author
stringlengths 3
20
| body
stringlengths 12
18.4k
| normalizedBody
stringlengths 13
17.9k
| subreddit
stringlengths 2
24
| subreddit_id
stringlengths 4
8
| id
stringlengths 3
7
| content
stringlengths 3
17.9k
| summary
stringlengths 1
7.54k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aldeberon | The user who started r/atheism in the first place (his name escapes me at the moment) had a very hands-off approach to moderating the sub, so it allowed almost anything.
However, he was so hands-off that he hadn't logged in for a year, so two of the mods over there told reddit that they wanted to take over the sub. They got control of it and immediately eliminated any and all memes (or, as they called them may-mays - because anyone who actually liked memes was a child) without getting input from the community.
The reason was that the memes were like quick soundbites and got a lot of karma; and, as a result, were the things that usually got the the top of r/all.
The upshot was that r/atheism split into a couple factions (atheismrebooted and a couple other subs were started for people who wanted the old style). Then, r/atheism lost it's place as a default subreddit.
tl;dr memes were taken away from r/atheism without community input because they were seen as 'easy' karma. Sounds familiar, no? | The user who started r/atheism in the first place (his name escapes me at the moment) had a very hands-off approach to moderating the sub, so it allowed almost anything.
However, he was so hands-off that he hadn't logged in for a year, so two of the mods over there told reddit that they wanted to take over the sub. They got control of it and immediately eliminated any and all memes (or, as they called them may-mays - because anyone who actually liked memes was a child) without getting input from the community.
The reason was that the memes were like quick soundbites and got a lot of karma; and, as a result, were the things that usually got the the top of r/all.
The upshot was that r/atheism split into a couple factions (atheismrebooted and a couple other subs were started for people who wanted the old style). Then, r/atheism lost it's place as a default subreddit.
tl;dr memes were taken away from r/atheism without community input because they were seen as 'easy' karma. Sounds familiar, no?
| AdviceAnimals | t5_2s7tt | chrbu3v | The user who started r/atheism in the first place (his name escapes me at the moment) had a very hands-off approach to moderating the sub, so it allowed almost anything.
However, he was so hands-off that he hadn't logged in for a year, so two of the mods over there told reddit that they wanted to take over the sub. They got control of it and immediately eliminated any and all memes (or, as they called them may-mays - because anyone who actually liked memes was a child) without getting input from the community.
The reason was that the memes were like quick soundbites and got a lot of karma; and, as a result, were the things that usually got the the top of r/all.
The upshot was that r/atheism split into a couple factions (atheismrebooted and a couple other subs were started for people who wanted the old style). Then, r/atheism lost it's place as a default subreddit. | memes were taken away from r/atheism without community input because they were seen as 'easy' karma. Sounds familiar, no? |
chadgruesome | Reddit rallies behind net neutrality, meanwhile mods filter out a meme.
I was never a huge fan of it, but also never hated it. Why not let the upvotes decide what memes can be on here?
EDIT: tl;dr fuck this. | Reddit rallies behind net neutrality, meanwhile mods filter out a meme.
I was never a huge fan of it, but also never hated it. Why not let the upvotes decide what memes can be on here?
EDIT: tl;dr fuck this.
| AdviceAnimals | t5_2s7tt | chr96ph | Reddit rallies behind net neutrality, meanwhile mods filter out a meme.
I was never a huge fan of it, but also never hated it. Why not let the upvotes decide what memes can be on here?
EDIT: | fuck this. |
suprluigibro | I recommend Tiny Tina's Attack on Dragon Keep. It's the most expansive and really funny in my opinion. That said, there are MAJOR spoilers in it so only play after finishing the main story.
Second place for me would be Captain Scarlets DLC, even if its just for the Sand Hawk SMG and Pimpernel sniper.
Torgue's Campain of Carnage was a lot of fun if not a little short and repetitive. Mr. Torgue is fking hilarious though.
**TL:DR Tiny Tina's for longest story, Scarlet's for best weapons, Torgue's for the funniest.** | I recommend Tiny Tina's Attack on Dragon Keep. It's the most expansive and really funny in my opinion. That said, there are MAJOR spoilers in it so only play after finishing the main story.
Second place for me would be Captain Scarlets DLC, even if its just for the Sand Hawk SMG and Pimpernel sniper.
Torgue's Campain of Carnage was a lot of fun if not a little short and repetitive. Mr. Torgue is fking hilarious though.
TL:DR Tiny Tina's for longest story, Scarlet's for best weapons, Torgue's for the funniest.
| Borderlands2 | t5_2spu9 | chr2tbl | I recommend Tiny Tina's Attack on Dragon Keep. It's the most expansive and really funny in my opinion. That said, there are MAJOR spoilers in it so only play after finishing the main story.
Second place for me would be Captain Scarlets DLC, even if its just for the Sand Hawk SMG and Pimpernel sniper.
