Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Don't conflate my attempts to explain a (what I thought was, and what to most people apparently is) simple sequence of events and their possible implications with investment in the broader topic.

Technically I'm conflating one poster's opinion that there's no reason to care with another's poster's reason to care because neither are the topic of the thread which is in fact; 'beating the dead horse: why do people have opinions and are they all equally worthless when they're not the topic of the thread.'

Wait, that's not the topic of the thread?

Then why is everyone talking about it and how blunt do I have to be to get that point across? Apparently, the answer is *sips tea* very.

Don't try and be a mini mod, off topic conversation is against forum rules, if you think you're witnessing it deploy the little yellow triangle of friendship, don't post even more off topic content.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Don't try and be a mini mod, off topic conversation is against forum rules, if you think you're witnessing it deploy the little yellow triangle of friendship, don't post even more off topic content.

I did.

It just be nice if people could take a hint but mine was a while ago and I have a compelling need to point out when people are being silly.

Dunning-Kruger effect has a dash by the way. Right between the Dunning and the Kruger. Low-hanging fruit I know, but it's a bit ironic to be citing the Dunning-Kruger effect of all things while employing improper grammar.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Because the MCU is noted for *checks notes* dodgy SFX?

Oh wait, it’s not. At all.

Both 'Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings' and 'The Eternals' were widely criticized for a noticeable drop in CGI quality, and they were both major films:

https://screenrant.com/shang-chi-cgi-bad-reason-explained/

https://screenrant.com/eternals-credits-pip-cgi-rushed-bad-marvel-problem/

https://burbsent.com/review-marvels-eternals-is-unique-but-suffers-from-unimpressive-cgi-and-a-weak-villain/

Now these are opinions, obviously, but they are thought-out and well-supported opinions, and not some 'I don't like it, therefor it's bad'-nonsense. The criticism definitely exists.

Man, sometimes I wonder what it would be like if the press was reporting on my workplace like they do Sports and Entertainment. Hell, if we reported every workplace like we do Sports, Entertainment, or Politics the workplace might improve a bit, and I would have a much better idea of my prospects!


Alternate take:
The REAL story here is that a female executive got CANCELLED by a returning executive from a bygone era of management!

/S