Your unpopular (non-political, non-offensive) opinions!

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I have to disagree. I wouldn't say they are all good but games like Portal 2 and Half Life had great stories. Though not every game thats story driven is good. But there are those that are. 

I remember recently watching a video about gamer psychology and which types of people liked what kinds of games.  Story driven games such as described appealed to a particular personality profile. The rules weren’t all that hard and fast though.  It avoided “addiction” systems such a skinner boxes and whatnot, which the narrator considered merely abusive.

[lboolaka_33]

1 hour ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Another opinion to add to the list.

 

The "Treehouse of Horror" episodes of the Simpsons aren't all that great when compared to the rest of the season they are in.

 

I also don't subscribe to the philosophy of "everything after season X was terrible" - I believe it has been a gradual decline, and everything up to about season 13-17 was perfectly watchable, though most of the absolute classics are of course in seasons 3-9 which are usually described as the prime of the series. Even in the most recent seasons there are some excellent episodes.

I don't think the Treehouse of Horror episodes are particularly great, but I wouldn't say they're of significantly worse quality than other episodes from the same season.

I also disagree with the people who say that the show went to shit right as Season 9 started, but if you've watched the video where someone reviewed every Simspons episode, you can see that the shows quality took a heavy dip in quality during Season 9.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Kaloob said:

I don't think the Treehouse of Horror episodes are particularly great, but I wouldn't say they're of significantly worse quality than other episodes from the same season.

I also disagree with the people who say that the show went to shit right as Season 9 started, but if you've watched the video where someone reviewed every Simspons episode, you can see that the shows quality took a heavy dip in quality during Season 9.

I stopped watching the simpsons when they did their “family guy” crossover.  I had already stopped watching family guy because I thought the behaviors of the characters to be simply too awful to be anything but sickened by.  The crossover though pointed to the simpsons and family guy being very similar. Shows though and I had to ask myself “if I am disgusted by one, why ami not also not disgusted by the other?” So I stopped watching both.

[lboolaka_33]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I stopped watching the simpsons when they did their “family guy” crossover.  I had already stopped watching family guy because I thought the behaviors of the characters to be simply too awful to be anything but sickened by.  The crossover though pointed to the simpsons and family guy being very similar. Shows though and I had to ask myself “if I am disgusted by one, why ami not also not disgusted by the other?” So I stopped watching both.

Honestly, I thought the Family Guy crossover was decent, and the beginning scene was pretty funny. I also think the crossover did a good job of highlighting the differences between the shows, as you can directly see how much "edgier" the Family Guy characters are.

Personally, I stopped watching The Simpsons when they had the "Bart gets pwnd" scene (I flipped the TV to FOX the night it aired and it was coincidentally on that scene, which is at the very end of the episode. Goes to show how much of an effort I was making to watch modern Simpsons episodes.)

I can tolerate modern Family Guy. (That doesn't mean I like it.) Say what you will about the characters being assholes, but it's more interesting than the bland modern Simpsons episodes. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch either, though.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Kaloob said:

Honestly, I thought the Family Guy crossover was decent, and the beginning scene was pretty funny. I also think the crossover did a good job of highlighting the differences between the shows, as you can directly see how much "edgier" the Family Guy characters are.

Personally, I stopped watching The Simpsons when they had the "Bart gets pwnd" scene (I flipped the TV to FOX the night it aired and it was coincidentally on that scene, which is at the very end of the episode. Goes to show how much of an effort I was making to watch modern Simpsons episodes.)

I can tolerate modern Family Guy. (That doesn't mean I like it.) Say what you will about the characters being assholes, but it's more interesting than the bland modern Simpsons episodes. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch either, though.

FG can still be good for laughs, but you kind of have to ignore everything else (lazy plots, terrible characters) for it to be watchable. It's kind of amazing how different the first three seasons are from the rest of the show. It's like modern Family Guy is better watched in selected clips on YouTube. 

