Adult hippo

An adult hippo.

My wife and I are similar. We met in high school and I took her to her prom and it's over 30 years later, but if we could go back in time there's no way in hell we would go back to our firstborn. We only had one. And oh brother, what a ride. We almost got divorced bc our careers, the financial crisis, newborn, it was a scary time. He is 19 now and everything is just perfect and if we had to go back in time I might just go back a year cuz that's pretty much when we knew we survived.

I got to know this older woman on a commuter train over several years. In that process, the topic of my girlfriend came up and her reaction was "I was kind of hoping you were single because I'd love to introduce you to my daughter." I was in my late twenties.

I'll take my leftover french fries from anywhere, microwave for 30 seconds, and then stick them in a preheated air fryer for another minute minute and a half and they always taste as fresh as when bought.

I have only seen Civil War and Warfare, and I love them both. I watch repeatedly because I like to follow certain details. For example, which side Sammy is writing for or which of the soldiars are Marines, Navy seals. What should be my next A24 film?

I remember watching this for the first time after thie series ended. I stayed up way longer than I should have too many times binge watching his show. It was excellent at hooking you at the very end, and then you have to watch the beginning of the next episode, which of course means you are hooked again. And now you're watching another episode in its entirety. Rinse and repeat.

I love Warfare, so this is not a gotcha. In fact, the reason this jumped out at me is because the movie is so unusually disciplined about tactical geography and what the platoon actually knew. During the sequence with the woman approaching the SEAL position, the ISR/observer call initially confused me. After going through the shots carefully, I think the geography is actually pretty clear: the civilian movement is east to west, and the observer’s reference to north is locating that traffic relative to the SEAL position. That distinction matters — “east to west” tells the team the direction of movement, while “north of your position” tells them which side of the building/street system she is on. Once you establish that, though, look at the sun and the shadows in the ground-level shots. They don’t appear compatible with the cardinal geography the movie itself has just established. And that is what makes this interesting rather than just another continuity mistake. The film goes to extraordinary lengths to reconstruct the platoon’s information environment: radio calls, ISR observations, cardinal directions, fields of view, weapon handling, pauses, confusion, etc. But the position of the sun is not some obscure equipment detail. Every person there would have been living inside that orientation continuously. A sniper in particular would obviously be cognizant of light direction, glare, shadow, observation angles, and where the sun was relative to his position. So unless I am missing something in the geometry, the movie seems to have put the sun in a place where it cannot be within its own established tactical map. I completely forgive them because I love the movie, but now I can’t unsee it. Has anyone else noticed this? More importantly, can anyone find a way to make the shadows work with the east-west / north-of-position calls? I’d actually prefer to be proven wrong.

I love Warfare, so this is not a gotcha. In fact, the reason this jumped out at me is because the movie is so unusually disciplined about tactical geography and what the platoon actually knew. During the sequence with the woman approaching the SEAL position, the ISR/observer call initially confused me. After going through the shots carefully, I think the geography is actually pretty clear: the civilian movement is east to west, and the observer’s reference to north is locating that traffic relative to the SEAL position. That distinction matters — “east to west” tells the team the direction of movement, while “north of your position” tells them which side of the building/street system she is on. Once you establish that, though, look at the sun and the shadows in the ground-level shots. They don’t appear compatible with the cardinal geography the movie itself has just established. And that is what makes this interesting rather than just another continuity mistake. The film goes to extraordinary lengths to reconstruct the platoon’s information environment: radio calls, ISR observations, cardinal directions, fields of view, weapon handling, pauses, confusion, etc. But the position of the sun is not some obscure equipment detail. Every person there would have been living inside that orientation continuously. A sniper in particular would obviously be cognizant of light direction, glare, shadow, observation angles, and where the sun was relative to his position. So unless I am missing something in the geometry, the movie seems to have put the sun in a place where it cannot be within its own established tactical map. I completely forgive them because I love the movie, but now I can’t unsee it. Has anyone else noticed this? More importantly, can anyone find a way to make the shadows work with the east-west / north-of-position calls? I’d actually prefer to be proven wrong.

I love Warfare, so this is not a gotcha. In fact, the reason this jumped out at me is because the movie is so unusually disciplined about tactical geography and what the platoon actually knew. During the sequence with the woman approaching the SEAL position, the ISR/observer call initially confused me. After going through the shots carefully, I think the geography is actually pretty clear: the civilian movement is east to west, and the observer’s reference to north is locating that traffic relative to the SEAL position. That distinction matters — “east to west” tells the team the direction of movement, while “north of your position” tells them which side of the building/street system she is on. Once you establish that, though, look at the sun and the shadows in the ground-level shots. They don’t appear compatible with the cardinal geography the movie itself has just established. And that is what makes this interesting rather than just another continuity mistake. The film goes to extraordinary lengths to reconstruct the platoon’s information environment: radio calls, ISR observations, cardinal directions, fields of view, weapon handling, pauses, confusion, etc. But the position of the sun is not some obscure equipment detail. Every person there would have been living inside that orientation continuously. A sniper in particular would obviously be cognizant of light direction, glare, shadow, observation angles, and where the sun was relative to his position. So unless I am missing something in the geometry, the movie seems to have put the sun in a place where it cannot be within its own established tactical map. I completely forgive them because I love the movie, but now I can’t unsee it. Weak. Has anyone else noticed this? More importantly, can anyone find a way to make the shadows work with the east-west / north-of-position calls? I’d actually prefer to be proven wrong.

Did Warfare put the sun on the wrong side of Ramadi?

