SRK Lounge: More like turned on by Lesbian Seagulls

Negaduck · September 1, 2016, 11:38am

Just finished this Graveler. Had an idea for a background that I might drop him into.

http://i.imgur.com/hJNLCG6.jpg

Xvideos · September 1, 2016, 11:52am

I wonder how much lyft paid them to do this.

angelpalm · September 1, 2016, 11:57am

Lol imagine if that was one of your turds @million, brought to life.

Man there are people out there that really think Genos from one punch man can be motherfucking Gally, aka Yokko, aka the battle angel that is soon to be ruined in a shitty direct to dvd movie.

dab00g · September 1, 2016, 12:22pm

http://i.imgur.com/Uul6EYG.gif

Might be useful here

angelpalm · September 1, 2016, 1:14pm

@wasted why this dude pick the path of war monk(silver fist) that gives up the unarmed strike class feature to use gauntlets, ONLY to turn around and get a bunch(like almost) feats that only interact with unarmed strike. Then he turned around and got that greater unarmed strike so he could do even worse damage using his shitty feats on his unarmed strikes that no longer have the benefit of being treated as both natural and manufacturer weapons lol.

Mind you this is a mix of 3.5/3.0 and pathfinder. I am like dude, the shits are treated as bucklers, it gives you buckler bash and improved shield bash as bonus feat options, why are you taking dodge and fucking throw anything? Seriously? Buckler bash lets you shield bash with them and that shield bash does the increased damage, but I guess he is gonna hit people with chairs in shit. Told the dude to take the shield charge and shield slam from 3.5 along with Martial charge so his maneuvers can be used with charges and go to fucking town. If he decides he wants to be as useful as a commoner I am gonna leave this asshole somewhere to die. Fuck my alignment.

Manx · September 1, 2016, 2:15pm

Why can’t he just take Unarmed Strike as a level-up feat?

Wasted · September 1, 2016, 2:20pm

If I wanted to do an unarmed build, I’d just pick Steelfist Commando or Stalker. Or Deadly Fist Soulknife.

Wasted · September 1, 2016, 2:32pm

Unarmed Strike (the Monk’s scaling damage) isn’t a feat in and of itself, it’s a class feature. By taking the archetype, he only gets the scaling damage on gauntlet attacks, not on unarmed strikes.

The dude is probably taking the archetype for the maneuver progression, not that you can blame him, but he’s using all his feats to try and get back the shit he lost for doing so.

angelpalm · September 1, 2016, 2:39pm

you still get unarmed strike manx, just not the Unarmed strike class feature.

here take a look.

d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/dreamscarred-press—monk-archetypes/monk-of-the-silver-fist-monk-archetype

Lol normally I would agree, but since we are using 3.5 stuff this can get nasty very quickly. Those three feats from before can now make your strikes ALWAYS get a free trip attempt, AND make them dazed on a failed fort save. Just as long as you can charge you can get that. You gauntlets count as shields and whenever you attack with them now that shit applies. Then if you throw in this nifty feat with this maneuver from iron tortoise.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/charging-hurler-combat

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/disciplines-and-maneuvers/iron-tortoise-maneuvers#TOC-Ricochet-Shell

This gonna be you main go to discipline for your close range stuff but it also has a few sick long range tricks as well.

Ricochet Shell

Discipline: Iron Tortoise (Strike); Level: 4
Prerequisite(s): 1 Iron Tortoise Maneuver
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Ranged attack
Target: Up to four creatures within 10 ft. of each other

By hurling his shield at his foes with the speed and force of a giant-tossed boulder, the disciple of the Iron Tortoise bounces his shield between a few targets with rapid speed and punishing force. The initiator makes a ranged attack, hurling his shield with a range increment of 20 ft… If successful, this attack inflicts damage as a shield bash and inflicts an additional 3d6 points of damage and may bounce to another valid target using the same attack roll within 10 ft. of the target. This second target suffers damage as a shield bash plus an additional 2d6 points of damage for the second target, an additional 1d6 points of damage for the third target, and normal shield bash damage for the fourth and final target. At the end of the attack, the shield returns to the initiator who may catch it as a free action and resume its use that round.

Shit is gestalt too, think he has like the base inquisitor on the other side, trying to see if he would consider adding levels of this archetype for warder.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/warder/warder-archetypes/fiendbound-marauder-warder-archetype

Not sure if all that would be effective with medusa’s wrath since the daze effect only last until your next action so you wouldn’t be able to full attack the next round. But you could keep them dazed until you could make them flat footed with other maneuvers I guess.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/medusa-s-wrath-combat—final

angelpalm · September 1, 2016, 2:46pm

Yeah shit makes zero sense, I think he has all the boar style feats for some reason even though he could just use different gauntlets to get different damage types.

