objective

MEDIA APPRECIATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY, GOOD NIGHT!

Black borders on white text please. I beg you.

I don't believe I've ever let an RT score sway my decision to watch something. I sometimes forget RT exists until someone else brings it up.

If RT had any sway on me I wouldn't have watched and loved Arena (1989), American Ninja (1975), Screamers (1995), Chopping Mall (1986), or Dead Heat (1988) just to name a few excellent viewing experiences.

Indeed. The RT scoring favors inoffensive, wide appeal over interesting but not-for-everyone movies.

People act like it's some kind of dunk when a movie/show they like gets high rating, despite the often useless nature of critics and/or audiences at large to reflect individual taste.

I just want a Dual-tex F117. It's not too much to ask.

First, we have to agree on what a plot hole is.

My definition of a plot hole in a story is something that simply can not happen given the existing rules of the story, or something which could only happen in an unexplained and if not literally impossible than at least so unlikely it is practically impossible way that defies everything else we know about the story.

This would be an item inexplicably jumping locations, a character having knowledge they could not possibly have, or a character or item being in two places at once. Things like that which gnarl the story.

What it isn't: A character making a bad decision, a character acting unusual (even to the point of acting out of character- that can be bad writing, but not a plot hole), a character forgetting something, a plot contrivance, an unlikely coincidence, something being unrealistic but consistent within the context of the story.

I commonly see poorly written scenes, or scenes where someone thinks a character was acting irrationally, or scientific or legal or other plot points that are intentionally written to serve the story described as plot holes.

With that description, I'd say quite a great number of works of fiction don't have plot holes.

The unfunny answer is likely that somebody tweaked the picture to up the orange, specifically to get a reaction. Especially likely since the reverse image search pulls up reddit as the first source, and reddit loves nothing more than beating a comedy dead horse. Finding pictures that were from the same event, people are noticeably less orange colored. Even RFK who does have an orange tinge isn't oompla loompa colored like in the OP picture.

Also community rule 2.

Yes Lemmy is smaller and doesn't have instantly fully formed communities. Reddit has been around for almost 2 decades. Lemmy is newer, smaller, and actively fights the sorts of shenanigans that Reddit initially used to get big.

If you want more niche activity, make posts and interact with posts. Lemmy is user driven- that means you. It isn't a giant megasite where you can just expect to be a passive receiver of endless content.

Both eyes open is great for the real world. Olympic target shooting is a very different animal. Don't think of it like normal shooting. Situational awareness is not a factor. Unlike practical shooting, tunnel vision is desired. Most shooters wear blinders to obscure the off side eye. On the aiming eye they often wear special glasses. They are focusing on absolutely lining up the physical sights, there are no optics in Olympic pistol shooting.

For comparison, this is what a more conventional Olympic headgear setup looks like.

Yes the hand in pocket is pretty common in Olympic shooting. Unfortunate that it was part of the list as it undercuts the rest of the valid observations unusualness of the setup and success.

This shooter was much more casual than most. Most shooters will line up with special highly stable, but strange looking stances.

Wet night time streets show up better on film.

I wake up every day grateful that I’m not into speedrunning.