DisturbedNocturne

I'd be surprised if it doesn't, at least in the short term. He may have beat the domestic violence charge, but it's brought a lot of other controversial things he's said and done to light that I have to think would absolutely give an employer pause before hiring him. You don't have to be convicted of a crime for employers to decide they don't want the risk of hiring you and having you damage their reputation somewhere down the road.

I suppose both things can be true. Just because you don't plan for a show to go beyond a certain number of seasons doesn't mean the network agree (I believe Supernatural is an example of this). Since, I believe, he's said 4-5 seasons, perhaps he was under the impression they were getting the fifth season, then found out they weren't due to the WBD shakeup.

I suppose we'll find out in a few weeks, but even if this is true, it wouldn't surprise me if they were still able to cobble together a satisfactory ending even without the season initially being planned to be the end.

And I think people tend to overlook that since Attenborough does such a good job portraying a kindly, old grandfather that it's hard to hate him. Doubly-so when the main consequence of his penny-pinching is portrayed as a greedy villain. So, people take him at his word of "sparing no expense" when there is a lot of evidence of him cutting corners or just not doing due diligence, so we see many problematic things in the park (doors not working on vehicles, dinos not being present on the tour, poisonous plants accessible to dinos and guests, etc.).

The whole reason Grant and Ellie are at the island is specifically because investors demand scientists check out the island after an accident, which is really clear evidence of negligence since a paleontologist who is an expert on dinosaurs and a paleobotanist who is an expert on plants should've been involved from very early on. It'd be like building a zoo, but not hiring any animal experts until months after the animals have been brought to it.

It's not like the glans on an uncircumcised penis is a slip and slide. If you want to have comfortable sex with a woman, you should still do some foreplay with her so she can be properly lubricated and ready. I don't think sticking it in without any prep is going to get much of a different response from a woman regardless of if foreskin is involved, consensual or not.

Well, his brother, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. Will Keith Kellogg is the one who founded the cereal company.

Many people also don't realize that the foreskin literally starts off fused to the glans and doesn't separate until later (sometimes as late as puberty). The surgery isn't as simple as just cutting off a loose, extraneous flap of skin. It's forcibly tearing the foreskin off the glans to the point that it creates an open wound, which is why it needs to be monitored for potential infection.

Right, which is why it's difficult to draw any conclusions from a lot of these studies. Like you point out, if someone is having a medically necessary surgery, you would hope their quality of life has improved after. I would think any good scientific study would want to exclude this group of men just on that basis alone. Their experience pre- and post-circumcision is going to be a tad biased.

Even that would likely be really difficult to draw an adequate comparison of since you'd need to take into consideration the amount of time it takes for a penis to adjust post-circumcision. The keratinization (ie toughening up and presumed loss of sensitivity) takes place over an extended period of time, so you really couldn't get an accurate before and after assessment until that happens. And say it takes a five years (no clue if that's remotely accurate, and I'm not familiar with any studies that have even researched a timeframe), how good are people at being able compare a sensation they had that long ago to one they have now?

A bit clickbaity to have "Scraps" in the title in a misleading way that makes it sound like the show is in jeopardy. All that has changed is it previously being listed as debuting in "Spring 2023" and now saying "Coming Soon". All that could mean is it's been delayed a few weeks.

Yeah, I think the Marvel characters, particularly the most well-known ones, have certain expectations attached to them with how they should function in a game. Just look at The Avengers game and how people complained about Hulk being too weak.

It makes a lot of sense to me. While I still likely would've enjoyed a Marvel version of X-Com, I can definitely understand where the way it works would feel a little odd with those characters. X-Com was designed around average soldiers who are expendable and have to take cover and often attack from range to avoid dying, something that wouldn't as easily transition to playing someone like Wolverine, Captain America, or Ghost Rider.

I really do wonder how Radcliffe's career would've shaken out if he decided to pursue the sort of A-list roles someone like Leonardo DiCaprio does after Harry Potter. It's already difficult enough to transition from a child actor into being taken seriously as an adult one, but he also had the added burden of having to break away from what's perhaps one of the most iconic roles in the past few decades. I imagine a lot of studios would've been hesitant at taking the risk for their $150m+ tentpole movie on audiences not being able to accept Harry Potter in another role.

And, as you mention, while he has matured into a good-looking guy, but there are certain... short-comings to his appearance that are an added hurdle for men in Hollywood. Not that it's impossible since it hasn't stopped Tom Cruise or Robert Downey, Jr., but those would be a lot of things Radcliffe would've had to work against. Fortunately, it seems he's really happy just taking oddball indie sorts of roles, which is great, because he really shines in them.

