast food restaurant, you sit down and finish eating, now do you clear away your own tray or do you leave it for staff to take care of? I'd say it depends on the culture and the norm at that specific joint. However, let's say you think the latter is appropriate for that place, your friend disagrees, and you say "it's part of their job, they don't expect us to clear that away". Your friend says you are being rude, objectifying them and not treating them with basic human consideration. And they go on to wonder if you "treat every human being like that", and meanwhile you thought you merely did something within the confines of normality and you don't see how this is supposed to mean that you are seeing everyone you interact with as subhuman.

(Please don't @ me for this fictional example lol.)

In this example there is objectification of staff in the context of their normal duties, because you have emphasized their work duties over e.g. their state of their full human beingness. Is it bad because objectification is bad, or bad because the observer finds it offensive, or not bad even with the offendedness?

I've been thinking about learning a foreign language, specifically Polish since I plan to visit for a few months next year. It's mostly for fun and as a challenge since there is almost no downside to not knowing any Polish while I'm traveling.

Anyways, one thing that always stopped me from committing to learning a language was the fact that any level I could acquire within 5 years probably just means I'm able to talk about everyday and physical stuff, heavily leaning into small talk like "how are you", "where were you born", what is your occupation", etc. Maybe I'm just overthinking it but everyone here can speak English so if I practice e.g. Spanish on someone, I'm effectively just limiting the things I can communicate to them in Spanish to more shallow topics? I suppose one upside is I could be more playful and express like a different persona in a different language.

What makes language learning fun for you, and what's your experience of talking to strangers as practice?

I recently learned about the following distinction:

1. Curtis Seldon is quoted in 2016 as saying that Urban Kiz uses two handed leading, i.e. the lead's right hand connects to the follows back and leads through that.
2. Contemporary teaching (e.g. by Jesus & Anni) is that connection is through the follow's forearm to lead's bicep, and that both lead and follow do not need their hand to touch the back at all, since the signal/frame is not interpreted there.

Some people even interpret the first point as, if you don't dance with your hand on the follow's back, then you're not dancing Urban Kiz.

I'm still pretty new to Urban Kiz, having transitioned from Kizomba. I used to use hand to back connection for Urban Kiz moves but feel like it didn't work for me, especially because local follows don't know the concept of countertension, therefore I couldn't make use of hand-to-back tension for things like making the follow step away from me. I'm still experimenting with the forearm connection as both lead and follow, it feels more subtle to me but just out of personal preference I like not having to reach my partner's back, similarly some follows (especially with shorter arms) often pull my two sides at uneven distances so my torso isn't parallel to theirs.

I've always been low-key interested in learning a new language, but today I just realized why the thought has always been too scary. In my mind, learning a language effectively requires practicing it a lot, even when you only know very limited snippets, a little bit more than "see you tomorrow". But it's pretty obvious that even a semi-constrained challenge like ordering from a restaurant menu is something that, unless you're already quite fluent, there's going to be part of the interaction where you don't know the right thing to say and just have to wing it or abort.

So for the first while, most of what you'll be able to speak properly is templated phrases while everything else is beyond reach. When I interact with people in my native language, there are already all sorts of uncertainties and anxieties in my system. Will this person be friendly? Will I be perceived as rude? What is reasonable for me to ask of them?

Practicing a foreign language amplifies that uncertainty a lot. Will they understand me? Will I say mispronounce something and accidentally insult their ancestors? Will they think I'm dumb? Will they lose patience? Am I wasting their time? It feels super chaotic and that I don't have tools to constrain the possibilities. What if I can't catch anything they're saying, and then they slow it down and try to be helpful, but I just don't have enough vocab yet, and then we awkwardly switch back to English and the extent of my practice was just two sentences and they compliment me for managing that much at all...

If I listened to my inner critic, I'd basically never be able to practice speaking until I'm already fluent, or I find a really helpful friend, tutor, or peer learner to practice with.

I know it's stupid and that it's completely reasonable to just be able to say two sentences then abort, and that plenty of people would be happy to entertain just that for a foreigner. Curious how other people here relate or don't relate, and what it's like to get past the fear of being perceived and fumbling a lot as a beginner.

Also: If I practice with acquaintances I know who also speak English, all of our conversations will suddenly be very small-talk oriented. How old are you? Where were you born? What is your job? Things that I wouldn't care to ask if I was fluent, but have no choice to because I wouldn't be able to understand other topics!

A salsa teacher recommends dancing with a 2-length tissue between each hand and the follow's hand, to emphasise that following most things can be done lightly and not break the toilet paper. I want a similar exercise with the lead's left hand, as I have practice partners who squeeze whenever they don't know what the move is, and then them squeezing makes them think that I am leading when I'm merely holding my ground. Literally if I stand like a statue they could take 5-6 steps just because they are interpreting the hand resistance which they themselves are initiating, then losing balance over and re-initiating.

