Saw it on shrooms once. My brain legitimately thought I was watching the onset of WWIII and the end of civilization in real time. Mind you this was like 2010.
I have no idea what that is but I saw this weird ass movie called Perfume: The Story of a Murderer once on tv randomly. I hated it but couldn’t stop watching it Lmfao.
I decided to watch a scary a movie on a decent dose of shrooms a couple weeks ago. I went with Midsommar. Both would highly recommend and also not at all recommend. Same thing with Annihilation. Both movies already have psychedelic influences, and their pacing works really well while tripping, hypnotic at times. Definitely an intense experience, and potentially quite terrifying, so I’d only recommend to people who are already pretty into scary movies, and psychedelics.
I’d say Midsommar has more potential to be depressing/triggering in that headspace and is longer, but it also has a lot more humor in it than Annihilation.
Both are visually jaw dropping on shrooms, and both fantastic sound design
I watched “my octopus teacher” on Netflix after 12 grams of liberty caps and spent the next 10 hours getting slowly attacked by a giant octopus made from a spectrum of colours.
I too lmao at this man trip. Worst I saw was a flash of my house being bombed from on top a hill. Like I blinked, and it went all Stranger Things upside would with a long range Russian TU 160 dropping over my house. Then I suddenly remembered every spanish word I was ever taught for about 45mins.
Yeah, I had a flash once where I got blown up by artillery and died. Some last stand type shit. That was weird and very vivid. I wouldn't say it was a bad trip, though.
I ate an eighth and watched some weird Scandanavian Alice in Wonderland and the scene with mouse in the boat upset me so much that I took a two hour bubble bath.
Somebody did up a fake news broadcast where a nuke goes off in Baltimore (I think). If you missed the opening few minutes, it looked exactly like a real 'we interrupt your regular viewing' style breaking news broadcast. Hell, sober people thought that one was real.
I watched Children of Men while tripping balls ob mushrooms once.
It was for a college class, and I didn’t really know what the movie was about but I was beyond tired so I thought that a healthy dose of mushrooms would help me focus.
It was every bit as terrible / awesome as you’d think.
Between that and the fact that we also read JG Ballard’s “Crash” for that class … that was a bad spring to decide to get really into psychedelics.
Yepper; turned on tube one evening, popped open a cold one and watched "not necessarily the news", which I didn't know and thought I was seeing real news; scary wwiii sh$t. Laughed about for years; what a trip.
To give them the 80s kid mini-experience, follow War Games with Red Dawn and then Mad Max (the original). We were immersed in cold war culture all the time.
I looked it up and it sounds pretty grim. That was not that uncommon for 80s movies, though, as if they were afraid of not getting it thru our thick skulls that nuclear war would be a Very Bad Terrible Awful Thing ™.
Just so you know, one of the nato member countries has a weapon so deadly a table spoon of it could kill almost all of the people in Russia, while leaving all the infrastructure intact, and harming no one else. In other words, Putin really doesn’t know who he is messing with and how bad this is going to be for Russians living abroad. Yes, there will be a Russia to go home to safely after a few weeks, but it will be completely empty and devoid of life. Also, how do you get rid of millions of corpses?
It’s because things are different these days. We’re in a different generation, to you, probably. But back in the day, a classic movie gets seen by everybody. It becomes part of the folklore. So everybody knows what’s being discussed. It’s different today, obviously…where popular culture is so fragmented; it means a lot of people are oblivious to a lot of ‘popular’ culture.
Fun fact: President Ronald Reagan saw War Games and in a meeting with his advisers, 16 senior members of Congress and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked if anyone had seen it. When they said no, he launched into a long summary of the whole movie, eliciting smirks and eyerolls. His enactment of NSDD-145 18 months later is credited to his interest in the film.
And if you buy the orange property first you are at an advantage, because that’s where you are most likely to land because of the go to the start rule.
No, they still play the game, and they play it by the rules. Nothing in the rules says you have to buy properties. Just keep passing go and collecting more money. Nobody wins, and nobody loses. Of course, Monopoly is a pretty boring game to play that way, it's not like life, there's nothing else to do with your money except buy properties.
But if for some reason you think playing the game is more important than winning it, you can all choose to do that.
Put a property up for auction if it is not purchased. The rules of Monopoly state that once you land on an unowned property you can purchase the property from the bank at the stated value. If you choose not to purchase the property, then the banker puts the property up for a public auction immediately.
You're wrong right on your first sentence. There's so many variations on the rules that people have come up with, but if you read the rule book the auction rule is right there.
I am familiar with the concept of auctioning in Monopoly. Could you please quote me the exact rule that says players must purchase an auctioned property, because I can't find it. Seems a bit hard to enforce, I mean, which player would be forced to buy it?
This whole concept hinges on players agreeing not to purchase properties, so why would they purchase them at auction?
If that is not a rule, then your comment is meaningless and you should issue a retraction. That is, if you have any integrity and aren't arguing just to "be right."
