Josh Harrelson

Shitposter apparently turned political debate team. Not politically affiliated. Following a political party blindly = cult mentality.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@EmpressElfiie Is “AI told me this” just the new version of “My mommy told me I’m special” 💀💀💀

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@hashjenni I think I remember hearing about an island that was fairly popular. The owner passed away, and Trump is apparently even familiar with the area according to reports.
Now what was the name of it again? Einstein Island?? No…not quite 🤔🤔

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@Rush_hourlyman @Lucky33865278 This note isn’t even the “OP’s hobbies include beating his wife now”
It’s literally about how a woman has been working there for since the mid 2000s

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@Detective_Roo It’s amazing how the woman hating crowd is gravitating to….Norse mythology for a defense.
PLEASE do me a favor and just spend about 3 hours diving into Norse mythology so you can see how asinine it is to use “Norse mythology” as a defense of misogyny.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@Ronindrake2 @Detective_Roo Correct. Loki transformed into a gadfly and bit Brokkr, causing the handle to be shorter which throws off the balance of the whole hammer.
Which is why a prevailing theory is that Jarngleipr are there to help correct the hammers imbalance.
Nothing to do with lifting it. Giants do

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@AlanaAerie @Johnny176851 @Detective_Roo Giants (ie Thrym) have stolen the hammer before.
It’s not some “Ooooh ONLY Thor can do this!!” Thor is just the only one capable of using Mjollnir to its fullest, thanks to his other magical tools. One of which being a pair of gloves, theorized to correct the imbalanced handle.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@RadAxl1 @Detective_Roo Yeah it also never says that he needs magic gloves to “lift” Mjollnir.
The Prose Edda states that Thor requires Jarngreipr to HANDLE Mjollnir, with the likely theories relating to the hammer being imbalanced which causes Thor to need protection to handle it properly.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@VoidDebris @suiika___ Yeah I had seen that thread as well. That’s why I started looking into 3D as well because a lot of the comments seemed to say it was a result of the Live2D ecosystem so I was trying to figure out what exactly the differentiation was.
Thanks for explaining everything though!

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@VoidDebris @suiika___ I can see that logic. I'm really only able to look at it from the end of what a client/separate service provider would see, and the concept seemed weird to me because (in this case) it just seemed like the client accepted 100% risk.
Is there something like code escrow for a file?

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@VoidDebris @suiika___ Cuz I keep reading things that are saying “Giving the file is standard practice in 3D”, or “Most of the ‘elite’ riggers that work with corps/higher profile include it”, but I’m assuming that’s due to something in a contract concerning the file’s use.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@VoidDebris @suiika___ Yeah sorry, it was just the first analogy that came to mind.
Obviously without seeing a contract this is speculation, I just think (at least in this case) the OP seems to have gotten screwed since they don’t have the file & their rigger vanished.
So the only recourse is restart?

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@VoidDebris @suiika___ That could very well be the case; like I said, limited understanding.
Im mainly attempting to understand the reasoning because to me this is just basic risk management.
Like if I create a website, I wouldn’t make it so that the client can only come to me for maintenance/updates.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@VoidDebris @suiika___ I don’t think it’s just about wanting a rig update. If VStudio or Live2D update (again, from my limited understanding); it can potentially brick the model.
So I just don’t understand why the OP is catching flak when that’s basic risk-management, even if worded poorly, imo.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@Bunnixia_ @WynterpuppyVT @Lychibe Your song analogy still doesn’t hold. A song is generally a finished deliverable. A rigged model is an ongoing technical asset that may need: maintenance, updates, fixes, or compatibility work over time. Hence the continuity issue that I’ve been talking about this whole time.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@AXwain @pawsvtuber It is; and for many “elite” riggers it is standard practice to have that included in the delivery. However, from my understanding, their contracts also specify what the use of the file is for.
It’s apparently limited to 2D where this isn’t a norm.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@DylanDyylas Meanwhile, actual data shows that people rate women as more attractive; with the average female face rated higher than 60% of male faces. But who am I to let facts get in the way of the grift~

https://t.co/jm4lTGCw0x

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@Bunnixia_ @WynterpuppyVT @Lychibe You’re comparing a consumable to an asset. Which is where your analogy fails.
This is where my analogy of a website holds better. I’m delivering a workable asset, not something you use once so you don’t need to ever have again.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@dragdoon @totochomp In the case of OP, their rigger disappeared. Meaning that for them to update anything, or if something broke, they’re starting from scratch & paying start from scratch prices again.
I don’t agree with their wording, but I also don’t agree with “The client accepts 100% risk” talk.

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@Subimaginati @OvereactingMark @Lychibe Yet we haven’t seen a contract.
Everyone is dismissing this as “The rigger is entitled to their work”, however my question of “Why does the client bear 100% risk & responsibility for this” still hasn’t been answered here.
Sans the contract being produced we go off current reading

[Josh Harrelson @LittleBellowski]

@Subimaginati @OvereactingMark @Lychibe If you're going to cite copyright, then we're discussing a professional business relationship. In OP's case, the rigger disappeared. Why should the client bear 100% of the risk and cost of that instead of having some path to maintain the asset they paid for?