luciferofastora

He's a poor conman who got lucky to have really gullible marks.

If it's more serious misinformation, it probably warrants taking down the post, even if unintentional. The nuance would then be that genuine error doesn't immediatly warrant banning, even if the post is taken down.

This one is a mild and unintentional case with little implications either way. If someone were to cite this as "But this one you left up!" as excuse for a different, more severe case, the mods would justifiably say that it doesn't apply.

Besides, it's not like setting a precedent is as serious for community mods as it is for courts of law - mods can change the rules when a situation arises that warrants it and enforce them accordingly, make one-off decisions for special cases or admit a previous decision was a mistake and generally have more leeway.

...the precedent that people are allowed to make minor mistakes? Gasp THE HORROR

Seriously, this mistake isn't a big deal, no intentional misdirection and in any case, the quote is more important for conversation than the actual author.

Are you suggesting that rapid offensives - lunging out beyond your logistical network without taking the time to have your auxiliary force fully equipped for the task you expect of them - are a bad idea and will lead to said auxiliary forces putting in but a token effort instead of dying for an ally that clearly doesn't give enough of a shit about their lives?

"Nobody" probably isn't literal here, but I imagine some manager scheduling a meeting where they want a report on the game's performance and feedback during the beta. Some higher up is going to sit in for the first few minutes for the KPI summary.

The sweating analyst jokes about the heat in the room, the higher up dryly remarks that the AC seems to be working just fine. The presentation starts, the analyst grasping for some more weasel words and void sentences to stall with before finally switching to the second slide, captioned "Player count". It's a big, fat 0.

They stammer their way through half a sentence of trying to describe this zero, then fall silent, staring at their shoes. The game dev lead has a thousand yard stare. The product owner is trying to maintain composure.

The uncomfortable silence is finally broken by the manager, getting up to leave: "I think we're done here." There is an odd sense of foreboding, that "here" might not just mean the meeting. The analyst silently proceeds to the next slide, showing the current player count over time in a line chart.

Devs be applying like "Hi! I'd like to join your development team! My professional qualifications are that I've spent eight years working on a failed game!"

Of course, it won't be the individual devs' fault but I don't have any difficulties imagining that some of them have a harder time finding new jobs than people who were let go after the launch of more popular games.

Linux is free and open source software ecosystem. It's like handing people free brushes, canvases and paints - sure, removing the financial hurdles may enable talents otherwise unable to afford indulging their artistic streak, but you also can't really prevent anyone from painting awful bullshit. Best you can do is not give them attention or a platform to advertise their stuff on.

That's the price of freedom: It also extends to assholes. We can't start walling off Linux, so the best we can do is individually wall them off from our own life and hope enough other people around us do it too.

Isn't that paleontology?

So the only thing consistent about that is that you always leave it in a worse state than you found it?

If they're not a crank, you wouldn't point to being on Rogan as a qualifying feature. You'd find some more redeeming trait to point out instead.

Most foot soldiers would wear chain armor with pieces of plate here and there, and thats only the extremely rich who could afford things like that.

Mail was much too expensive to produce to outfit "Most foot soldiers" with. For much of the middle ages, most foot soldiers wore some kind of Gambeson and a helmet. A mail hauberk was the next step up, as it was still cheaper than a full mail shirt.

Plate cuirasses became common among the more wealthy in the late middle ages. By the early modern period, when the Almain Rivet (half-armour) became cheap enough, you'd see smaller professional armies be outfitted with them. But the common peasantry generally couldn't afford either for the longest time.

Its funny when people talk about full plate being 'practical' and 'realistic' when it was mostly a sign of status, ornamental and incredibly impractical.

As a rule, if something didn't work in war, people wisened up and stopped doing it. They weren't stupid, just because they didn't have the same wealth of knowledge thay we do.

Knights didn't want to impress and get killed, they wanted to win and live. No amount of status will help you if your opponents dance on your grave. If plate was as much of a liability as you claim, it wouldn't have become more popular, comprehensive and accordingly expensive over time, until Gunpowder started accelerating weapons development far beyond anything protection could keep up with.

You're right that full plate was often worn by heavy cavalry, both as a matter of wealth and as a matter of utility. Heavy Cavalry were shock troops, morale breakers, designed to make your (often not professionally trained) soldiers falter, break order, open gaps in their ranks to get out of the way of the thundering beast charging at them. The appearance added to the indimidation, but it also helped protect on the way to and through the infantry lines.

There were mounted heavy infantry too that would ride to battle, then dismount and advance with the soldiery, and there too did plate help protect. It's easier to confidently walk into a line of levied peasants pointing spears at you if you're hard to actually wound.

In either case they were made of much thinner plate than some pop culture depictions would make them out to be - about 20-30kg. A modern soldier's kit isn't lighter than that.

many battles by extremely well geared soldiers were lost because they couldnt out maneuver barely armored militia, or even just rain.

Most battles that saw heavy cavalry lose were because of miscalculations, not because the armour made them immobile. If infantry in good order maintained cohesion, but the cavalry kept charging instead of turning to feint, they likely got stuck in a melee where numbers would be against them. If they rode into heavy missile fire, no amount of mobility will magically let them dodge the arrows, but a good plate would increase your chances of survival. If they got stuck in the mud as sitting ducks, that was because horses don't always deal well with running across uneven ground, particularly with sudden pitfalls where the ground is softer, and even more if heavy rain and blinders impeded their vision.

Yes, bodkin arrows from a sufficiently powerful warbow at sufficiently short ranges and steep angles of impact may well penetrate plate, particularly the less solid visors, and arrows in general bear a risk of felling your horse, but some armour is better than no armour.

Like I said, if it didn't help in battle, they wouldn't go to such lengths and expenses to produce it and wear it to battle. They'd wear it to ceremonies, to parades and to tourneys, but not to war.

I'll leave you with this demonstration of mobility

Most mounted knights don't really need crotch protection. Their saddles had a kind of shields projecting up for that purpose. If they get dismounted in a melee, that might be a different situation, but even then, the codpiece will probably not be the weakest part of that armour.