State of the Discussion

I sometimes see people saying on social media, "The civil war is already upon us; the shooting and the violence have already started." This is wrong. There is violence and vandalism, and it's a bad thing, and you shouldn't contribute to it. No, that is not "submitting in advance." No, that is not "just letting them get away with it." It is not even "not fighting back." It is not giving up on the idea that we can go about our politics in a peaceful and lawful way.

...um, you did read that, right?

The thing she says is that the media massive downplayed the virus, which, along with the idiotic claim it only spread by touch (Which was not the media's fault.), diminished trust.

But once again, talking about out failures with COVID, we somehow end up talking about the lab leak theory, a thing that is...utterly irrelevant to how we should have handled the situation. Literally, could not be the slightest bit relevant.

And there is _still_ no evidence of it. Literally the entire argument seems to be over whether it _could_ be a possible origin.

You want to know what destroys trust in society and institutions, Jaybird? It's this sort of thing. Coming up with theories, spreading them on social media, and having the media reprint them, then having other people go 'No, that's not true', and the media reprints that, and then the original people come up with some non-peer reviewer pre-print that claims it statistically must be true, and the media prints that, and then others go 'That's not right', and the media prints that.

You see the problem there? There is exactly one bad actor in that, and it's the people who started spreading a theory without real evidence. The media sorta has to report it, and the actual scientists have to say 'Look, that doesn't appear to be true', and the media has to report that.

It really is interesting to watch people talk about this and come out with complete nonsense implications. 'a romantic heterosexual resolution is just too problematic to deliver' is just hilarious. As opposed to all the...romantic non-hetrosexual resolutions that Disney has delivered over the year?

Anyway, by your definition, Disney hasn't had a traditional animated Princess movie since 2009's Princess and the Frog, which didn't do well, or possibly Tangled, the next year, which did a little better. (Although Tangled was pretty high on action and low on romance.)

Meanwhile, they were wildly successful with Frozen, which pretends to be a traditional princess movie under your definition until everything shatters into pieces. The next princess movie was Moana, which also had no romantic relationship and which _also_ did very well. Then there was Raya and the Last Dragon, which did make money, but not really as much as expected, but it was mostly because the movie repeatedly delayed by COVID and movies still were not doing good at all in March 2021 when it came out.

Meanwhile, Disney has had a lot of success with other animated movies. I don't think I need to list them, but there's a reason Inside Out got a sequel. Or The Lion King got like four.

Also, have you noticed that...KenB was literally complaining about live actions remakes of animated princess movies?

What a weird thing to use to conclude that 'Disney decided that princess movies are not cool and is failing because they moved away from a winning formula.'. Disney actually concluded the _other_ thing, that everyone would pay to see a live-action remake of traditional princess movies! (Which they were apparently wrong about.)

If you want to make a conclusion about the traditional princess movies from the dislike of the live-action remakes, it's that traditional princess movies _don't_ have drawing power. (Although my conclusion is just 'No one wants damn remakes of some of the most iconic movies ever. Stop it. Also, having a live action version of The Lion King is gibberish.')

DavidTC: You think war is better than incompetence and corruption?

I think Israel evaluates this on whether they'll end up with a terror army on their border again, not based on the suffering of Gaza civilians.

DavidTC: we are talking about stopping the war.

Israel isn't willing to return to October 6th and wait for the next terror attack. They view the current situation as better.

Rather than calling for Israel to not worry about terrorism the world should be calling for Hamas to surrender.

DavidTC: You mean the thing the PA agreed to end a month ago as part of the ceasefire?

Paying for random Jews to be murdered is so heinous that offering to stop doesn't do them much credit nor earn them much trust.

My goodness. If you find yourself in the market for new hobbies I can vouch for those things my Clark Griswald lifestyle permits, which currently are lifting, shooting, and a very unserious dart league. Otherwise all I can say is I am deeply sorry for your loss.

Those cut scenes are actually in an actual video game.

They made a game in feudal Japan and your character is a Black dude. (You have the option of switching to a female who is a ninja. But if you want to play as a male, you will be playing Yasuke.)

