I think they’re referencing the manga/anime death note. So they’re just writing in the names of countries hoping they will die.

Did a light google search, looks like the individual is the former prime minister of poland (between ww1 and ww2), and a fairly prominent statesman, who I’m guessing hated those other countries.

Oof I’ll be on the lookout for that, thanks for the explanation without too much spoiler. I really haven’t been fond of combat for the last several final fantasy iterations, but i have some hope that XVI at least delivers on story.

Totally understand, and that makes sense, and i can appreciate the clarification and sentiment. I’m just starting XVI and the story is interesting, though the combat is not what i typically look for in a final fantasy game. I guess we’ll see how it progresses…

I appreciate that point of view, and I’ll probably give it a go eventually. Interesting that it’s more of a reimagining. To be fair, remake was free on my ps5, but I’ll still wait until they’re all available. I might try it when the final two are on sale

This is a really weird and unnecessarily aggressive take. I think that the other person is saying is that the communication about the games has been pretty poor, and it really isn’t clear what the right move is. Other games make a lot more sense in both continuity and playing order. I’m not sure why that’s such a difficult concept to grasp.

For example , FF7 remake isn’t actually a remake. It’s only the first act of ff7. Rebirth is somehow act 2? I don’t understand why. Some people seem to think rebirth is DLC instead of part 2 and a standalone game at that.

I’m personally an og ff7 purist, and I’m rather annoyed that they split this up into multiple games. I’ll just wait until all 3 are released and then… admittedly probably not play them unless they go on sale

Good call, i forgot about that one! Also i just looked up stills of walking tall and the rundown, and he had hair in the rundown, and a buzzcut in walking tall, so add another movie that could be just like the ones pictured.

I would guess the rundown and walking tall. Both are actually decent

I don’t think it’s fair to assume, at best, an accident is negligence. There are numerous things that can lead to an accident that wouldn’t be negligence, such as normal wear and tear causing problems with something such as brakes or steering (perhaps not caught during routine maintenance as they weren’t issues at the time), something falling into the road (weather related, wildlife, erosion), a glitch of some kind (two green lights, not negligence necessarily) , or visibility issues (even cautious and solid drivers can be at risk during poor conditions). These are just some examples, but in the cases nobody involved would be at fault.

I believe the comparison to a gun is woefully inaccurate and invalid. Both are machines with the capacity to cause harm, but the similarities end there.

I can totally understand, and that makes a lot of sense. I think the sheer volume of accidents in the post are what’s so shocking. I’ve only been in a vehicle with an obviously reckless driver two times (so far. And to clarify, two people, once each), and from my perspective, some people really shouldn’t drive. Heck, one of those two times was supposed to be a casual date (she was picking me up, we were in college), and i asked her to drop me off immediately. Big nope.

That’s why i added not high volume times, so what i meant was regarding specifically driving when you aren’t stuck in traffic. I’m suggesting that the act of driving itself isn’t normally a horrific experience, though yes, sitting in traffic is awful.

Edited for some clarity

I can agree with some of your response to what was said by the other commenter, but my impression is that person was shocked that someone at a young age has been involved in double digit accidents that mostly sound like their fault. Some people really just are incapable of driving, though that shouldn’t diminish that small lapses or true accidents do happen.

I would disagree that driving in general is miserable, though I’m sure this can vary by location. While i would prefer better access to efficient public transit (live in the USA), being able to get in a car and go anywhere is pretty freeing, provided it isn’t during high volume times, especially on a freeway.

Not to spoil it, but edward norton does a good job of playing an unlikeable main character. It was silly but fun and worth the watch i think.

Wasn’t there some series of news reports about scams involving children pretending to be lost, but there was some person nearby waiting to jump you?

I’m not sure if those reports were accurate but i remember hearing about the scam and there being some fear around it. I would like to imagine there’s the possibility of this individual overreacting to such reports, and maybe they aren’t legitimately afraid of a six year old, but i don’t actually know that to be the case.

Edit:

Talking about stuff like this (link below). Again, not saying that the individual was right, but sometimes people read a report and go crazy over It

https://www.koat.com/article/child-s-knock-on-the-door-a-scam-police-say/5052832

There are plenty of insurance companies that are like this. They’re significantly cheaper than the nationally advertised insurance options.

This is how I’ve always understood it as well. The two spellings are homophones so it’s a pretty easy mistake to make.

I disagree, “should’ve” and “should of” sound virtually identical when spoken (at least in some regions, can’t speak for all pronunciations). I can imagine why a non english native speaker would have trouble with this, though I’m not disagreeing with it being a common issue amongst native speakers as well.

His goal was to point out that it wasn’t worth it to mess with him, he’s going to fight back hard and take you out. It was about deterring him from wanting to ever pick on him. Right, his goal wasn’t to permanently disfigure him, but to establish a permanent idea that it isn’t worth it to pick on him

That’s fair, though he was trying to permanently end the bullying, which is what i think OP was referencing at least. Since, you know, that would end bullying permanently

I think it’s more of a book reference to his fight with bonzo, who was bullying ender. Ender was a few years younger and knew he had to win the fight “permanently,” so it’s inferred that he knew what he was doing (not intending to kill him but that’s obviously a possibility).

Iirc, the officials told ender that bonzo was sent home. In reality, he did actually kill bonzo and was lied to about it.

I feel like the post can be interpreted more than one way. The way i took it, the person in question thought they were in a romantic relationship (perhaps socially awkward?), and then meeting the “boyfriend’s” whole family led to a shocking revelation - they were not in a relationship. Why else would that person introduce their family? I would imagine the two relationships would be kept separate!