 

I watch the new Simpsons episodes, but they're usually pretty forgettable. That Elon Musk episode almost made me give up on the show. Lol

[lboolaka_33]

14 minutes ago, Kylan275 said:

FG can still be good for laughs, but you kind of have to ignore everything else (lazy plots, terrible characters) for it to be watchable. It's kind of amazing how different the first three seasons are from the rest of the show. It's like modern Family Guy is better watched in selected clips on YouTube. 

 

I watch the new Simpsons episodes, but they're usually pretty forgettable. That Elon Musk episode almost made me give up on the show. Lol

I don't think FG died after season 3, after all there were holdover scripts used in season 4 ;). But in all seriousness, I'd say the show died sometime around season 7. I agree that newer episodes are probably better watched in "Family Guy funny moments" videos. 

As for the Simspons, I've gotta agree, however I'd rather watch modern FG just because it at least gets some emotional response from me, either a laugh or me being pissed off at how bad the episode was.

[Quackers101]

We should nuke the whole world, so we can start again.

Hitting that reset, like the gamer move from WW.

[pythonmegapixel]

9 hours ago, Vishera said:

That's what i call milkshake

For a short time.

Not enough to make it anywhere near liquid; just enough that a spoon is easy to get through

 

8 hours ago, Dr. Kaloob said:

I also disagree with the people who say that the show went to shit right as Season 9 started, but if you've watched the video where someone reviewed every Simspons episode, you can see that the shows quality took a heavy dip in quality during Season 9.

The problem is, I'm loathed to pay attention to any review which comes to that conclusion, firstly because one person's review is a terrible thing to treat as a source, but secondly because any modern review is going to be skewed by the common belief that season 9 killed it.

 

In reality, season 9 still has some excellent, memorable episodes, and the seasons before it all had duds in them. Frankly so did most seasons later than that, up until, I'd say, roughly when they introduced the redrawn title sequence (slightly ironic, given that I actually prefer the redrawn title sequence hugely to the original, but I digress) at which point memorable episodes become once or twice every few seasons.

 

Also, if the "everything after season 9 is crap" philosophy is true, then one has to wonder what the hell has been keeping it going for another two decades... plenty of highly regarded sitcoms stopped after just a few seasons, once they ran out of good material or the original cast/production team were no longer available, and nobody had a problem with it!

 

Which leaves me wondering whether it's time for them to wind down production of it - maybe season 33 could be some kind of special "farewell" season to mark the conclusion of the show, and then that's it. Apart from the odd special and possibly a crappy reboot in a few years' time, of course...

[Spindel]

10 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I have to disagree. I wouldn't say they are all good but games like Portal 2 and Half Life had great stories. Though not every game thats story driven is good. But there are those that are. 

Oh this leads me to another unpopular opinion. 

 

Half Life is extremely overrated.

 

Unreal (that was released at about the same time) was a much better game in all aspects. 

 

EDIT:// The escape from Vortex Rikers was one of the most epic gaming moments up until that point. 

[lboolaka_33]

6 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

The problem is, I'm loathed to pay attention to any review which comes to that conclusion, firstly because one person's review is a terrible thing to treat as a source, but secondly because any modern review is going to be skewed by the common belief that season 9 killed it.

 

In reality, season 9 still has some excellent, memorable episodes, and the seasons before it all had duds in them. Frankly so did most seasons later than that, up until, I'd say, roughly when they introduced the redrawn title sequence (slightly ironic, given that I actually prefer the redrawn title sequence hugely to the original, but I digress) at which point memorable episodes become once or twice every few seasons.

 

Also, if the "everything after season 9 is crap" philosophy is true, then one has to wonder what the hell has been keeping it going for another two decades... plenty of highly regarded sitcoms stopped after just a few seasons, once they ran out of good material or the original cast/production team were no longer available, and nobody had a problem with it!

 

Which leaves me wondering whether it's time for them to wind down production of it - maybe season 33 could be some kind of special "farewell" season to mark the conclusion of the show, and then that's it. Apart from the odd special and possibly a crappy reboot in a few years' time, of course...

