I saw the button to fold yours but didn’t see a seam, so didn’t know if it was just fixed with some cosmetics. I really like bringing the stock in both for close quarters and even for being in the woods to very easily get behind the scope while wearing a mask.

I have a friend who got an MP5K and it is even better in close quarters.

It is a CYMA. In retrospect, I think a railed grip like yours would have been more practical than my SD, but I do like being able to fully collapse the stock.

If I can be a spoilsport, please, please don’t use lasers. Lasers introduce real world eye safety hazards, some more than others, but none of them are great. Especially cheapo lasers from aliexpress or wherever can sometimes be stronger than listed because neither the buyers or sellers tend to care. My laserbox is fake and is only an external battery compartment for the gun.

How is the scope working out? I assume it’s a 3x or 4x non-illuminated meant for a .22lr?

I’ve been doing well with a cheapo Monstrum 3x prism sight. It’s got an illuminated reticle making its usable enough at close quarters while being handy for primarily outdoor play.

I think the best solution would be to replace the scope rings with raised Picatinny compatible rings. That removes the need for the intermediate adaptors at all. With new rings you can attach straight to the claw mount. Something like this.

The other solution would be trying to hunt down a non-Picatinny riser which is probably going to be more of a hassle, and the new setup would be better anyway. Costwise I doubt you’ve save much trying to save that broken adaptor, or at least enough not to use the opportunity to streamline the setup.

Locktite on the next set of rings.

If it’s a round ball that’s .68 caliber, sure. I mean it’s a ball being launched.

However, are any waterballs even that size? And why? A waterball that was wet would probably jam up, so you’d end up shooting a dry one and it seems like a lot of effort to reinvent the wheel.

Rule 2. Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

I’m not getting an image. LW has been weird/slow about attaching images to posts lately.

I don’t know, but I do know copyright and patent are two different kinds of protection, so it might be useful to look into how you think the shape would be protected.

Copyright would be for a creative work, and the enforcement by the right holder is allowed to be loose in selectively pursuing violators without losing protections.

Patent is for useful inventions or designs rather than expressive works. Skimming the Theodore G Brown soap, it seems much more involved than a simple shape and I can see why it was able to be patented.

Just part of a larger example of a historical exhibit, but I like to think this model was imbued with a special personality.

The feeling of cheaply produced 80s and 90s cartoon productions. Clean, minimal lines with no or very little lineweight variation. Bright colors and distinct silhouettes. Facial structures somewhere between to 80s TV cartoon anime, which were themselves often inspired by American cartoons and not nearly as distinct as modern anime most often is, and American comic books as drawn by Jim Lee or JRJR. Big influence of technology designs from blocky designs like Transformers, and comics like Liefeld where guns or robots are just stuffed with nonsense greebles.

Or at least I’m trying.

Scary numbers.

Ah yes, the elusive they.

I was assuming filming was already happening or done so the movie could release in 2025, given The Penguin show’s obvious purpose as a public reminder of the Pattinson Batman universe.

Look at the guy in the far right of the original photo vs the photo I put up. He has a fairly normal skintone in the photo I put in, and is positively oranged up in the OP photo. I think he is a good barometer of the change. This isn’t to say RFK is a baseline normal looking person, but two things can be true- RFK looks weird and the colors were heightened, with one result being exaggerating the tone that was already there for him.

If you don’t want to see the difference in the hue/saturation/vibrancy between the photos, I think continuing back and forth would be pointless. The colors are to my eye, clearly tweaked. In the OP image even Ronald Reagan looks like he used a little spray tan. Somehow the deep brown-grey shadow on the side of his face took on a significantly more red tint, despite this being a flat painting photographed in identical lighting between both photos.

The unfunny answer is likely that somebody tweaked the picture to up the orange, specifically to get a reaction. Especially likely since the reverse image search pulls up reddit as the first source, and reddit loves nothing more than beating a comedy dead horse. Finding pictures that were from the same event, people are noticeably less orange colored. Even RFK who does have an orange tinge isn’t oompla loompa colored like in the OP picture.

Also community rule 2.

Stargate is pretty good. If you watch enough Stargate, Trek actors start filtering over quite a bit.

1 - It has been difficult, time consuming, and expensive to depict aliens as other than people in costumes. Aliens in scifi novels of the even of the past were often much more non-human appearing than the on screen counterparts.

2 - Many stories featuring aliens have elements of morality plays or other abstractions of human interactions which are ported to a scifi setting for the purposes of abstracting them.

3 - Some stories with humanoid aliens are wholly unconcerned in exploring the aliens as something truly alien, so aliens are simply different people more or less.

The “Bond is a codename” theory is something that very organized people come up with to try and make sense of things, when really the theory crumbles under scrutiny.

The old movies and most audiences were much more accepting of a kind of floating timeline where Bond seemingly operates from the 1960s to the 2000s without aging. The movies had some continuity but didn’t really concern themselves with details.

I think it is hard for modern audiences to wrap their heads around that. Nowadays we are so used to franchises at least attempting to be coherent and internally consistent. A new Bond outing would probably benefit from using the codename theory from here on out for the sake of modern audiences.

I think also older audiences were more forgiving of the fuzzy, sometimes contradictory continuity between the older films. Somehow Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery were the same guy and everyone just kind of rolled with that.

The future of Bond should tighten up continuity from here on out, because for better or worse I don’t think modern audiences are as able to just fuzz away discrepancies.

My idea would be to pull from the “James Bond is a codename” fan theory- which currently doesn’t work, but to say Daniel Craig is the original James Bond and all the Bonds after him take up the name as a code name. This can open up some possibilities and just make it easier to keep things straight. Old Bonds don’t necessarily even have to die, they can retire or be moved out of the roll. You can bring them back as villains, or make one into the new Q or something.