Yes, and i saw the movie in theaters, but do not recall anything about these countermeasures. However, this was a long time ago, so i tried looking it up and it isn’t anywhere.

I’m not going to watch the entire film just to try and assess your point for myself. I’m simply asking you to verify the thing that you’re claiming.

I’ll add it in this way to make it more clear for you: i also watched the movie, and those things didn’t happen and were not mentioned.

Where did you see that they had countermeasures for even a death star? I’m looking it up and everything about the plot conveniently has everyone grouping up for a conventional attack, only for a gigantic super death star #3 (planetary variant) to just destroy everything.

I’m honestly not even mad at that. What broke my immersion was how everyone was just flat out stunned that they would try it a third time, and with no defensive countermeasures whatsoever. They were caught off guard a third time

And that third time they figured out how to bend space lasers to hit every planet at once and auto win

Come on

I would say it’s really not about reflexes at all, and it’s actually timing based dodge mechanics. Anyone who says reflexes is incorrect imo. Good reflexes can allow you to avoid learning the mechanics, but that’s really it.

I’ll give you an example:

While driving in the USA, at a red light at a four way intersection, the stoplight will typically turn green after a certain amount of time. Each stoplight is different, and assuming there are no other indicators, trying to go exactly when it turns green is a reflex (unless you memorize every stoplight pattern in the country).

In Europe, when stopped at a red light, it will actually give you a yellow light before the green, giving you an indication that a green light is proceeding. It’s no longer reflexes and is now timing based, which is more predictable.

Expedition 33 is the latter timing based situation. Some enemies are more frustrating than others, but they typically telegraph their moveset (that you learn over time) and then you try to time a dodge or parry. For the first hour or two of gameplay it’s more important because your stats are low, but as you progress it becomes less critical.

To summarize, you really don’t need good reflexes, and you don’t need to nail the dodge mechanics to play and love it! It’s just helpful to dodge a few times when possible, and once you learn it it’s actually quite gratifying i think.

You just don’t understand Master Ken’s ultimate style. He’s the ultimate master! His training videos are unbelievable.

https://youtu.be/uvgAblhAjIA

https://youtu.be/vRu-6YyB-9w

It’s such a sad reality, and I’m sorry that you experience that.

I think part of it is the mandatory driving culture - if you can afford a car you will drive, so you only take public transit if you can’t afford to drive yourself. That, plus public transit in the US is typically only available in high population cities, and it feels like there’s little law enforcement around transit locations.

I’m sure there’s other reasons as well but it’s a really unfortunate situation altogether.

I’m tired and missed that, thank you for the clarification.

Yeah I get that. I try to stay close to the speed limit myself, but try more often to take the train or to walk whenever possible. I wish it was more widely available in the States and not a horrible chore to try and use transit in most states.

Thanks for the correction. I’ll edit it, though i was intending to paraphrase and not provide a direct word for word quote.

It’s a bit of a semantic debate at this point as to what constitutes a substantial difference in the context of competing scientific studies, but in a casual conversation.

I was under the impression that the original person did a mistake in the mental math. I’m not trying to critique how people feel about differences in speed.

I’m not debating that 31mph is over 20% faster, which is certainly more likely to get a speeding ticket. The context I was replying to was “25mph is the speed when it’s fatal to a pedestrian, and 50km/h is so much faster.” In the context of life and death, considering both would be potentially fatal to a pedestrian, those numbers are not substantially far apart.

I took that original statement to be an honest mistake in not realizing those two numbers used two different measurements.

Edited to fix the paraphrased quote

I think the math is a little confusing. 50 km/h is about 31 mph, which is very close to the number you’re thinking of

Edit: the person knew the math and was commenting that it is a big difference in speed, my bad.

Yes, but even then you should be referring to a single instance of driving to and from work. If you’re speaking generally, you would still use “costs” because that implies an ongoing situation.

“On Thursday, it cost $70 to drive to work” would be appropriate.

I think that the commenter is referring to the grammar. It should read “it costs,” not “it cost.” It makes it seem like they are referring to a very specific previous drive, but that context isn’t provided here

I think they meant literally, “it cost” as in past tense. If you’re referring to a specific, previous event, then it makes grammatical sense. But it sounds like he’s comparing the cars generally, so it sounds more appropriate to say “it costs”

Interesting stuff thanks for adding. I added an edit to address. Appreciate you chiming in

Totally fair, lots of folks have chimed in about it. Really interesting to see it’s over 100 years old (although more focused on ideal partner, not avoiding being creepy)

That’s really interesting, thanks for sharing!

Just for a little context, the minimum age being ((your age / 2)+7) is meant to be “this is the minimum age of someone you can date without it being creepy” (i believe it originated from the TV show how i met your mother)

If you were born in 1994 you are either 30 or 31. Let’s call it 30 for easy math.

30/2 = 15 15+7=22

So anyone who is 22 or older fits the minimum age concept, which is anyone born in approx 2002/2003 or earlier. If you decided to include that, the extra 4-5 years does increase the dating pool quite a bit.

I’m not telling you who to date, just giving a little context to the math since that’s what was brought up in the original comment.

Edit: Lots of folks chiming in with some really good insight about the history of the math. Thank you all for that!

Although the historical accounts seem to be math for the “ideal age” in a (probably female) partner and not “minimum age before it’s creepy” as it was presented in HIMYM, it’s really interesting to see how that equation has been used for over 100 years!

Reminds me of this

https://youtube.com/shorts/lNL3hJf3ydg

Totally agree with this. It’s hard to find a good roaster that isn’t charging a lot for beans now, but when you find one, it crushes anything you can buy in the store.

Even buying beans in local coffee shops, if they aren’t roasting them, you could be buying beans that have been stale for months!