what? those are some motherfucking freakshows then

It should have the trailer gameplay footage be the ultra settings. My point wasn't that fallout 4 looks better, it was that angelious said it didn't fall flat in any aspect, which I believe, it did.

Yep, got it.

Is it really that hard to get copies of a key? I feel like this is one of those situations when a lazy person wanted to get around completing a menial task, and then put way more effort they'd ever have put into the original task, trying to solve it.

but then you wouldn't have this cool-looking overly-complicated lock system.

nah, just the direction our compasses point

What a rip-off!

I assume he's talking about how the geomagnetic polls flip flop sides every few million years or however long it takes

thought the whole physical planet would move

nah, just the direction our compasses point

What a rip-off!

I'd argue most people with an interest in space exploration know who Margaret Hamilton is. If you're not, at best you remember hearing the name of who first set foot on the moon (probably in school). When I see Margaret used as an example of "look what people really care to know about," you have to overlook some things. First, you'd have to assume the moon landing is something everyone does or should care about to the extent of the names of people who built the guidance system, but -only- that far (because that was the shaky part of the mission and you'd end up praising more people than her if you took it further). You'd also have to think that, overall, average citizens don't think people like the programmers at MIT matter in comparison to astronauts (or maybe even in comparison to just Margaret as things seem to be). As if your average Joe assumes and defends the theory that Buzz hopped on Neil's shoulders as he pointed to the sky and shouted "up, up and away" before taking that, literal, one giant leap. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is told about Margaret Hamilton has the common sense to respect her, they just simply don't really care about the finer details of these things, which in a way, is tragic, but I can think of more important or relatable things people don't care about. It takes a lot of presumptions and loopholes to use Margaret as an example in the way I've seen. I mean Neil was talking back to Earth from the moon, that's going to get you a lot of attention. He was living children's dreams, could describe the experience, etc.

I just think it's a little easier to compare Steve Jobs to Dennis Ritchie because you can at least narrow down both people to similar talents, intelligence, and from there, contribution to society, rather than you can two people who were part of the same mission with completely different fields involved in the moon landing. I mean you could probably find a couple of holes in it but I still think it flows a little easier.

My point is that you don't compare two completely different tasks to make a point in the first place. The guy whose life was still largely up to chance landed on the friggin' space rock got attention. Are you shocked? Had Apollo 11 failed its landing, I'm fairly certain Margaret would have survived down here even though it was her system. I get the concept, but why stop with her? Why not go the whole way and include NASA in general? Why not make points for the latest kevlar instead of our soldiers while we're at it? The analogy is just too distant. They're both great accomplishments, but the people taking the risk get more fame. Is it completely fair? No, but to act like there's some sort of injustice or overbearing societal ignorance when one of the two in the comparison receives more attention because they actually had a chance of detonating is kind of nuts.

It's a bad example but people get the idea.

I'd argue most people with an interest in space exploration know who Margaret Hamilton is. If you're not, at best you remember hearing the name of who first set foot on the moon (probably in school). When I see Margaret used as an example of "look what people really care to know about," you have to overlook some things. First, you'd have to assume the moon landing is something everyone does or should care about to the extent of the names of people who built the guidance system, but -only- that far (because that was the shaky part of the mission and you'd end up praising more people than her if you took it further). You'd also have to think that, overall, average citizens don't think people like the programmers at MIT matter in comparison to astronauts (or maybe even in comparison to just Margaret as things seem to be). As if your average Joe assumes and defends the theory that Buzz hopped on Neil's shoulders as he pointed to the sky and shouted "up, up and away" before taking that, literal, one giant leap. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is told about Margaret Hamilton has the common sense to respect her, they just simply don't really care about the finer details of these things, which in a way, is tragic, but I can think of more important or relatable things people don't care about. It takes a lot of presumptions and loopholes to use Margaret as an example in the way I've seen. I mean Neil was talking back to Earth from the moon, that's going to get you a lot of attention. He was living children's dreams, could describe the experience, etc.

I just think it's a little easier to compare Steve Jobs to Dennis Ritchie because you can at least narrow down both people to similar talents, intelligence, and from there, contribution to society, rather than you can two people who were part of the same mission with completely different fields involved in the moon landing. I mean you could probably find a couple of holes in it but I still think it flows a little easier.

That was never questioned. I really don't think you understand what I'm getting at.

So your point is that the matter is who puts themselves at most risk that gets attention?
what is your point, exactly?

My point is that you don't compare two completely different tasks to make a point in the first place. The guy whose life was still largely up to chance landed on the friggin' space rock got attention. Are you shocked? Had Apollo 11 failed its landing, I'm fairly certain Margaret would have survived down here even though it was her system. I get the concept, but why stop with her? Why not go the whole way and include NASA in general? Why not make points for the latest kevlar instead of our soldiers while we're at it? The analogy is just too distant. They're both great accomplishments, but the people taking the risk get more fame. Is it completely fair? No, but to act like there's some sort of injustice or overbearing societal ignorance when one of the two in the comparison receives more attention because they actually had a chance of detonating is kind of nuts.

It's a bad example but people get the idea.

I'd argue most people with an interest in space exploration know who Margaret Hamilton is. If you're not, at best you remember hearing the name of who first set foot on the moon (probably in school). When I see Margaret used as an example of "look what people really care to know about," you have to overlook some things. First, you'd have to assume the moon landing is something everyone does or should care about to the extent of the names of people who built the guidance system, but -only- that far (because that was the shaky part of the mission and you'd end up praising more people than her if you took it further). You'd also have to think that, overall, average citizens don't think people like the programmers at MIT matter in comparison to astronauts (or maybe even in comparison to just Margaret as things seem to be). As if your average Joe assumes and defends the theory that Buzz hopped on Neil's shoulders as he pointed to the sky and shouted "up, up and away" before taking that, literal, one giant leap. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is told about Margaret Hamilton has the common sense to respect her, they just simply don't really care about the finer details of these things, which in a way, is tragic, but I can think of more important or relatable things people don't care about. It takes a lot of presumptions and loopholes to use Margaret as an example in the way I've seen. I mean Neil was talking back to Earth from the moon, that's going to get you a lot of attention. He was living children's dreams, could describe the experience, etc.

I just think it's a little easier to compare Steve Jobs to Dennis Ritchie because you can at least narrow down both people to similar talents, intelligence, and from there, contribution to society, rather than you can two people who were part of the same mission with completely different fields involved in the moon landing. I mean you could probably find a couple of holes in it but I still think it flows a little easier.