DavidTC: ...really sounds like “This can be figured out.” not “We will never settle for anything other then the absolute!”.

At the negotiating table his actual peace proposals matched his charter and what he told his own people, not what you want to hear.

And you'll notice even in your Western facing article he didn't define "reasonable" much less say he would settle for something less than "No Israel, No Jews".

That's word salad designed to be spun to the West as what you want but to his own people as what they want.

DavidTC: ...the actual reason he rejected the agreements...

All I can evaluate is his actual proposals.

If we're going to speculate then imho he couldn't accept (or make) a peace proposal without a (non)serious RoR because he was afraid his own people would kill him if he did.

Also imho this is why the Palestinians so rarely make counter proposals. They understand just how badly "No Israel, No Jews" plays in the West and just how unreasonable it is, but they also have to live with their people.

I don't know that it's liberalism exactly. It seems to me more that they've decided that the princess archetype, which inherently involves a plot around interpersonal/social (as opposed to violent) disputes, vulnerability, and a romantic heterosexual resolution is just too problematic to deliver. The result is they don't make them anymore or when they do it's reluctant, soaked in derision, and embedded in a constant pitch for something else.

Their problem is that people but in particular lots of little girls still love the princess archetype. Not all, nothing wrong with those that don't, or boys that do. But there are enough that love it to support a several hundred billion dollar a year business empire in an otherwise tough and fractured media market. Disney used to serve up the best princesses but now it's like going to a steakhouse where the ownership has gone vegan, the waiter won't stop asking if you're sure you don't want the sustainable fish paste instead of the ribeye, and when they finally bring you the meat its dressed up in a bunch of crappy sauces and bewildering sides that weren't what you came for. Maybe the best way to think about it is that while Disney invented the modern steak house they seem unable to understand that they did not invent the steak.

As for the right of return: In actual reality, is extremely clear that that is going to be something that the PA is going to walk into a discussion with Israel, them saying yes and Israel saying no, and some sort of compromise will be reached. Likely payments.

I know you _think_ that's what all rejections of peace hinge on, I know you think that's why Arafat rejected the deals offered, but it's not. I want you to read this Op-Ed literally by Yasir Arafat a year after the second talks: https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General-2/Story3024.html

In addition, we seek a fair and just solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees who for 54 years have not been permitted to return to their homes. We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns. However, just as we Palestinians must be realistic with respect to Israel's demographic desires, Israelis too must be realistic in understanding that there can be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if the legitimate rights of these innocent civilians continue to be ignored. Left unresolved, the refugee issue has the potential to undermine any permanent peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. How is a Palestinian refugee to understand that his or her right of return will not be honored but those of Kosovar Albanians, Afghans and East Timorese have been?

"We must be realistic about your concerns, and you must be realistic about ours." really sounds like "This can be figured out." not "We will never settle for anything other then the absolute!".

Meanwhile, the actual reason he rejected the agreements in 2000 and 2001 is that Palestine would not be allowed to have actual sovereignty under them, with them not allowed to have a military and Israel controlling their airspace. Also, the first proposal was insultingly stupid about territory, demanding Palestine give up 9% of territory, some of which was rather important, in exchange for a vague 1% to be defined later. The second proposal was somewhat better, but still had the sovereignty thing.

I'm kinda tired of addressing this.

An English language version of the controversies surrounding Netanyahu:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-22/six-controversies-plaguing-israel-benjamin-netanyahu/105080272

This just shows the utter stupidity of the Pro-Palestinian movement in the West. Netanyahu is not popular in Israel. By making the entire protest movement about "Anti-Zionism" and anti-colonialism, they made it impossible for Anti-Netanyahu Israelis and anti-Netanyahu Diaspora Jews to team up with them.

Vox has an article: America — and the media — needs a Covid reckoning

Here's the subhed: Our Covid mistakes did lasting damage. No one wants to talk about it.

We're getting closer to actually talking about it. I suppose that that's progress.

Lucky you! I have some wine.

