#errors

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Errors, "Errors," and Sci Fi: The Nail Gun Gray Zone

I have more thoughts on errors in sci fi, specifically what does and does not count as an error. So I made a graph.

I'm a firm believer that at some point, your story will just be better if you bend certain rules of reality. A story with 100% realistic gun battles will be impossible for audiences to follow. One with ultra-realistic dialog will be boring and impossible to follow.

HOWEVER. Ice floats in water. Residents of now-Phoenix in the 1700s might've not known that, but it's hard to imagine anyone alive today who hasn't at minimum seen an image of a drink with ice in it. So GI Joe (2009) hinging a major plot point on a block of ice sinking in liquid water is widely regarded as silly and world-breaking. Same goes for The Strangers (2008) making a character unable to use her phone while it's plugged in and charging. Even in 2008, a solid majority of U.S. moviegoers owned cell phones and regularly used them as they were plugged in. Errors. Firmly.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have "errors" that only bug a small subset of your audience with relevant expertise. You can always count on some of that subset to take to Reddit and whine pedantically about a 10-round gun firing 11 rounds, but I doubt those count as errors. My personal example is the lack of a character named Surprise in Inside Out — I've studied and taught Paul Ekman's theories, so to me the fact that they included only 5 of his 6 "universal" affects is always going to look weird. But I know that's less an error than a pet peeve, because there wouldn't be much for the character Surprise to do that isn't taken up by Fear or Joy. (The sequel also has a Surprise-ish and a Contempt-ish character, so there's that.) Same goes for the water main not being pressurized correctly in Batman Begins — I'll take city planners' word for it that Scarecrow's plan wouldn't work, but COME ON. It's a sci fi movie about a furry who makes a living punching aliens. If you want realism, watch a documentary.

That said. There's also that middle zone. What I call the Nail Gun Gray Zone, because it really is hard to tell how much some errors are obscure and piddly, how much they're mainstream and obvious. Because. Nail guns can't shoot nails. They're not projectile weapons. Not unless the story takes the time to show a character modifying the tool to override the fact that it has to be pressed flush against a board before it will fire. BUT. If you told me "99% of modern Americans know that!" I'd believe you. If you told me "only professional contractors know that!" I'd believe you. That poll clarified basically nothing — roughly 25% of respondents had used a nail gun, ~25% didn't know much about them, and ~50% had only seen one used. (I didn't ask "do you know that a nail gun can't be used as a projectile weapon" because then anyone who read the question should by definition answer "yes.")

Anyway, I think that a lot of online arguments about errors/"errors" in sci fi can be captured by the Nail Gun Gray Zone. Most of us can agree that only pedantic blowhards would say that the lack of Surprise ruins Inside Out, and most of us can agree that it'd be nice if The Strangers had simply broken Kristen's phone. Nail guns? One person's "oh come on, that looks ridiculous!" is another person's "it's called a nail gun, right? so why not use it like a gun?" and I don't think doing more polls will resolve it one way or another.

[thatsbelievable]

[bethanydelleman]

One weird thing you see in the Jane Austen fandom is the persistent use of "Sir Lastname" when referring to knights/baronets instead of "Sir Firstname", despite of course that "Sir Lastname" never appears in a single book. Eg: Sir William Lucas will be referred to as "Sir Lucas" instead of "Sir William", which is how he's always referred to in the novel Pride and Prejudice.

However, psychology and logic say: if many people make the exact same mistake there must be a reason.

I think I've finally figured this one out. In English, our usual way of referring to someone with respect is "Mr. Lastname" (going to stay male here since knights are always male in Austen's works). So a person who has only read the book once/watched an adaptation once would be likely to remember "his name is William Lucas and he's a sir" and then match the Sir with Lastname because that's the more normal way of referring to someone respectfully.

That's what makes sense to me at least.

[jcollinswrites]

Error reports

PLEASE anyone who ever got ANY game breaking errors in the past 2-3 weeks (about hairtexture or achievements), try the game when you have time to see if the error comes up again.

The admins have made some changes in the website's running functions just now, which we're all hoping might solve the issue. If not, well... I'm honestly feeling awful for them because they have been thinking to just shut down the website for good if they can't figure out what's causing these errors.

So you guys would be a huge help if you could test it out, see if it works. If you got the error before and you aren't getting it now, then a "hey, tried it, no error" Anon ask is already helping.

IF you get the error again, then it would be super helpful if you could include technical details about whether you started reading from the beginning, if you used the save function (and if you did, HOW), and stuff like that. I'd also like to know if restarting the game makes it go away for good or not.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE (and I imagine those two (2) people who are running the cogdemos website, will also thank you from the bottom of their hearts if you help figure out the issue).

