One aspect of the story that I think people are overlooking are all of the aspects of the lore that are primed to be revealed regardless of the "canonicity" of this potential new timeline:
Zelda's Mother: The mystery surrounding the circumstances surrounding Zelda's mother's death, as well as her relationship with Zelda, Urbosa, and the king (the empty throne next to Rhoam is pretty noticeable in the final cutscene) are unaffected by the events within this story and will therefore apply to the storyline of the original BOTW.
Mystery Villain/Fortune Teller: This hooded figure clearly has machinations that were put in place before events of this game. Perhaps the advantage that this time-traveling guardian provides Zelda & Co. will lure them out of hiding, revealing to us the extent inner workings of Ganon's servants before/during the calamity. The presence of this character could even indicate their influence in BOTW 2.
Evil Guardian Egg: The presence of the evil guardian egg (as well as the one in the box) indicates that the technology provided by the egg (perhaps even time travel) existed in the original BOTW storyline pre-calamity and will therefore have relevance to the main plot. Perhaps the villains had access to time travel technology all-along, in which case the seemingly random decision to add time travel may actually be indicative of a larger plot that that has implications relevant to future storylines.
Perhaps some of the revelations of the alternate timeline become recorded by the guardian egg and carried back with it when/if it returns to the original BOTW timeline. Perhaps the existence of Ganondorf's corpse beneath the castle is found by OG Zelda/Link after they find the guardian egg in an epilogue. I think that pessimism and concern are definitely warranted with time travel shenanigans but there are certainly some interesting routes that the story could take. I'm choosing to remain cautiously optimistic and let's see where this ride takes us!
Hello,
I don't intend to blame anyone, just wanted someone to finally precise what kind of content is ok for this subreddit? It comes from the fact for some reason my submitted sourced post http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/35i9xe/distribution_of_labour_seats_compared_to_england/ was very quickly delisted under the pretense this kind of content is not allowed and lacks sources, despite me providing links to sources which you can see in comment section. Now, I tried contacting mods but all response I got is "this is not ok, stop reposting" (i submitted once before without sources and it was delisted too).
I let it go since it's not that important, I thought "well they don't like maps", that's fine. But today I see http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/35vxpd/xpost_from_rmapporn_areas_of_the_world_under/ topping r/europe. Which is totally unsourced. I can't understand why my content is not ok and this one is, and I hope you guys can help me understand.
So I just started watching the "second season"/"alternative point of view"/whatever it is showed in "Gaiden: Sword Oratoria". Just started as in I literally watched the first episode and that's it. But I already have some doubts about the consequence regarding "season 1". There is a scene in the original anime (episode 2? 3? After he is saved by Aiz, but before she started training him), when Bell checks out a notice on the wall surrouded by a crowd of people, saying Aiz Wallenstein just reached level 5 AS THE FIRST ADVENTURER EVER. Now when we have the introductions in the first minutes of episode 1 of Gaiden, it says she already is level 5 (and this is BEFORE she first meets Bell), and there are a few people on level 6. Is it my fansub's fu**up, or did they really make such an obvious mistake? Which version is correct? Thanks in advance.
I wrote an essay exam this morning, and thought r/atheism might appreciate a quote I used in it.
"what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of God" - Jean-Paul Sartre
For those unfamiliar with Sartre's brand of existentialism: his basic premise is that man defines what he values through his choices. The options available to him have no intrinsic value - it is only by choosing an option that the individual affirms it has value for him. Thus through his choices man is self-defining.
This argument is premised on the non-existence of God, but in this quote Sartre claims that even the existence of God would not change his point of view. Man would still have to make choices if God existed, and these choices would define him in the same way. This offers interesting insight into those that claim their actions are the will of God.
Because the butterfly and domino effect can lead to truly surprising outcomes + (un)happy accidents happen.
Sinds ze de diensten weer hebben veranderd heb ik allerlei ergernissen gehad met de bussen. Tijden online komen niet overeen met de echte tijden, ritten verdwijnen zomaar van de infopalen, etc.
Heb ik gewoon pech of is dit meer mensen opgevallen?