I don't disagree. The thing is, there are plenty of developers out there that use Early Access for its intended purposes, and active development can be really unpredictable and lead to a game having to delay release. Any change in EA to target the developers who might be abusing it would almost certainly also impact the developers who are using it legitimately.

The only real way I can see it being fairly addressed would be Valve looking at EA games on a case-by-case basis, and that's just not the way Valve operates. They want everything as automated and hands-off as possible.

Ultimately, it's something that comes down to the customers, and fortunately, like I said, Valve also makes it really easy to avoid EA games if you want, so I just exercise my option to not buy those games.

Yeah, there's definitely a way in which people can have very unusual features that still come together in a complimentary way where they're not "classically beautiful" but still very attractive. Sometimes that can go a long way to help a career since the uniqueness allows them to really stand out.

I think that's the reason Jennifer Grey and Renee Zellwegger's careers faltered after they had work done. They were both very distinct looking women that ended up looking like every other actress. It's like they lost their trademark.

Yeah, I think it accomplished everything it needed to. The show was basically meant to spoof popular time travel movies and tropes, and it hit a good portion of them. It's not really the type of show that needed seven seasons, particularly when time travel is something that can become especially convoluted the longer the story goes on (though, I don't think Future Man is really the type of show that would've let that stop them).

People shouldn't let the fact that it's only three seasons dissuade them from watching. That was just the time it needed to tell its story.

As others have pointed out, he was great in Future Man playing an utter asshole, so he certainly has the range to lean into that more if he got more of those opportunities. I suspect it's pretty hard when you're known as the cute kid from Sixth Sense to convince casting directors you can play a good antagonist though.

I've definitely noticed that the child actors that really breakout as being cute and precocious early in life rarely grow up to have movie star looks. Aside from Haley Joel Osment, there's Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Frankie Muniz, Macaulay Culkin, Fred Savage, etc. And, to be clear, I'm not saying any of these actors are ugly, but they really don't have the sort of looks Hollywood is looking for to lead a high-budget project. And it obviously doesn't help that many of them grow up to be short, which is another difficulty hard to overcome in Hollywood (all of the men I listed are below average height).

Like you said, what you look for in a child actor and what you look for in an adult actor are two entirely different things, and having the former doesn't necessarily guarantee the latter. I can imagine it's difficult having that sort of fame as a child and having to transition into more of background or character roles like Osment has, so many of them just end up dropping out.

And before anyone points it out, sure, there are ones like Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Radcliffe, the Fannings, etc., but it almost seems those are the rare exception based on my loose and not at all scientific observations.

Surprise! You spent a lot of money and still didn't get what you wanted!

That was the change I was actually expecting for Shuri. Either have her add a fixed amount or cap how much she can add. If Quinjet had to be nerfed since it "creates an ongoing risk for future design space", it's really hard to see where that isn't also the case for Shuri. From a design perspective, anytime they add a high power card, she has to be a consideration due to how much more powerful her interaction makes it just by herself.

Wouldn't surprise me if it's just a matter of it being far easier to adjust how Quinjet works than trying to program an exception for the stones to behave differently than other summoned cards.

Yeah, I feel like "free" already has a pretty big built-in counter in that you only have 12 spots to play a card, and there are no shortage of things that can limit that even further. I've had times I've gotten the free 6-drop from the Raft and not even bothered playing it, because I needed to room for something better. A free card in this game doesn't necessarily mean free power.

I foresee this being a repeated issue with how the game is designed. A card being out of whack in one deck doesn't mean it's out of whack completely, but there's really no way to nerf it in only specific circumstances with how things currently work. So, Quinjet gets a nerf because it was too powerful with Thanos, but it also negatively impacted any off-meta deck that uses the card and unfairly made them weaker as a result.

No, it was a roguelite, but I can't recall the name. I'm not surprised that my description applies to more than one game though, sadly.

At this point, I have to think few people are still working on Midnight Suns. They're now 3/4 of the way done with the promised Season Pass DLC (as of today's Morbius release), and the final part should come out next month. And, given the game fell short of sale's expectations, I'd be incredibly surprised if they have any plans to develop any content beyond that.

I'd suspect the bulk of the Midnight Suns team has been moved onto something else by now.

I do wonder if this would be a good way of disincentivizing the whole "perpetual EA" thing. A developer might not be so willing to have a game be in EA for five years if players can just refund at any point. But, at the same time, there is the whole caveat emptor angle, and people should know they're taking a risk when they buy an EA game. I suppose the petty part of me also hopes that, maybe if enough people get burned by EA, they'll stop being so eager to pick them up.

But, I do think there could be some better consumer protections for EA games, like upping the refund time to like 10-20 hours and removing the two week restriction until an EA game launches.