1v1 mid to 5v5 is like checkers to chess, so I'd be interested to see if it can also master all of that.

It's curious how aggressive it plays. When you watch AlphaGo I think one of the defining features of it was that didn't look for huge leads because the margin of victory is meaningless. OpenAI seems totally different, it practices a sort of brinkmanship that is almost human. The games I've seen it lose were because of moves that actually did seem very human - it went all in up high ground and got unlucky for instance. I'd have somewhat expected it to evaluate doing that as an unnecessary risk when it can just extend its advantage in other ways... but then maybe it is overestimating the ability of its human opponents to keep up with last hits and raze placement.

A firefighter has no idea what he's getting into when he's doing his job and rushing into a burning building. He wants to go home after work, see his family, make it to another day of life. If he feels the need to pull his gun until he confirms the situation is safe, then do it!

You see what I did there? In both instances, ignoring protocol and going in with a loaded weapon is far more likely to create a dangerous situation than it is to save their own life.

Offering cops a blank check has resulted in many thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths. Meanwhile it's actually increased the danger cops face, because many black men (correctly) assume they're going in to a life-or-death situation.

In summary, do you hate the police and want to see them die? Because that's the only logical end-point on the path you've chosen to defend.

A couple of things about this scene:
Apart from some unnecessary sword/knife spinning, the fight choreography (according to people who know about these things) is actually pretty historically accurate (not perfect obviously, Arya keeps trying to cut with a stabbing sword)

But the really impressive thing is that while Arya is left-handed, Maisie Williams ISN'T.

holy shit she's a lying liar; it's so obvious from just looking at her; she's also looking down at her notes which would be unnecessary if she actually knew what the hell she was talking about

It was definitely dumbed down thematically though, especially from 1st/2nd GiG. While they were pretty pretentious (e.g. 'second order simulacra'), at least they were full of things to think about. The whole 'give consent' theme was as far as I can tell introduced in the adaptation and immensely cringe inducing.

What also irritated me is how they created a weird mish mash of the seperate Ghost in the Shell stories for no good reason. Why did they have to combine the 2nd GiG antagonist with the original movie's key plot scenes? It was just strange and unnecessary.

I don't at all mind the westernisation / white lead. Felt that controversy was nonsense. It's a Hollywood adaptation, why even bother remaking it if you're not going to have a new take on it or adapt it to be more familiar to local (American / English) audiences?

Same thing with the Netflix Death Note adapation. No idea if it will actually be any good but couldn't care less that they moved the location to the US and made the lead characters white. There are already multiple Japanese live action Death Note movies with Japanese leads. What's the point in another?

Could have done this in 2 words: Unnecessary Remake.

Part of the problem with unnecessary formula use is that the mother can stop producing milk. The act of breastfeeding lets the mom's body know it should keep making milk for the next mealtime.

If you give a poor person a week's worth of formula, they might just stop lactating. Then they're *stuck* buying formula until the baby can be weaned from the bottle.

I don't know how true it is, but this was part of the accusations surrounding Nestle's aggressive formula marketing.

@SDGundamX

The idea that anyone would chastise(rebuke or reprimand severely) someone they don't know, who were engaged in a normal private conversation (your example) seems insane to me. I find people like that completely offensive.

I've told many an acquaintance (someone i have SOME relationship with) why i might find a term they used ugly/offensive, but NEVER would i "chastise" them. It's unnecessary and usually accomplishes nothing or the exact opposite of what i can only assume ones trying to achieve. I find people who "chastise" as a way to go about it are generally high horse types who think they are better than others in one way or another.

I hear you, but the interpretation part is where I think the problem lies.

While you have a fairly benevolent interpretation, someone else who has trouble getting laid could read it as a god given justification to own sex slaves. That's a pretty extreme example of course, but you can imagine that there would be interpretations varying between your example and my extreme example, many of which could be used to oppress women.

When all that was needed was a simple "no gossiping in church" rule. It's a clear command, unmistakable and unexploitable for anything other that it's original intention.

So a 3rd testament would start with the words READ THIS LITERALLY :-)

Right now though - How do we know whether or not take the bible word for word? It's not even clear whether that is up to us to decide.

It's your interpretation that's made you decide not to read it literally, but instead to interpret it with the overall goal of viewing the good in the bible. And that says more about you being a good person, rather than the contents of the bible. I think you would be advocating living a compassionate lifestyle whether or not you read the bible.

That's why I'm thinking it's unnecessary to even have religion, when we can just teach ethical behavior, and ethical thinking in a very clear way, which leaves no room for error, or danger of allowing people to justify their bad behaviors.

No, it's not trendy. It's good taste hating on rubbish. The CGI that people hate on is lazy or unnecessary or both.

100% staged
Too obvious
Unnecessary commenting for camera

Meh....

I've been to bull fights in Spain (when I was very young) and Mexico. Also cock fights in Mexico and Thailand, and water buffalo fighting in Thailand. Water buffalo fights are very different than bullfighting though: two buffalo bulls lock horns and push each other around to establish dominance until one tires out and runs away. Injuries / deaths to the "losing" buffalo are possible but pretty rare. Actually, it ends up being pretty similar to fights that males would do to establish dominance in nature without any human intervention.

Basically, I'm not strongly opposed to or in favor of any of those. Cruel and unnecessary? Sure. But nature itself is frequently pretty cruel also. I don't feel the need to support any of these activities by paying to watch or betting on outcomes, but I don't really begrudge those that do. Often a lot of cultural momentum to overcome if you want to put these things in the past (where they belong?).

Upvote because this video was well done in technical terms, and because it makes an argument against bullfighting (and arguably other similar practices) to those that support it without being too abrasive about it.

there's def. that but there's also that completely unnecessary plot point and scene from the last one ostensibly justifying statutory rape.

Congratulations! Your video, Everyone Completely Loses It After Jimmy's Unnecessary Joke!, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 84 Badge!

Your video, Everyone Completely Loses It After Jimmy's Unnecessary Joke!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.