Pattern Ghost

Or it might not be. Also -- and not to be pedantic, sorry -- the proper spelling is Thrum.

Pretty different, tonally. Gotham leaned more camp near the end (or middle?), IMO. ----------------------/anti-post merge line/---------------------- I didn't like that, either. They make a movie showing his detective skills (somewhat), then they have him fail to solve the case. The only thing I can come up with to explain it is if they were going to lean into a No Man's Land type story line in the sequel.

Thrum 's final domain is WAR! Whether it's a battle of the bands or the War of the Ages, it'll be waged to the sweet sounds of metal.

Live entertainment event: Wicked, in Seattle. Great show. The girl playing Glinda was amazingly talented and funny. Concert: Bruce Springsteen in Berlin. I don't even like his music that much, but the guy played encores a couple of hours past the event end time, in the rain. The Stones (different event, Steel Wheels tour, East Berlin) wouldn't start until an hour late due to a very light mist. Springsteen seems to really appreciate his fans, and I liked that.

Thrum governs the secondary domain of freedom. Whether the freedom of mind brought by some sweet tunes, or earned on the edge of a blade.

Sorry to hear, Cancer. Condolences to you and yours.

I figured I was never going to get the raise I've been promised since last August, so gave my notice yesterday. Having your direct reports making more than you isn't sound retirement planning. Nor is it fair compensation for being on call 24/7 and having to cover shifts of all kinds when you have no people. If all goes well, I'll start a coding boot camp in August and get a nice coding job like the wifey eventually.

Oh, it started! Thrum must catch up. I give you THRUM, GOD OF METAL! Secondary Domain: Mercy, whether it comes at the edge of the executioner's blade or in the sweet chords of a power ballad...

I don't think breaching Russia's border would be necessary. Destroy what they bring, push them back, then sanction them. Of course, there's the issue of avoiding the level of sanctioning post-WW I that helped lead to WW II.

"Put down" means to remove their ability to wage war. The bear in the analogy is the Russian war machine, not the country or its people per se. They've nearly done it to themselves already. If they roll on a NATO country, they'll face even tighter sanctions (and they're already behind the curve financially on maintaining their equipment and other necessities for warfare, including quality troops), and even greater loss of equipment as no fly zones and direct engagement by NATO forces on the ground become things. They're not going to be dumb enough to roll on a NATO country. (I'm not sure how that possibility came up in the first place, because they can barely handle what they've gotten themselves into in Ukraine.) As for nukes: Only mildly concerned. There are reports of Putin's failing health. He could potentially spite nuke if he's dying anyway, but his own people would probably ignore the orders after the damage he's done to his own rep, if not actively try to take him out. Barring that, our nuclear deterrence capabilities are probably a couple of decades ahead of what anyone thinks they are.

However, the great Russian bear has been shown to have rotting teeth. If it tries to sink its gums into a NATO country, it will get put down. As LL has said, their deep corruption and incompetence has been exposed. They may have more people to throw into the grinder than Ukraine, and that might result in some level of "victory" for them, but they've lost so much more than a war in this invasion.

It was a Daily Show video about China colonizing Africa through economic shenanigans / loansharking. Here's a couple text articles: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2019/10/03/what-china-is-really-up-to-in-africa/?sh=7c65d8df5930 https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/31/china-in-africa-win-win-development-or-a-new-colonialism

Probably concerned about something like this:

I'm just going to say that you aren't considering the totality of the situation. That's a bit simplistic. I'm going to bow out before I get moderated out. That said, I know you aren't speaking from ill intent, and just ask you consider the whole situation. "Teach them well" hardly ever garnishes the intended results, for so, so many reasons that are beyond the control of the person attempting to do said teaching.

Did he look like this, by any chance? Because that idea seemed quite . . . Machiavellian.

Don't be tricked! Greenland's the one with the ice and rocks, Iceland's the one with the grass . . . and ice. 😀

Heartbroken Hogan

I think there's a difference between acting surprised and demanding accountability. This has been going on since the start of the industry, as you said. Nobody's surprised. The thing that is different is that modern communication, especially through the internet and social media, makes it possible for all of the little voices to stand up and equal that one rich, powerful voice in the room, and demand accountability. What we're seeing is a shift in the power dynamic. The rest of your post is victim blaming. You don't know what was going on in any of those starlet's heads. And Paltrow was a starlet at the time, regardless of her parents' past accomplishments. Emma is what launched her. From what I know of the situation, she handled Weinstein's advances in the moment. Then, Brad Pitt, who was in a position where he wouldn't face consequences, had a "talk" with Weinstein to ensure his future good conduct with Paltrow, as she had two more movies to make with Weinstein at that point. You're criticizing the actions of a 22 year old without actually knowing what was going on in her head, not the actions of a 49 year old Hollywood elite. "Why did you put yourself in that situation?" may be a valid question, strongly depending on the context. "You shouldn't have put yourself in that situation," is a completely BS attack on a victim.

Were his initials N.M. by any chance?

The higher my Bureaucracy roll gets, the lower my SAN goes.

With a large number of scared kids thrown into the mix. Untrained rabble is to nobody's advantage, IMO. As for the poisoning . . . I don't like it, mainly because it's a tactic that can have unintended consequences if it gets into the hands of other than your intended target. But if you bully a much weaker opponent, you should expect them to fight dirty. The bigger problem is that if you don't succeed in cowing your opponent, you could unintentionally unleash a monster. I hope the Ukrainians aren't pushed past that tipping point into things like public executions, torture, etc., as it would scar them as a people.

Russia's already doing that for them: The Ukrainian Army Has More Tanks Now Than When The War Began -- Because It Keeps Capturing Them From Russia

Awkward Oscars moment:

Seconding (or thirding) the Thing. Honorable mention: I'm late, but it's hard to decide green, with so many. I'm going to go with: Jon Stewart Green Lantern, edging out Martian Manhunter.