[fictionalred-photos]

Film photography anomalies

[mysticdragon3md3]

[the-ninjago-historian]

Finally! And explanation!

[apt502-if]

hi! where should we send you things regarding errors/typos/inconsistencies?

in the inbox or the dm please! thank you to everyone who has been sending things :> 100k is a lot to sift through :]

[oldinterneticons]

[ultra-phthalo]

When the G1 animators gave Starscream blue eyes and he became concerned about Bruticus.

[eretzyisrael]

by David M. Litman

Error #1: “Israeli air strikes on a camp sheltering displaced civilians…”

The Facts: In just the first nine words of the statement, the “experts” got two major facts objectively wrong.

First, there was one strike, not strikes plural, though according to the Israeli military the strike did involve two weapons.

The tragic deaths at Tel as-Sultan—180 meters away from the location of the strike—appear to have occurred due to unforeseen circumstances.

As the investigations continue, the most likely explanation emerging is that the strike ignited a nearby, unknown weapons cache, which set alight some of the shelters. The IDF has since shown aerial footage showing a rocket launcher located between the building struck and the shelters. Footage purportedly from the scene also supports this theory, showing what appear to be secondary explosions after the strike.

Error #2: “Reports emerging from the ground indicate that the strikes were indiscriminate and disproportionate…”

The Facts: Far from being indiscriminate, the strikes successfully targeted two senior Hamas terrorists, Yassin Rabia and Khaled Nagar. Far from being indiscriminate, “The strike was based on precise intelligence that indicated that these terrorists, who were responsible for orchestrating and executing terror attacks against Israelis, [and who] were meeting inside the specific structure” targeted. Furthermore, the precision munitions used were literally the “smallest the military’s jets can use” according to the IDF.

The claim about the strike being “disproportionate” is likewise contradicted by the evidence. Prior to the strike, the IDF surveilled the building and its surroundings and determined there was no significant civilian presence in the anticipated area of effect. The “experts” instead appear to be using an erroneous interpretation of the legal concept they claim to be experts on.

Proportionality is not a rule focused on the results of a strike, but rather on the decision-making before the strike is launched. The question is whether the anticipated civilian harm is disproportionate to the concrete military advantage to be gained. As explained by Lt. Col. Geoffrey Corn (ret.):

“In the context of hostilities, this is often translated into the ‘reasonable commander’ test: was the attack decision one that another reasonable commander, facing the same situation and with the same information available, would have also made? If so, the attack was lawful, even if the result turned out to contradict the expectation at the time it was launched. If not, the attack was unlawful. This is why the instinct to rely on ‘effects-based’ condemnations—to condemn an attack as a war crime based only on the civilian harm inflicted by the attack—is legally invalid.”

Error #3: “These barbaric attacks are a flagrant violation of international law.”

The Facts: See Errors 1 and 2. The authors are declaring a “violation of international law” based on inaccurate factual claims and erroneous interpretations of the law. It is worth pointing out, too, that these U.N. actors declared there was a violation based only on “reports,” without having engaged in any actual investigation or legal analysis. Worse, the authors omit entirely the legal responsibility of Hamas, which had embedded military targets in a civilian area near the shelters.

[kingoftieland]

X-Men: TAS was UTTER CHAOS from the very beginning! 😰

[zxlofttt]

IM GOING TO FUCKING SHOOT MYSELF

[toontownlibrary]

Top: The Duck Shuffler's hat features two cards, red Ace of Diamonds and a red King of Diamonds.

Bottom: Interestingly, the Makeship hat, as well as the distributed cards from the fun pack, now have an incorrect black King of Diamonds. How this happened is currently unknown.

[jcollinswrites]

Yeah i only just started playing today, an hour or so before sending my ask. So it's a new save indeed. Since you spoke about a fresh version, i assume the demo link on the intro post is the latest version, right? Since that's what i clicked on to access the demo!

I tried closing the page and then reloading a save and i got the exact same error. Actually even when i close the page and access the demo again, i automatically get the error message once more, and when i close it, i get a blank page. Then i reload the save and once i click on a hair texture option, i get the bug.

I guess i'll need to report it to COG too, right?

If you have any more questions or detailed answers, i'd be happy to help <3

THANK YOU!!!! That is very helpful info indeed!!! I'm truly, honestly sorry about this error. No need to report it to COG for now because I'm in contact with the admin so I'll do it, but if this happens in the future, then yes, it's best to report it to the cogdemos site, with as much technical detail as you can, exactly like you did here ⬆️

The link never changes, so it's always directing you to the freshest version of the game. Old saves can cause errors to appear if a new variable is present in the latest version of the game that conflicts with a save where the variable didn't exist before, but this doesn't seem to be the issue here. I'll see what the admin says about it! And thank you again ❤️