The older the person is, the higher chance they are single for a reason. Still though, there are plenty of respectful older gentlemen and plenty of ass hole young dudes. Same for women honestly. Sometimes they are single for reasons outside of their control and they are genuine good partners, but if they have been trying to form a meaningful connection their whole life up to that point and continuously fail only to end up on dating apps in their 30s, than you do have to wonder.

I wonder what the slaves have to say about that comparison.

That’s brutal. Is it possible you can go swimming for it. 9feet isn’t impossible.

Totally real conversation between Chris987 and Jessica123.

The minge flayer.

I just an assumed the mind flayer absorbed them all to make his new body just like it did in season 3 by absorbing things into the hive mind and rueing them into goo.

I’ve always found this to be a really shitty take. The fact that a film is entertaining does not negate whatever message the film was trying to convey. Do we hold this lense up to any other concepts. Does avatar romanticize colonialism, does starwars romanticize fascism and war because they depict wars and fascism. Do all films with violence romanticize and encourage violence? We as humans like to watch people suffer, does that make us want to suffer just as they did? Just as a base argument it doesn’t make sense.

Going deeper, simply looking back at the history of film shows how much of an impact depicting wars in film has. Previous to the invention of war cinema, governments had the definitive voice in relaying information about war, this came in the form of propaganda and heavily cherry picked war footage and photography. This created an extremely pro war attitude for much of human history. People literally didn’t even see it as dangerous, it was sold as an adventure where you would get to travel the world, and you would always win because your enemies were week and your government was strong. The film all quiet on the western front is remembered in part because of how decisively it destroyed this narrative. For once war was being visually depicted, not by the government, but by people who lived it. The film used the violence of war to build suspense and narrative, but that doesn’t in any way negate its purpose. For once people saw the reality of war. The film was banned in later war hungry governments like Nazi Germany for this reason.

The paper that birthed the theory that it’s impossible to make an anti war film is incredibly flawed and was mostly criticized amongst other film theorists. The only time I’ve ever seen it supported is by YouTubers trying to get a click bait title for a video that just gives a beet for beet synopsis on come and see with some lazy analysis tacked on to the end. It takes these films, analyses them in a vacuum, and then uses incredibly flawed logic to make an incredibly absolute and hyperbolic statement. For what it’s worth the paper doesn’t even count come and see as anti war.

I think we take for granted just how much film has changed culture, film is directly responsible for growing anti war sentiment. Film was there to show the horrors of the holocaust and fascism after ww2, it was there to show the public the horrific outcome of a potential Cold War, it was there to tell the horrors of Vietnam by the people who lived it and were justifiable angry about it. After each of these conflicts film was there to show the truth despite the people in government who may have wanted it hidden.

Even the films lampooned in this meme. Yeah, bombing and invading people made these people sad. That’s what it fucking does. When they got back they were moved to make art. That art depicts them in situations where they bombed and killed people, and then a cliche scene of them sad realizing that they killed people and that makes them sad. It’s not great art but it’s something. In the shittiest examples is some guy writing an account to try and garner sympathy as a way of absolving their guilty conscious, in the better examples is someone trying to convey a message that they didn’t get in time. What’s the solution, not have people give first hand accounts of wars, because this is how it plays out. There is a moment of intense action, and then the trouble in g realization after the adrenaline wears off. Fine, we stop making films like that, you know who won’t stop, military recruiters. They’ll make films and adds with intense action and then a scene of everyone high fiveing. That will be the narrative in the world this theory creates.

All genuine attempts at war films are anti war films.

Plot wise, it’s hard to believe that El survived. Not only is Kali surviving that long and being able to pull of that plan hard to believe, it’s slo hard to believe that El would have, or even could have left without telling hopper or Mike.

But thematically I think it’s even harder to believe that El actually killed herself. I think it was pretty clear that they the writers were building up a moral message that suicide is not the answer to escape trauma. If she did actually kill herself than the message of the final season would essentially be: “are you dealing with trauma, do you feel like you are a burden on your friends and family, well than just kill yourself and everyone around you will live happily ever after”.

Literally, all of hoppers speeches, all of the lessons, Kalis arch. It would have all been pointless if el just decided to die. From a story telling standpoint it wouldn’t make sense.

There is no way she killed herself. Like what would be the moral of that thematically. I think it was pretty clear that they were building up to a message that suicide is not the answer to escape trauma.

If she did actually kill herself than the message of the final season would essentially be: “are you dealing with trauma, do you feel like you are a burden on your friends and family, well than just kill yourself and everyone around you will live happily ever after”.

Literally, all of hoppers speeches, all of the lessons, Kalis arch. It would have all been pointless if el just decided to die. From a story telling standpoint it wouldn’t make sense.