For Hayek, the market is a mechanism out of which the most competent emerge on the top. Why should this mechanism be suspended when it comes to inheritance?
In the Constitution of Liberty he writes, that there is "no greater injustice involved in some being born to kind or intelligent parents. The fact is that it is no less of an advantage to the community if at least some children can start with the advantages which at any given time only wealthy homes can offer than if some children inherit great intelligence or are taught better morals at home.”
As I understand this passage he downplays the headstart of rich children. Isn't his stance towards inheritance not incoherent with the meritocratic principles of his political philosophy? Wouldn't it be only logical to tax the spoiled and probably incompetent offsprings of successful individuals? Remember he sees men as "sometimes intelligent and more often stupid".. Shouldn't the market decide who's taking over daddy's enterprise? Yes, it is likely, that a well-off family with bright parents breed similarly gifted offsprings, but there are even more capable and less privileged individuals out there, who are denied market access due to inheritance.
I know Hayek is no friend of taxation as his political goal is to minimize coercion and he does uphold the values of the family. One could argue that the competent individual hands over the family business into the hands of their offspring in one last wise decision but in most cases, love makes us blind. The child does not receive control over the family business, because of their outstanding skills but simply out of mutual affection. Donald Trump is probably the prime example of where the malfunctioning of inheritance can lead us.
Would appreciate any hints to text passages to clarify Hayek's stance
You heard it right. currently i am sitting at a KDR of 6.3 with an average of 300 kills a battle and it is due to the Animu sight. It's small reticle allows me to telepathically predict where the enemy will move, without needing to use pathetic mortal detection systems such as eyes or vision. The animu sight also boosts my morale aswell. It taking up valuable FOV makes me certain that the moment i take off the animu sight, i will become such a good player that my first video would net me 30,000 subscribers. Adding the animu sight has been the best decision in phantom forces, and the game should honestly be shut down as we cannot improve perfection.
They tried to add the Anti sight, to the people who said it is too hard to aim with the Animu sight. however they do not realize the gift. This sight has cured my mortality
All the people here who bought this anime gun sight to admire its cuteness have precisely the wrong mindset. I, in my exalted wisdom and unbridled ambition, earned this sight to become fully accustomed to the lack of its visibility, to make its sight bearable and in fact normal to me, so that all the world around me may fade into a fluffy arena of vision inconsequence. And it has worked, to profound success. I have used the Animu sight, have grown attached to the miniscule reticle of its small form, its desire to be one with blindless. This vision has become so normal to me that aiming with any other sight now feels like seeing into the future, or into a paralell universe. Sweaty tryhards who aim with the Kosaku sight seem as little children who aim mere iron.
I can hardly remember the days before I became a man of Animu. How distant those days seem now, how burdened by the apparent shakeness of everyday sights. I laugh at the philistines who still operate in a world devoid of Animu, their mind useless and unempowered by the reticle of bearing Animu. Ha, what fools, blissful in their ignorance, anesthetized by their lack of meaningful struggle, devoid of passion.
Nietzsche once said that a man who has a why can bear almost any how. But a man who has a animu sight can see any tryhard, and all this talk of why and how becomes unnecessary.
Schopenhauer once said that every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world. Animu expands the limits of a man’s field of vision by showing him an example of reduced visibility, in comparison to which the everyday sights to which he was formerly accustomed gain a cl
... keep reading on reddit ➡I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
The nurse asked the rabbit, “what is your blood type?”
“I am probably a type O” said the rabbit.
Mentos
(I will see myself out)
The doctor says it terminal.
Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB
Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"
I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual
So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes
r/unclejokes for dirty jokes
r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC
r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes
Punchline !
Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub
Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat
Do your worst!
How the hell am I suppose to know when it’s raining in Sweden?
We told her she can lean on us for support. Although, we are going to have to change her driver's license, her height is going down by a foot. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here but it better not be a hack job.
Ants don’t even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.
But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.
They were cooked in Greece.
I'm surprised it hasn't decade.
He lost May
Now that I listen to albums, I hardly ever leave the house.