I think the reviewer actually went in wanting to prove the "golden era" claims wrong, but I do agree that using just a reveiw is a bad source. In my own experience, I don't like seasons 9-13 as much as 1-8, but they're still not bad. I'd say there was a slow decline between 14-17, but it wasn't that big. 18-20 were eh and things went to complete shit after that.

I think the sole reason the Simspons has gone on so long is because they know there's still money to squeeze out of the franchise. Also keep in mind I wasn't saying that everything post season 9 is crap, but that 9 is where things started to decline.

Hopefully they wind things down in 33, maybe they could try and get some of the older cast members back on the show...

[Tomsta]

Hydrogen cars are a better premise than electric or hybrid cars

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Tomsta said:

Hydrogen cars are a better premise than electric or hybrid cars

I saw a statement recently that said while there seems to be a lot of debate about what the best solution is both are needed

[Tomsta]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

I saw a statement recently that said while there seems to be a lot of debate about what the best solution is both are needed

For me that main problem is effective range and refilling. Electric cars simply don't have a good range or quick timing charging to make viable for anything more than short city drives. I know hydrogen has it's own problem, namely a way of storing it safely and cheaply but i believe that this will require less iterations of innovation to be immediately beneficial

 

Not to mention that making batteries still causes harm to the planet. To quote Jeremy Clarkson (Of all people). "You don't solve the issue of conspicuous consumption, by using conspicuous consumption"

[Bombastinator]

Capacity doesn’t seem to be a issue, filling time does though.  Makes effective range a trick point. There are already functional ev vehicles being sold.  Hydrogen has advantages though to go with its disadvantages.   The nikola stuff was interesting.  Building capacity based on repetitive route truck driving.   Battery improvement has a pretty checkered history with big voids in it.   I think both paths should be explored.  They are though.  Japan has committed to hydrogen.  It makes more sense for them.  Less necessary infrastructure to build out.  Their population is clumped in small areas.

[Tomsta]

23 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Capacity doesn’t seem to be a issue, filling time does though.  Makes effective range a trick point. There are already functional ev vehicles being sold.  Hydrogen has advantages though to go with its disadvantages.   The nikola stuff was interesting.  Building capacity based on repetitive route truck driving.   Battery improvement has a pretty checkered history with big voids in it.   I think both paths should be explored.  They are though.  Japan has committed to hydrogen.  It makes more sense for them.  Less necessary infrastructure to build out.  Their population is clumped in small areas.

I'd disagree with the capacity. Even the most 'efficient' Electric only cars don't have effective ranges above 100 miles. Hybrids are a bit different; i'm not fully sure how they are more efficient to be honest. If we take the i8 for example i'm not sure how it can be more efficient and produce less CO2 than the equivalent car powered by petrol or diesel considering they are still using petrol/diesel and from engines that are still fairly powerful. If anyone can clarify that for me that would be great

[Bombastinator]

36 minutes ago, Tomsta said:

I'd disagree with the capacity. Even the most 'efficient' Electric only cars don't have effective ranges above 100 miles. Hybrids are a bit different; i'm not fully sure how they are more efficient to be honest. If we take the i8 for example i'm not sure how it can be more efficient and produce less CO2 than the equivalent car powered by petrol or diesel considering they are still using petrol/diesel and from engines that are still fairly powerful. If anyone can clarify that for me that would be great

Ive seen seen numbers 3-4 times higher that what you are describing.  The lowest one I’ve seen is 183.  The argument is probably “but if you drive on a normal manner the numbers are much lower” where ‘normal’ is racing.  ICE engines have the same issue.  I’ve got an older GTI.  It can get 20mpg if I drive it on the street, but if I pummel the thing mileage rapidly drop into single digits. The opposite is hypermiling  where intense care is taken to Maintain high mileage.  The accusation seems to be that the 300mile range often marked for electric vehicles is a hypemile range not a real one.  The way to test this would be to hypermile an electric car and see what kind of range advantage is achieved.  People have done this.  The ICE hypermilers do get better numbers than the electric hypermilers but it’s not as severe as you describe.  Even if it was it wouldn’t matter though, because very few people exceed the 50 mile round trip per day required for your complaint. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Tomsta]