The most obvious I can think of is maintaining an egg between our hands, but I don't want it to get messy.

On my first watch of Death Note the anime, I felt like L's intelligence got hugely nerfed after the whole confinement process. Rewatching again, I don't feel as strongly about it, but I still feel his effectiveness fluctuated quite a bit. Curious what other people would regard as times when he was significantly less competent compared to his average self. Here's my list:

1. L isn't blind to the social dynamics of the investigation team, so the fact that he is never able to convince any of the police force members of Light's guilt is a serious failure in my opinion. He was already sure before the cafe scene, and even more sure afterwards, and if he had recorded that discussion, then even the less intelligent members of the force could understand why that discussion was already incriminating. He had many other opportunities, and I don't think the police force was too dumb to understand, more that he never bothered trying harder to bridge the gap.
2. Interrogation of Misa and Light without their memories. I assume there's a lot not shown on screen, but L had SO much time to probe their memories and ways of thinking, yet he only seems to do a tiny bit of this. When Misa and Light lost their memories, it wasn't as simple as "they lost all memory of the death note" -- their memories were warped in a particular way, almost as though they were their pre-deathnote selves while also taking actions that were slightly out of the ordinary for them. This memory warping is certain to have many quirky patterns under interrogation, but L only scratches the surface. Light might even have become self-aware that he did lots of things he couldn't explain or remember properly. They could even have found some concrete evidence of him having modified memories or even protecting the notebook in his room. One example: Light might be able to remember he bought an expensive mini TV and acknowledge that he has false memories around why he bought it and then threw it away.
3. Not picking up on Rem's body language. Rem isn't particularly careful and tries to be stoic for everything and then suddenly pays a lot of attention to Light and Misa. L didn't seem to notice this lack of neutrality.
4. Not bugging Misa or Light after they're free. L has so many resources and is willing to do things without the police force knowing. Even after the fake 13 day rule, he is still 100% sure Light and Misa were Kira 1 and 2, there's no reason not to keep tracking Misa's behavior after her release, or bug her conversations with Light when they meet at headquarters or just outside it. They didn't have any other leads, and even with the 13 day rule casting doubt, it doesn't nullify all the prior evidence. L should have immediately acted as though the 13 day rule were fake, not drop his guard while suggesting it be put to the test.

As part of adjusting to life with chronic fatigue, I stopped trying to be a good conversationalist, or even trying to connect with people. This is because I highly prioritize my hobbies, and although my hobbies require interacting with people, I really just want the hobby part and don't care much for all the interactions needed to get to that.

What does me "not trying" look like? I pretty much assume that most people don't care what I have to say, whatever words I pick don't make much difference either. I used to be very accurate, precise, honest, and inoffensive with my speech (context: I am also autistic af), but I've gradually learned that all of that is mostly inconsequential, sometimes I even practice white lies to make conversations go more easily. (E.g. if someone is about to fixate on my occupation or employment status, and gives the impression they're going to judge my worth as a human being based on that, then yes I may end up lying with a boring answer because I don't want to be interrogated by them and I don't think they are entitled to me answering honestly.)

So now I'm often saying selfish, offensive or random thoughts, and although for 95% of my life, I've felt invisible and that no one really cares what I think, constantly talked over or people don't even register that I'm talking when I'm in a group, suddenly people are actually listening, responding positively, and finding me funny.

I have numerous examples of this, but here's the most extreme so far. A young woman in the same social circles as me, took a year before she could even look me in the eye or say more than a few words (not gonna lie, I suspect she's on the spectrum too). The first time we end up with more than a few sentences, she told me about people in her life being toxic and dramatic for no reason. I start going on this random tangent about how drama is basically free entertainment, I don't even believe what I'm saying but I was tired and literally couldn't filter my speech to make a bit more sense. And I start laughing because I know what I'm saying is ridiculous shit chat yet can't stop myself. She keeps giving sensible objections but I keep going on my rant and she starts laughing too. After a year of awkwardness, the first time she ever genuinely smiled at me, beaming in fact, is from me being a troll for no reason (other than exhaustion).

So my question is, why does me being a trashy and selfish conversationalist who doesn't care about anyone else somehow outperform every other iteration and variation of past me trying to have meaningful conversations, act normal, follow social etiquette, be authentic, and other conscious efforts to connect with people? How does that even make sense?

A few years ago I was led into a really low dip, very slow (at the end of a song), it was surprising because in the end position I believe I was basically lying with my back and neck across the leaders legs (above the knee) and somehow they are crouched very low so my head is not that far from the floor, height wise. But it felt comfortable and fully supported.

Anyone know the name or have a clip of such a dip? I'm hoping to recreate it as a lead.

Edit: to be clear, I don't mean to recreate it socially, I mean to try it with a practice partner who may become one of my demo partners, decide whether I want to learn it properly or not, and if I did learn it I'd save it for a demo in a group or in a private practice group.