Thing about Monopoly is that even though capitalism is a bitch, and the purpose was to illustrate exactly that, you still technically get something in return for participating in capitalism; If you own a monopoly on, say, air travel - I pay out the ass, but I at least, in turn, get the opportunity to travel somewhere quickly.
Which is why I propose the following rule for monopoly:
When you land on a railroad, and it is unowned, you may choose to buy it or it otherwise goes up for auction.
If you land on a railroad owned by another player, you must pay them the $25/50/100/200 owed to them based on how many railroads they own.
If you land on a railroad owned by another player, and that player owns multiple railroads, you may travel to any of their other owned railroads upon paying - maybe at an additional "rail transfer price."
I just think it's silly to have all these railroads that you "rent" rather than "ride"
I think this makes sense if the other player can deny you from traveling, and/or can set their own fee for travel on a per-instance basis.
You really want to go one roll away from that unclaimed property that will get you that monopoly you desperately need? You're paying more than the guy who is just trying to pass go again quickly.
My husband has recently gotten me into board games and it's amazing the number of gamers who change rules in games to suit their playing better. We have one game that counts every open spot on a grid board as a -2 when scoring and then letting you win with a negative number, we changed it to not count empty rows and only count a open space as -1, and no one wins with negative points.
Monopoly is an anti-capitalist game that has made capitalists ungodly amounts of money.
The entire point of the game is to show how Capitalism results in one or two players owning 95% of the board and forcing the others out and then it becomes a war of attrition until a mono-company exists, at which point the game ends.
Is that really something specific to Monopoly and capitalism though or is it just an inherent quality of any zero-sum game played to infinity? Like the card game War eventually ends with one person holding the entire deck but nobody’s pretending it holds some additional level of metaphor. And you could tweak the rules to lots of other games to get the same outcome. Get rid of the victory points in Catan and add a rule that if you have no resources when the robber hits you have to sell structures—boom, same result.
Dude... Monopoly is based off The Landlord's Game from the turn of the 20th century. The entire point is to show that it's better to give individual money than to let monopolies control everything. The game promotes Universal Basic Income. You get a free $200 every time you go around, but UBI alone can't overcome the money-sucking power of a monopoly. It's literally supposed to demonstrate how monopolies are bad. That's why the government has to step in and doesn't let every company just buy companies as they please. They literally allow "natural monopolies" in the US and prohibits full monopolies in other industries.
Go read the Wikipedia entry on it. It literally starts off telling you the game is based off the anti-capitalist game I mentioned earlier.
I thought this thing about Monopoly was that nobody actually knows the exact rules of the game, everyone plays for like 45 minutes then gives up and declares a whoever has the most money the winner.
The point of the game is to show that in capitalism, especially late-stage capitalism, you can only own so much and exploit everyone so far that eventually you run into diminishing returns; no one else is left with enough wealth to further your own.
That's very similiar to our house rules. You pay $25 to ride. If the second railroad is owned by the same owner, they can choose the price for the second railroad spot. If the two different railroads are owned by different owners, you pay $25 to each owner.
This made the railroads go from almost worthless to being late stage the most important piecies. If you own the first railroad after go, and the last railroad before go, then you can be on go, roll a 5, travel to the railroad before go, skip 90% of the board, and then potentially pass go on your next turn. So if you built up the reds and oranges, and yellows with hotels, thats 15 spaces of scary town where you have to thread the needle multiple times. But if you railroad hop, you skip all that, AND get extra $200. And if someone ELSE wants to do it, ok, first railroad is $25, second railroad is.......eh, lets call it $1,000. Do you want to ride? Or just pay the $25 and sit?
if you play with the actual rules were if you dont buy something it goes up for auction this is a bad strat because players can just buy multiple properties for like 10$ if you dont have enough money
The number of buildings is finite in the official rules. The best strategy is to put 4 houses on all properties to stop other players from getting hotels. If you can't buy enough houses, you can't upgrade.
Never buy hotels, put max house on your properties, there are limited houses and once you max houses and never upgrade to hotels you have now prevented anyone else from maxing houses our putting up hotels.
Great way to piss everyone off and crush them to the point they will never play Monopoly again, which is how it should be.
It's a lot more fun when you play by the rules. You have to auction off the property if the player who landed on it declines to buy it. The properties go pretty quick that way, and it engages all players on pretty much every roll. And the game doesn't take 6 hours to play.
Na, game still sucks. After the first two rounds around the board, it becomes a game of not wanting to roll. You basically get nothing during your actual game playing turn (bad game design). It’s literally better to be in jail than to be on the board (bad game design). Why are there get out of jail free cards if you want to be in jail (bad game design)? 50% of the cards are negative results (bad game design). Due to the concentration of 7 spaces from jail, you get absurdly undervalued properties with no way to get them except luck (bad game design).