How far back do we want to go? Let's go back to Origins. No, wait. Let's go back to Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire.

Back in the original XBox days, we had Bioware. They made the *BEST* RPGs. Founded by three guys who dropped out of the medical profession, they said that they wanted to make the games they wanted to play.

Knights of the Old Republic is probably the greatest Star Wars game of all time. You start out as a Force-Sensitive Level 0 schmuck with amnesia and are put on the Hero's Journey to take on The Big Bad. Along the way, you pick up a team of companions, maybe fall in love, learn how to use a lightsaber, choose the light side or the dark side, and clear up all of the questions you have.

I didn't see the twist coming from a mile away... more like from two or three yards away... and so it hit me and the protagonist at the same time and I had to put down the controller and run upstairs and tell Maribou about the game I was playing. "Well!", she said. "I'm glad you're having fun!"

Jade Empire was its own franchise made by the same team. You were a kung fu level 0 schmuck who did *NOT* have amnesia, you were merely the brightest star in the best school of the best kung fu teacher ever and you had to run around and do the hero's journey yourself. Pick the open hand or the closed fist. There was also a twist that I did *NOT* see coming at all. I was left with my jaw on the floor and and sputtering in indignance. It made the fight against the Big Bad that much sweeter.

How I *LOVED* Bioware. They were a day-one purchase. They were *PRE-ORDER* purchases. That's how much I loved them.

Well, for the 360, they were coming out with a brand spankin' new franchise called "Dragon Age". You were in this weird fantasy world and it was brand new. There were humans and elves and dwarves. There were fighters and thieves and mages. Mages tended to go mad and blow up everything so they were kept on a short leash. Dwarves didn't have magic at all.

The game started with one of *SIX*, COUNT-EM, *SIX* potential builds:

Human noble, human mage, elven mage, Dalish Elf, Dwarven noble, Dwarven casteless.

I haven't played the game since Obama's first term but I still have all of those memorized.

Each one of those beginning classes had a unique start in the game and each unique start took about two hours... you'd have your backstory, you'd have a tutorial on how to fight and how to talk and intimidate and charm, and then you'd be inducted into the Grey Wardens and the story proper would start.

Along the way, you'd pick up a team of companions, fall in love, and pick between being a paragon of virtue or an amoral mastermind and fight the big bad and it was *AWESOME*.

And then Bioware was bought by EA and Dragon Age 2 came out and it was... I wouldn't call it a *GOOD* game but it was more a game that I could tell you what it was trying to do. "I could see what it was going for."

Around this time, Mass Effect 3 came out and it had a very controversial ending and Bioware had the choice between listening to the user base and changing the ending *OR* yelling something about artistic vision and shutting down the Bioware forums.

They chose to shut down the forums.

Dragon Age: Inquisition came out and it wasn't *BAD*... it tried to recreate the whole World of Warcraft experience for the single player. A lot of grinding. I didn't finish it. But I see what it was going for.

Anyway, years and years and years passed. Dragon Age: Something Or Other was being worked on, abandoned, revamped, worked on as an iPhone game, abandoned, revamped and, eventually, we got Veilguard.

Veilguard had very, very little overlap with the original Origins game. Instead of having choices that mattered, you had to pick between agreeing because you were nice or agreeing but being really snarky about it.

And, along the way, you picked up companions and some of the companions would explain to you that they were now non-binary.

I am not making this up.

There's also a scene where they explain the best way to deal with misgendering someone.

I am not making this up.

Anyway, Dragon Age: Veilguard sold about 1.5 million units and EA said that their expectations were about 3 million (Dragon Age: Origins has sales of about 3.2 million).

Veilguard is considered a failure when it comes to sales. The studio that created it was shut down and a handful of devs were sent to other in-house studios and the rest were thrown to the winds.

Which brings us to Assassin's Creed.

Assassin's Creed, as a franchise, was *AWESOME*. It was a game the combined sneaking and combat and some light puzzling and a handful of twists and turns and there were two levels to the game... one where you were Desmond, a guy in the current year, and one where you were Altair, an ancestor of Desmond's that you'd visit while in the machine that tapped into your ancestral memories.