Million · September 1, 2016, 3:14pm

ah, so I guess youtube is excited to become squeaky clean like Saturday morning CBS/NBC/ABC in the near future? Well, I suppose the random softcore jerk material will still be out there since the people that post those probably don’t care about becoming the next Jenna Marbles or Angry Joe in terms of subscriber numbers. That’s still quite a disappointing change…all it will do is drive most of the more entertaining “personalities” out there away to do their thing from their own websites or podcasts, or a live broadcast-stream type of show like Leykis.

Reticently · September 1, 2016, 3:36pm

Why you may not recognize Clark Kent as Superman

Spoiler

(CNN )If you weren’t a personal friend of either Clark Kent or Superman, you could be tricked by his glasses like everyone else in Metropolis.
Even the smallest change to someone’s facial appearance, like wearing glasses, can shift our ability to identify them if we don’t know them, according to a new study.

This could have an impact as facial recognition, from software to passports, becomes a topic of interest for protecting identity.
Researchers at the University of York showed 59 study participants side-by-side images and asked them to determine whether each depicted the same person. The images included three categories: people wearing glasses, people not wearing glasses or an image of someone wearing glasses paired with one that wasn’t.

Rather than showing them single images and asking for an identification to test their memory, the researchers wanted to test the participants’ visual comparison abilities by presenting the side-by-sides. The participants were not under time constraints while viewing the images.

For cases in which both images showed someone in glasses or someone not wearing glasses, 80% of the students were able to accurately identify whether it was the same person. But that accuracy dropped 6% when comparing a person wearing glasses next to someone who wasn’t.

“A 6% drop in performance may not sound like much, but if you consider the number of people who go through passport control at Atlanta International airport every year – over 100 million last year – a 6% drop in accuracy equates to 6 million misidentifications,” said Kay Ritchie, co-author of the study from the University of York’s psychology department. “We hope this work can be used to inform future policies on face identification, particularly given the discrepancy between different forms of photo ID when it comes to wearing glasses.”

The researchers chose images of people who the participants wouldn’t know or recognize. The images were also similar to what we’re used to seeing on social media, including varied poses, facial expressions, lighting and background. Passport-style photos in which the pose or facial expression doesn’t shift between images were not included.

All of the images were in color and high quality, loosely cropped around the head and found on Google Images. Researchers made sure that images of the same person didn’t share backgrounds or angles or other comparable traits. To make things interesting, they also found similar-looking people, or “foils,” and added them to the mix.

Based on the findings from previous work, the researchers knew that showing people different images of someone they’re familiar with, like a family member, are instantly recognizable, even if those photos are over a passage of time.

“This robust ability to recognize familiar faces often leads us to incorrectly think we are good at recognizing all faces,” Ritchie said. “Consider the passport controller whose job it is to look at a person’s face and decide whether or not they are the person shown in the passport image. This is a difficult task because they are unfamiliar with the person, and the passport photo could be up to 10 years old.”

As Ritchie pointed out, people are allowed to wear glasses in passport photos in the United States, but not the UK.

When we look at someone familiar, we “just know,” Ritchie said. But when it comes to looking at an unfamiliar face, we focus on different things rather than assessing something identifying like their eyes or nose. It’s the classical “first impressions” idea, said lead author Robin Kramer, a researcher in the University of York’s psychology department.

“Some of the ‘key’ or fundamental trait dimensions may include attractiveness, trustworthiness and dominance,” Kramer said.

Those in a class of “super recognizers,” people like forensic examiners or those with higher natural abilities, tend to focus on the central region of the face, according to research cited in the study. But for most of us, it’s a guessing game when it comes to unfamiliar faces.

“While we may still find it hard to believe that the inhabitants of Metropolis are unable to match Clark Kent with the numerous appearances of Superman in newspapers and on television, we can at least understand why Kent has chosen glasses as his aid to anonymity,” the researchers said in their study.

Kecka · September 1, 2016, 6:39pm

Reticently:

Why you may not recognize Clark Kent as Superman

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/health/superman-glasses-disguise-facial-recognition/index.html

[list]
[]A new study says glasses can obscure identity if we look at someone we don’t know
[]This was especially pronounced in side-by-side photos of people who did and didn’t wear glasses
[/list]

Spoiler

(CNN )If you weren’t a personal friend of either Clark Kent or Superman, you could be tricked by his glasses like everyone else in Metropolis.
Even the smallest change to someone’s facial appearance, like wearing glasses, can shift our ability to identify them if we don’t know them, according to a new study.

This could have an impact as facial recognition, from software to passports, becomes a topic of interest for protecting identity.
Researchers at the University of York showed 59 study participants side-by-side images and asked them to determine whether each depicted the same person. The images included three categories: people wearing glasses, people not wearing glasses or an image of someone wearing glasses paired with one that wasn’t.

Rather than showing them single images and asking for an identification to test their memory, the researchers wanted to test the participants’ visual comparison abilities by presenting the side-by-sides. The participants were not under time constraints while viewing the images.

