Lafari

Question inspired by the image (see attached)

Is there a law preventing me from for example selling a baseball hat for $20,000?

Someone asked this on Quora: "I learn very quickly by asking questions. Is it acceptable to interrupt someone during a conversation to gain more clarity on a topic?" Which I relate to a lot.

Someone answered this: "Yes , it is very rude to do because maybe on a little further into conversation your question may be answered and if not then , make a mental note of it and as soon as you see an opening in the conversation - circle back to the point in the where your question fits in and ask it . Interupting someon while they are talking can cause that person to lose sight of they were want say and what thier point was going to be ."

But this doesn't seem to always work for me, and I must say it depends on the person you're talking to and the situation.

1. Sometimes if someone misunderstands something you said or that has happened or gets a fact wrong, they can end up going on a pointless/misguided tangent in the conversation and even can start getting progressively angrier on their own without you even saying anything, whereas if you interrupt and clarify the misunderstanding that can help to calm them down in certain cases, and to course-correct the conversation to make it more productive and reasonable.
2. Sometimes they never allow you a chance to speak at all, talk for ages on their own, and then simply exit the conversation before you would have any ability to respond to specific things they said earlier.
3. If they say so many things you want to respond to, it can add up to a lot, and you may not be able to ever get through them if you can't respond to them as they come up.
4. Making a mental note is often impossible for me, I frequently forget and need to address something immediately in order to remember it, unless I can pause the conversation to make a physical or digital note (can't focus on what they're saying while writing it) which people would probably find even more rude either way.

I've also seen lots of debaters, journalists and interviewers interrupting people as their standard method or style of dialogue, and it seems to work for them (sometimes people get annoyed at them, sometimes they don't and often do the same thing), so I don't know.

I would appreciate if anyone has any literature on why it may be acceptable to interrupt sometimes or perhaps a recognised style of communication that allows this, as well as any speakers who defend this practice and debates about the topic itself.

Thanks

HELLO amazing helpful Lemmitors (Lemmians... Lemurs. Whatever). I hope I can explain this clearly. I desire a pair (2) of PlayStation 2 controllers which work wirelessly via the SAME wireless dongle stuck into BOTH PS2 controller ports at the same time. This allows me to turn one off while my friend on the other side of the room turns theirs on in order to switch who's controlling player 1 for taking turns in single player games without having to throw one controller back and forth across the room. You may laugh but I have managed to find and purchase a controller that does exactly this off eBay, which is a ProGamer (brand) PS2 wireless 2-controller set with a single dongle that splits into 2 wires and plugs into both controller ports simultaneously and does exactly what I described. The problem is one of the controllers has a faulty analog stick that doesn't activate when going left, and I can't find this brand or this type of controller or anything like it to replace this set up. If you have any thoughts or solutions I would much appreciate it. Thank you 💚

And I should note that I'm unconcerned about the quality of the controller since my main requirement is for it to simply function properly and work in the ways I described. Thanks

Examples:

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (the book)

And before you say "alternate title", since these supposed alternate titles are included in the full version of the main title (even if it's usually not listed in full), how does this differ from "true" alternate titles that replace the entire main title?

Example:

Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey vs Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn

Into the Deep vs Yakamoz S-245

And then there's the standard sub-titles, for example:

Captain America: The First Avenger

(Sorry for my lazy title choices but I couldn't think of any others)

It seems like we have 3 things here: an "or" title in the name (alternate title which is included in the full version of the main title), a completely different alternate title that replaces the main one, and a subtitle following a colon after the main title. Are there different names to distinguish these different types of titles??

Also can we talk about how sub-title is used to mean closed captions as well as "sub-name" (sub-title used in this context)? It makes it impossible to search about because most people understand subtitle to mean closed captions, I think.

humane having or showing compassion or benevolence.

I feel like I would make use of it more if I could do it again. Maybe that's weird, I don't know.

Edit; To ask more of a question. What would you do differently?

Hearing the movie is getting bad reviews. But Snyder says the director's cut will be a completely different movie with a different vision. I admit Zack Snyder's Justice League (director's cut) was much better than the theatrical version and quite different (though I had mostly forgotten the original by then). Not sure if I should just watch this movie now or wait for the director's cut for a better experience. Impression Blend on YouTube said it was ok.

Copied from a Reddit post:

Platformer/3rd Person Shooter Hybrids

So I want to discuss about platformer shooter hybrids, and the questions I have about it.

Why aren't there more of these?

Ratchet & Clank is the quintessential Platformer/Shooter hybrid (as well as the Jak and Daxter/Jak games after the first one), but how come there aren't more games like it?

Here are a few guesses:

RAC wasn't always the most popular thing outside of the States, they couldn't surpass the sales of Mario, the charm of sonic, nor the popularity of Crash. They never peaked until they outlived their neighbors: Jak, and Sly, or now with Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart.

It's hard to fuse 2 genres with conflicting themes associated with them: One with colorful characters and cheerful worlds, and another with gritty characters and serious stories. The result would likely result in an "Edge platformer" the likes of Shadow the Hedgehog.

Aside from the big names, platformers were dying in the 6th gen, they were becoming less and less common, making a new platformer IP would definitely be something companies would not really want, on top of that shooters are becoming increasingly multiplayer based, with platformers being a predominantly singleplayer genre.

Here are some other 3rd person Platformer/Shooter Hybrids I know of (other than R&C / J&D):

• MDK and its sequel predated Ratchet & added platforming elements to a 3rd person shooter

• Blasto and Jet Force Gemini mix shooter elements into Mascot-style games

• Later Sly games added gunplay, but not much shooter elements.

• There were a few games that tried to cash-in on R&C, some good, like Metal Arms and others not so much like Ruff Trigger.

• Sunset Overdrive is developed by Insomniac, however is more action-adventure than platforming, like Recore.

• There are also some indie titles like Cloudbuilt and Onirism. I'm looking for more of these.

I have tried every single of these games, and even some others barely scooting into the category like Rayman, Automaton Lung, Splatoon, or Returnal, and mostly unsatisfied (though the two 3D Raymans are good).

Looking for more 3rd person shooter/3D platformer hybrids!

An example is that I generally despise Jordan Peterson and most of what he says, but I often quote one thing that Jordan Peterson said (in the linked video) because I think it's a good summary of why toxic positivity doesn't work.

People (who hate JP) freak out when I quote him and say "Why tf are you quoting Jordan Peterson? Are you a insert thing that Jordan Peterson is?" And I'm like "No, I generally disagree with him on most points, aside from this one thing." But they don't believe or accept it and assume that I must be a #1 Jordan Peterson fan or something.

I think it can be considered a partial agreement, majority disagreement. Or a partial agreement with a person you generally disagree with. But I'd be open to other terms of how to describe this in a way people can understand.

Also, to avoid the controversy of referencing Jordan Peterson, if anyone has a better summary of the same concept explained by a different person in a way as well as he does, that would be appreciated too.

Such as "money can't buy happiness" or "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Generally a false adage or something like that. All I could think of was "fallacious bumper sticker" which just sounds stupid.