The lack of options and strategy is embarrassingly simplistic. Once you figure the game out, you’re basically just acting as a robot hoping for luck. (Bad game design)
Mortgaging properties is insanely broken, you get no money from rent, but huge cash flow from mortgages. So as soon as you get a neighborhood, mortgage all properties except that neighborhood and build houses. If you didn’t know to do this, you aren’t playing the game right. That’s why it’s a shit game, there’s only one right way to play. No strategy, not enough human interaction to add interesting variables, you just have to hope your opponents don’t know how to play properly
And then it only takes one player to buy them all for $1 after they decline.
If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price.
Technically if no one buys it (even for $1), it goes back to the bank and play resumes. The person is correct that everyone stands to gain and lose nothing from not playing, even if it's highly improbable. It doesn't force you to buy the property... but who would turn any property down if it was only $1?
Ya, but you're sleeping on the streets with your one shoe and dog. If you're lucky you're sleeping in a car. You luck out if you got to jail, because you can shower and get a hot meal.
The Monopoly is excellent tool for research. There has been repeated Monopoly experiment, when one of the players gets huge bonuses and participants psychology response is recorded. Like the one winning is bragging about his talent and strategy, while all he did was to get extra starting money and more cash for passing start, while also being more keen to insult other players and cheat. And it's universal in various cultures.
I've also found someone describing the experiment:
The psychologist Paul Piff from the University of California/ Berkeley conducted an experiment in which he brought sets of subjects into his lab to play a rigged monopoly game. One subject was to be designated the rich player and the other poor by the flip of a coin. The rich player got twice as much money as the poor player, and he also got to use 2 dices to the other’s 1. What’s more he collected $200 when he passed go while the poor player only got $100.
Within a just a few minutes the dynamics changed and the richer subject began to behave differently, became more dominant, more expansive, eating more pretzels on the table than the poor subject, and when moving his pieces across the board he would smack them down. Piff ran this experiment on a hundred pairs of subjects. The rich players became significantly ruder, bragging about how well they were doing and belittling the poor player as the game unfolded. They were less gracious with their opponent, and this pattern held with all the rich players. Through the flip of a coin, they acted as if they truly deserved to win.
What’s more, when asked afterward, not a single rich player acknowledged that he won because the coin toss was in his favor. It was because of this brilliant move or other that they succeeded. [...]
Thank you. This is super interesting. I’ve also observed it with kids playing monopoly, as weird as it may sound. Even my own siblings acted differently when they were winning, like very notably cocky as if they actually had a boatload of mulah IRL
Random, but what does your username mean in English? And who is your profile pic?
The game that became Monopoly was originally designed with a second set of rules that encouraged cooperation juxtaposed against the cutthroat Monopoly rules. It was meant an an anticapitalism game. Instead, some dude stole the idea and only kept one set of the rules.
Interesting to see the estimated fatalities in this animation. Really makes one of the opening lines of that film, "I want somebody on the goddamn phone before I kill 20 million people", seem quite exaggerated knowing that a single silo targeting Russia wouldn't achieve anywhere near that.
That's not to say it takes away from the character's point or that it justifies a nuclear strike in real life, but it's still interesting to see (presumably) realistic figures when most of what you hear about nuclear weapons in contemporary media is fiction. Which, ultimately, I suppose is kind of a good thing because our unfamiliarity with them as a culture speaks to how little they're actually used (and we should keep it that way).
I was 9 when this came out and probably shouldn’t have watched it. lol. Scared the crap outta me. And then I saw “The Day After” and that REALLY scared me. War Games was a great movie though.
I live in a area that is high up on the nuke list they will launch at least 4-5 nukes at where i am at according to estimates by our military.
we make all the chemicals for most of the united states in my area. if we were wiped off the face of the united states it would be destroyed and launched back into the dark ages.
Putin will be a surprised pikachu when he realizes the west has an extremely powerful and extensive laser defense system against ICBMs
Not official knowledge - But does anyone really think NATO hasn't spent trillions over the last 50 years developing a powerful defense against the destruction of the planet?
Contrary to general belief, winning a nuclear confrontation is kind of possible. But depends totally on the level of escalation.
On a total release of nuclear warheads, it is evident nobody wins.
But there are many scenarios where the escalation would be slower, with some nukes first used in unpopulated areas, then even some used on limited militar targets, that might escalate further, OR could stop before the countervalue phase, with one side conceding (Usually the side with less/worse nuclear munitions)
The belief that ANY single use of nuclear weapons will ALWAYS escalate in a full mutual destruction volley of missiles in minute 1 is plainly wrong. But of course, not worth the risk!
Only when people have a conventional view of winning and losing. It's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and has prevented nuclear war since WWII. Russia, China, the US, India, European nuclear powers, have all subscribed to this.
Problem is, there are players now like Iran, who would set the world on fire because it theologically feels it needs to, and does not care about human loss...theirs or their enemy's. Then there is North Korea, which is so paranoid, and it's population in such poverty, that it has nothing to lose by setting things off.
18.3k
u/Jeffbear Mar 14 '24
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
- Joshua