For cases in which both images showed someone in glasses or someone not wearing glasses, 80% of the students were able to accurately identify whether it was the same person. But that accuracy dropped 6% when comparing a person wearing glasses next to someone who wasn’t.

“A 6% drop in performance may not sound like much, but if you consider the number of people who go through passport control at Atlanta International airport every year – over 100 million last year – a 6% drop in accuracy equates to 6 million misidentifications,” said Kay Ritchie, co-author of the study from the University of York’s psychology department. “We hope this work can be used to inform future policies on face identification, particularly given the discrepancy between different forms of photo ID when it comes to wearing glasses.”

The researchers chose images of people who the participants wouldn’t know or recognize. The images were also similar to what we’re used to seeing on social media, including varied poses, facial expressions, lighting and background. Passport-style photos in which the pose or facial expression doesn’t shift between images were not included.

All of the images were in color and high quality, loosely cropped around the head and found on Google Images. Researchers made sure that images of the same person didn’t share backgrounds or angles or other comparable traits. To make things interesting, they also found similar-looking people, or “foils,” and added them to the mix.

Based on the findings from previous work, the researchers knew that showing people different images of someone they’re familiar with, like a family member, are instantly recognizable, even if those photos are over a passage of time.

“This robust ability to recognize familiar faces often leads us to incorrectly think we are good at recognizing all faces,” Ritchie said. “Consider the passport controller whose job it is to look at a person’s face and decide whether or not they are the person shown in the passport image. This is a difficult task because they are unfamiliar with the person, and the passport photo could be up to 10 years old.”

As Ritchie pointed out, people are allowed to wear glasses in passport photos in the United States, but not the UK.

When we look at someone familiar, we “just know,” Ritchie said. But when it comes to looking at an unfamiliar face, we focus on different things rather than assessing something identifying like their eyes or nose. It’s the classical “first impressions” idea, said lead author Robin Kramer, a researcher in the University of York’s psychology department.

“Some of the ‘key’ or fundamental trait dimensions may include attractiveness, trustworthiness and dominance,” Kramer said.

Those in a class of “super recognizers,” people like forensic examiners or those with higher natural abilities, tend to focus on the central region of the face, according to research cited in the study. But for most of us, it’s a guessing game when it comes to unfamiliar faces.

“While we may still find it hard to believe that the inhabitants of Metropolis are unable to match Clark Kent with the numerous appearances of Superman in newspapers and on television, we can at least understand why Kent has chosen glasses as his aid to anonymity,” the researchers said in their study.

Truly putting that research grant to work for the good of all mankind!

Joshkaz · September 1, 2016, 7:56pm

It’s already been stated why. Numerous times, since 1938
Why people still question it, is on some retarded level shit.

The_Damned · September 1, 2016, 8:07pm

(Meh. It is only a 6% drop as far as just glasses go, which is actually less than I expected. [/given people are idiots])

There are other vaguely plausible factors as to why people might not believe, up to and including outright denial like Lex Luthor believing that Superman was too powerful and god-like to lower himself to having a day job.

That said, despite not having read comics in forever, I personally subscribe to the theory at this point that basically everyone at least at The Daily Planet likely knows at this point since they are god damn reporters and, unlike pre-Crisis Superman, Superman is not constantly trolling or gas-lighting them into believing he is not Clark with “super-ventriloquism” or some other bullshit.

It is just…why the fuck would they tell anyone else or point it out? Sure, they are reporters, but Superman also saves their asses on an almost daily basis. Revealing that they know his secret would be like biting the hand that feeds you while simultaneously making The Daily Planet even more of a target than it already is given his connection to Lois Lane.

Lantis · September 1, 2016, 8:54pm

So you’re admitting to be a shitty poster now?

Not like we needed any confirmation or anything…

Starhammer · September 1, 2016, 10:05pm

@Xvideos And anyone else

In light of the upcoming fall of youtube, there are now new alternatives forming. Here’s a vid from a guy I was following on YouTube that should explain things far better than I can.

for a link to the site he mentions, here you go. https://www.minds.com/ They are still in beta right now, but the numbers are growing and will only continue to do so once YouTube begins to censor anybody they don’t like anything that is not,“Advertiser friendly”.

If YouTube ends up dying because of this, you KNOW what I’m gonna do. In fact, I’m gonna go get him right now.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/stormhammer/Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

-Starhammer-

ThePurpleBunny · September 1, 2016, 10:18pm

The fact that YouTube didn’t get GGPO’d by other video websites just for taking forever to support 60 FPS is a damn miracle.

mIRC · September 1, 2016, 10:21pm

Youtube isn’t profitable in the first place. Good luck to anyone trying to make an alternative.

Xvideos · September 1, 2016, 10:23pm

Every other social media website started under similar premise until they got big. Then they either sell out and conform, or they get shut down or bought out.

Minds still uses Google toolkits, what if Google just revoke their license because they harbor something Google doesn’t like?