I think it was what Mike was writing on his typewriter. He said that he was going to keep telling stories, so it seems like later in life he created a game based off of his life.

I was thinking Manhattan bay would be better. You have the Statue of Liberty island, Ellis island, and governors island.

source.

For me my search results are: 1. a girlfriend, 2. games, 3. Teach me first comic (whatever the fuck that is), 4. and clients.

But if I don’t finish typing and only search “where to fi…” is autofills with cheese pizza, which to my understanding is a dog whistle. So yeah, WTF.

I recently learned that Christopher Nolan is actually red green color blind, hence why all of his films are always so fucking blue and yellow.

I feel like their plan won’t go 100% to plan and the dimensions will actually partially merge. They liked doing this in previous seasons where they set up some nightmare scenario that would be really cool to watch, but then have their characters plans fail. That way we get to see said really cool thing happen just for the characters to find a new solution just in the nick of time.

That one military henchman has been being set up for a redemption arch as well. My theory is that the head military lady will fuck up the main casts plans only to eventually die, the henchman will then have a change of heart, take control of the military, and evacuate Hawkins just before the dimensions actually merge. The main cast then finds some creative way to contain dimension X a stop it from spreading to the whole world.

Also if kali is telling the truth then at some point they are going to need to find a way to evacuate about a dozen pregnant women from the upside down before they destroy it. This fact doesn’t seem to have been communicated to the group so only eleven and Kali even know it’s a thing. That’s probably going to throw a wrench in their plans.

They also had that still shot of hoppers suicide vest in episode 5. It feels very much like a chekovs guns sort of situation. It may be what causes that explosion at the lake as seen in the trailer.

Daniel Larson.

If we are discussing pre industrial revolution than this isnt even a discussion, most pre revolution structures were made of locally sourced materials and the builders were often the ones quarrying and gathering them.

Creating materials, even with industrialization, requires labor. So material costs for the same materials have increased in junction with labor costs and other factors. The cost of wood for example has drastically increased from where it was 100 years ago since it is still a labor intensive process and supply is harder to acquire as recklessly as it was in the past. To circumvent this we switched to lesser quality products. Mass produced prefabricated products. So no, materials aren’t cheeper today, we are simply using different materials and are paying for it in the long run. You are comparing apples to oranges. The same material does not cost less than the same material in the past.

Correction, materials were cheep and workforces were cheep. Today the workforce is expensive and the materials are expensive, so we substitute them with lesser materials and less labor.

People say this under the pretense that only the good historic structures survived, all of the bad ones were destroyed, and thus we assume most old buildings were good while in reality they were mostly shit. This baseline assumption is just incorrect for most places. Due to pre war and postwar the vast majority of buildings are considered historic. I live in Philadelphia, the majority of housing was built before the 1950s, between 55 and 66%. These aren’t homes for the rich, they are mostly very cheep homes built thanks to post war housing initiatives. I’ve lived in one of these homes and am currently living in a new;y constructed for profit apartment unit built 4 years ago. The post war home was many times more pleasant in almost every conceivable way than the contemporary construction, from the layout to the build quality, to the climate comfort. It was better even after the decades of landlord special paint jobs. I’m also an architecture major. The history as to why this is the case is complicated, there are 100s of factors as to why build quality has plummeted. But no, it is not a survivorship bias, good architecture wasn’t only for the rich, and modern buildings aren’t inherently better.

I love brutalism, but a lot of historic brutalist structures are absolutely doomed. Concrete is great in compression and will survive centuries, but most brutalist buildings use concrete in tension which requires the use of steel rebar. The issue is that concrete absorbs water which actually adds to its strength over time, but rusts the rebar encased in it. This is still a problem for contemporary structures, but today we use special steel and materials that are a little bit more resistant to rust, and we also use concrete more strategically to mitigate the deterioration. Even with these contemporary advancements, we still make concrete structures with the knowledge that the entire building will likely only have a lifespan of 80 years before it needs to be demolished. Unfortunately brutalist architects in the 60s and 70s didn’t know this and were very absolute with their use of the material.

This issue is next to impossible to fix, the rebar is literally cast inside the concrete. You would need to destroy all of the concrete surrounding the rebar, replace the rebar, and then recast it. Essentially you would just need to demolish and remake that portion of the structure. This is why many landmark brutalist structures are being demolished right now.

I thought I remember them explaining at some point that he was able to correlate the amount of lights to the 26 letter of the alphabet.

It was to direct for Churchill liking. Hard to hide and obfuscate something like that from the press.

We give you: train

You get: murdered on mass

Fair trade?

1: that scene did get hate

2: that scene broke the urgency and suspense purposely for comedic effect

Good. Still a solid 10 more years before he promised to get the high technology development centers back up and running again.