23 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Ive seen seen numbers 3-4 times higher that what you are describing.  The lowest one I’ve seen is 183.  The argument is probably “but if you drive on a normal manner the numbers are much lower” where ‘normal’ is racing.  ICE engines have the same issue.  I’ve got an older GTI.  It can get 20mpg if I drive it on the street, but if I pummel the thing mileage rapidly drop into single digits. The opposite is hypermiling  where intense care is taken to Maintain high mileage.  The accusation seems to be that the 300mile range often marked for electric vehicles is a hypemile range not a real one.  The way to test this would be to hypermile an electric car and see what kind of range advantage is achieved.  People have done this.  The ICE hypermilers do get better numbers than the electric hypermilers but it’s not as severe as you describe.  Even if it was it wouldn’t matter though, because very few people exceed the 50 mile round trip per day required for your complaint. 

Isn't that more the theoretical range rather than the actual range?

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Tomsta said:

Isn't that more the theoretical range rather than the actual range?

Range and mileage have to be calculated via a system created in the Carter administration I believe designed for ICE vehicles which includes a range of driving types and predates hypermiling.  So yes and no.  

Edited March 2, 2021 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

that laptop keyboards can/ be better than a actual keyboard

[Donut417]

8 hours ago, Tomsta said:

Hydrogen cars are a better premise than electric or hybrid cars

I wouldn't say thats unpopular. I think the only reason electric is catching on is they are having a hard time finding ways to produce large quantities of hydrogen that would be needed. Hydrogen would be better for the environment because electric cars create battery waste as well as potentially higher use of the power grid. Hydrogen would only potentially increase higher use of the grid if they use electrolysis to make the hydrogen. 

[Quackers101]

hydrogen cars be like, is it my time to blow up yet? also how about adding a 3rd network for different cars?

[Tomsta]

8 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

hydrogen cars be like, is it my time to blow up yet? also how about adding a 3rd network for different cars?

That's why companies are doing R&D to find a way to safely store Hydrogen in a way that's also cheap to mass produce

[pythonmegapixel]

9 hours ago, sub68 said:

that laptop keyboards can/ be better than a actual keyboard

This brings me onto another point - there are many things to dislike HP for, but among PC laptop manufacturers, they do seem to be the only people these days who can build laptops with a decent quality and feel to the keyboard. I'd take my HP laptop keyboard over the 'proper' keyboards that come for free with Dell and Acer all-in-one systems any day.

 

I've tried various others' keyboards - including Asus, Lenovo, that stock one that all the Chromebooks seem to have, Acer and so on - the only ones I've actually liked typing on have been HP. Apple ones used to be decent. But for Dell... don't even get me started!!!

 

I haven't tried any of the dedicated "GAMING" brands; maybe they have better keyboards (though they probably aren't optimised for typing at speed...)

[Master Disaster]

9 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I wouldn't say thats unpopular. I think the only reason electric is catching on is they are having a hard time finding ways to produce large quantities of hydrogen that would be needed. Hydrogen would be better for the environment because electric cars create battery waste as well as potentially higher use of the power grid. Hydrogen would only potentially increase higher use of the grid if they use electrolysis to make the hydrogen. 

Nah, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe (by about 3 times). The problem isn't creating it, you can create it with nothing more than water, electricity and 2 pieces of metal (and a benefit is the waste product is oxygen which is also useful).

 

The problem we have is finding a storage method that's safe enough to be useful. Driving around with tanks of pure hydrogen would be a VERY bad idea, we need to find a polymer that allows us to store it safely and still maintain its usability.

[Tomsta]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Nah, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe (by about 3 times). The problem isn't creating it, you can create it with nothing more than water, electricity and 2 pieces of metal (and a benefit is the waste product is oxygen which is also useful).

 

The problem we have is finding a storage method that's safe enough to be useful. Driving around with tanks of pure hydrogen would be a VERY bad idea, we need to find a polymer that allows us to store it safely and still maintain its usability.

I recall Honda making a Hydrogen car years ago. Why wasn't that put into mainstream production?; obviously they figured out a way to store the Hydrogen