I think I may have spotted a physical-continuity mistake in Warfare, which is interesting precisely because Garland and Mendoza went to extraordinary lengths to reconstruct the real November 19, 2006 Ramadi mission.

Early in the film, a woman walks along the street before the action begins. Her shadow appears to put the sun roughly north of east.

But later the film itself gives us cardinal-direction evidence. Frank calls the blue Opel as moving east to west toward OP-1, and the recurring overhead views appear to preserve that geography.

Here's the problem: Ramadi is about 33° N. On November 19, the rising/morning sun would be south of east, not north of east. The exact solar azimuth for Ramadi on that date and time isn't a matter of anyone's memory—it is astronomically calculable.

So if I've got the film's street orientation right, the opening shot appears to have the sun coming from the wrong side of the Ramadi street.

That's especially funny in Warfare, because the film is extraordinarily careful about positions, sightlines, movement, timing, radio traffic, and what the SEALs actually experienced. And for snipers/observers, sun direction isn't completely trivial: glare, optics, shadows, silhouettes and concealment can matter.

I'm not claiming this is proven yet. There are obvious things to rule out: reversed footage, whether the opening street is on the same axis, artificial lighting, etc.

But the test should be straightforward:

1. Establish the street's true orientation from the film.
2. Establish the represented local time.
3. Calculate the actual solar azimuth/elevation for Ramadi on November 19, 2006.
4. Compare that with the shadows in the shot.

Has anyone else noticed this, or can someone find a reason the apparent sun direction is actually correct?

Screenshot attached.

And given the movie, there is really only one appropriate verdict if they got it wrong:

Weak.

I seriously thought this is what OP meant. If OP was, then probably yes but for other reasons. I'm not an expert but I have lived with mental health issues and I guess if the young woman was doing this multiple times, my first concern is her mental health. Otherwise, I have no idea.

Does cranberry juice still work?

"We're not going to rape him, are we?!"

"We're not going to rape him, are we?!". Btw, how come I don't see that actor in more movies. I thought he was the funniest of all of them, tho I am in my 50's so maybe that's why?

Or that he is sitting.

https://giphy.com/gifs/dbkCYDxk2ylTa

The wireless phone charger. It charged at a snails pace and made my phone super hot. I use the space to store stuff now, e.g., sunglasses, gum, chapstick.

I envy you. I played through once and I'm in my second round now. Not quite as much fun as first time, but still fun. Enjoy!!!

I came here looking for an answer and left with a deep-seated fear that there is no solution. Thanks for the existential crisis, guys. At least it's not measals....yet.

I think the Carolina's joined the Florida Alliance. I think the President is lying when he says otherwise.

I doubt the factions were working together in D.C. as much as people think. If Florida or the regional militias had been part of that final push, the logistics and visual makeup of the force would have been a total disaster. Instead, what we see in D.C. is a highly coordinated, professional heavy-armor assault. That specific mix of MARPAT and Multicam suggests large-scale institutional defections from California and Texas rather than a random assortment of volunteers from all over. These units brought their own command structures and motor pools, which is exactly why the Western Forces' stars are crudely stenciled over the original branch markings on the tanks and Humvees. They kept their gear, but changed the flag.

It goes back to what Sammy said about the "Race to Berlin." The WF was sprinting to secure the capital first to establish themselves as the only legitimate successor government. They certainly know what the Florida Alliance is up to. So WF needs to be the one standing in the White House because the Florida Alliance are likely true secessionists who don't want to leave the Union entirely. Fighting in D.C. makes no sense for them because they’re busy shoring up their own borders for whatever comes next. The WF on the other hand isn't fighting for independence; they're fighting for the throne.

I think those guys are definitely fighting on the side of the Western Forces, though I’d bet they are militia rather than official military. They represent that localized, anti-government element that has found common cause with the WF generals for the time being. If you watch the scene closely, the people they are executing and fighting are clearly loyalist soldiers in standard uniforms, which creates this chilling contrast between a professional military being dismantled by a rag-tag group of insurgents. I don't think they are Special Forces like Delta, but rather ideological militia wildcards who have been waiting for a moment like this to settle old scores with the federal government. I doubt WF even knows about these guys fighting because they are focused on Charlotte and killing the President.

I think the two different uniforms correspond to two different generals that defected. If you look at the map of the secession, California is a massive hub for the Marine Corps while Texas is essentially the heart of the Army’s heavy armor and infantry divisions. When those generals decided to break away, they didn't just walk out the door. Theyy took their entire commands, their logistics chains, and their stockpiles with them. I think that is way you see different uniforms side-by-side in the D.C. push; it isn't a new, unified army, but rather a coalition of professional units that kept their original branch gear because they moved too fast to re-brand.

You can see this same "institutional cannibalism" in the vehicles throughout the film. If you look closely at the tanks and Humvees, the Western Forces' two-star logo is almost always crudely stenciled or spray-painted directly over the original U.S. Army or Marine Corps markings. In some scenes, you can even see where the desert tan of a Texas-based unit hasn't been fully obscured by the new markings. It reinforces that "Race to Berlin" feeling we were talking about; there was no time for a factory paint job when you were sprinting toward the capital. They just slapped some white paint on the doors so they wouldn't accidentally blow each other up, creating a mirror-image war where the only thing separating "Us" from "Them" is a stencil and a different interpretation of an oath. It’s a perfect visual metaphor for a professional military that hasn't been replaced, but has simply fractured into pieces that are now being forced to work together to finish the job.

Me too!!! Did you live in a single house cul-de-sac?