And in Assassin's Creed II, you were Ezio Auditore (and there were two sequels to Assassin's Creed II that had you move from angry young man to experienced killer to wise assassin leader).

And in Assassin's Creed III, you came to the new world and played Connor, a half-Native, Half-Brit assassin who was pitted against the Redcoats!

And in Assassin's Creed IV, you played Kenway, a pirate!!!

And then the game got a little bloated. There was stuff in France and Egypt and Victorian England and the Viking Lands and... well, I stopped playing after IV. I got the Victorian England one but didn't get too far into it. I was irritated at all of the monetization stuff they added.

Anyway, they were finally going to come out with an Assassin's Creed game set in Japan! FINALLY!

And the lead character was Yasuke. Yasuke was a historical dude. An African in Japan who was given a sword by his master and occasionally carried his master's weapons and, some historians say, this means that he was a samurai.

So you're playing Yasuke during the something-or-other period and you have to deal with the Big Bad.

People who are not exactly charitable are spinning this as "so you're a black guy running around Japan killing Japanese people? They should have set the game in 2021 in San Francisco!" and stuff that is even worse than that.

It being the current year, the Assassin's Creed: Shadows devs have included an option for Yasuke to have a fling with the enby Ibuki character and that created as much drama as you imagine it did.

Anyway, at this moment in time, Steam numbers have Assassin's Creed: Shadows as having a little over half of the peak numbers of Veilguard's peak numbers.

And Veilguard was considered a disappointment bad enough to shutter the studio.

That is about 80% of it, I think.

Speaking of which, Assassin's Creed: Shadows released this week and, as of Friday night, has a little under 40k players right now and an all-time peak of 47,616.

By comparison, Veilguard's all-time peak is 89,418. It achieved that on the Sunday after it launched so we can't compare apples to apples quite yet... but it had 77K on the day after it launched.

Trump and China are negotiating how to settle the issue of TSMC, the only company in the world that can fabricate integrated circuits at, for example, 2nm scale. Musk is representing the US tech bros' interests.

In mathematics, there's a thing called an "existence proof." Such a proof typically tells you that for a particular type of problem a solution exists. It tells you nothing about how to find the solution.

A judge saying, "Bailiff! Take Pam Bondi into custody and hold her for 30 days for contempt!" strikes me as something similar. The authority exists. It says nothing about how to actually take Ms. Bondi into custody if, eg, the US Marshals Service stands between her and the bailiff. Or (assuming success on the custody bit) where the bailiff could hold her and provide the legally required food/health care/etc.

Fairy tales and other stories are continually updated to meet modern social conditions but there is an art to doing this. Adding a Moorish/Arab character in Robin Hood stories so that non-white can see the Robin Hood stories as something they aren't excluded from is doing this correctly. Adding a lot of girl-boss to a fairy tale is not. You want to add something rather than divide, multiply, and subtract from it.

OK fair enough but this didn't strike me as a particularly difficult puzzle. But to that end, the "please contact one of us" link on the Guest Posting Policy page is prompting for a login -- I assume that's an error and not round 2 of the qualifying process.

Axios reports that at a pre-committee meeting with Republican Senators' staff members, Weldon was completely unprepared to answer questions and had no real idea of the range of responsibilities the CDC head has. Another source I saw suggested that there were a handful of Republican Senators (ie, >3) that found his anti-science responses in that meeting too extreme.

So apparently _Hamas_ proposed handing Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority. Israel rejected it.

Israel thinks the PA is not up to the task. Maybe it's the shear incompetence and corruption. Maybe it's the PA's ideological support for an Israel destroying "Right to Return"(*). Maybe it's the paying terrorists by the number of Jews they kill.

However, if we use the normal rules for wars, if Israel wins and Hamas surrenders, Israel gets to have more of a say in who runs the place afterwards than Hamas or the PA.

(*) During Trump's first term he proposed a RoR only into a Palestinian state and the PA said that was hot garbage.