Torgue's Campain of Carnage was a lot of fun if not a little short and repetitive. Mr. Torgue is fking hilarious though. | Tiny Tina's for longest story, Scarlet's for best weapons, Torgue's for the funniest. |
ProjectSevan | What I have seen as the general consensus is not to craft while leveling if you like money, and you can get gear just fine from questing.
However, as a tank or healer, by level 20 at the first dungeon you really want to be in full support gear, and you can't always keep up with that because not every quest reward gives you a choice, so crafting helps keeping 2 sets of gear up to date.
Also, I like to level through pvp and dungeons and find questing boring, so I won't be getting many quest rewards, see above.
If you plan on going straight dps, or not doing dungeons until later (which I don't reccommend because they help with learning mechanics) then ignoring crafting is fine.
TL;DR: As a tank/healer support gear is easier to craft than find, but most people don't tank or heal. | What I have seen as the general consensus is not to craft while leveling if you like money, and you can get gear just fine from questing.
However, as a tank or healer, by level 20 at the first dungeon you really want to be in full support gear, and you can't always keep up with that because not every quest reward gives you a choice, so crafting helps keeping 2 sets of gear up to date.
Also, I like to level through pvp and dungeons and find questing boring, so I won't be getting many quest rewards, see above.
If you plan on going straight dps, or not doing dungeons until later (which I don't reccommend because they help with learning mechanics) then ignoring crafting is fine.
TL;DR: As a tank/healer support gear is easier to craft than find, but most people don't tank or heal.
| WildStar | t5_2sqwc | chraf28 | What I have seen as the general consensus is not to craft while leveling if you like money, and you can get gear just fine from questing.
However, as a tank or healer, by level 20 at the first dungeon you really want to be in full support gear, and you can't always keep up with that because not every quest reward gives you a choice, so crafting helps keeping 2 sets of gear up to date.
Also, I like to level through pvp and dungeons and find questing boring, so I won't be getting many quest rewards, see above.
If you plan on going straight dps, or not doing dungeons until later (which I don't reccommend because they help with learning mechanics) then ignoring crafting is fine. | As a tank/healer support gear is easier to craft than find, but most people don't tank or heal. |
wcbx | What is the leftist standard of "bigness" or "giantness" for a corporation? I have heard "20 people", "50 people", "500 people" and even "it depends". Any sort of universal size limit for a voluntary corporation is arbitrary and subjective. There is no such thing as an objective point at which a corporation becomes "too big". It is absurd to say that a corporation of 50 people should become illegal as soon as it gains one more person. It is equally absurd to forbid two people from joining; and likewise up to infinity. It is a non-violent, voluntary association of individuals. To advocate an enforced limit on the number of individuals in a corporation is to advocate the initiation of violence on non-violent people.
The free market can regulate the size of corporations without the need for arbitrary standards or limits. This is done through the profit mechanism. In general, one organization can only efficiently do so much. If the corporation wants to reap profits, the maximum size of the corporation is the size that allows it to create the most value for the consumers. Any size that hinders its ability to create value will result in a loss of profits, and if the size hinders its ability enough, it will result in losses. The corporation experiencing losses will then need to downsize.
tl;dr: All enforced limits of corporation size must be arbitrary. The free market regulates the size of corporations through profits and losses.
| What is the leftist standard of "bigness" or "giantness" for a corporation? I have heard "20 people", "50 people", "500 people" and even "it depends". Any sort of universal size limit for a voluntary corporation is arbitrary and subjective. There is no such thing as an objective point at which a corporation becomes "too big". It is absurd to say that a corporation of 50 people should become illegal as soon as it gains one more person. It is equally absurd to forbid two people from joining; and likewise up to infinity. It is a non-violent, voluntary association of individuals. To advocate an enforced limit on the number of individuals in a corporation is to advocate the initiation of violence on non-violent people.
The free market can regulate the size of corporations without the need for arbitrary standards or limits. This is done through the profit mechanism. In general, one organization can only efficiently do so much. If the corporation wants to reap profits, the maximum size of the corporation is the size that allows it to create the most value for the consumers. Any size that hinders its ability to create value will result in a loss of profits, and if the size hinders its ability enough, it will result in losses. The corporation experiencing losses will then need to downsize.
tl;dr: All enforced limits of corporation size must be arbitrary. The free market regulates the size of corporations through profits and losses.
| Anarcho_Capitalism | t5_2qorf | chrrcfg | What is the leftist standard of "bigness" or "giantness" for a corporation? I have heard "20 people", "50 people", "500 people" and even "it depends". Any sort of universal size limit for a voluntary corporation is arbitrary and subjective. There is no such thing as an objective point at which a corporation becomes "too big". It is absurd to say that a corporation of 50 people should become illegal as soon as it gains one more person. It is equally absurd to forbid two people from joining; and likewise up to infinity. It is a non-violent, voluntary association of individuals. To advocate an enforced limit on the number of individuals in a corporation is to advocate the initiation of violence on non-violent people.
The free market can regulate the size of corporations without the need for arbitrary standards or limits. This is done through the profit mechanism. In general, one organization can only efficiently do so much. If the corporation wants to reap profits, the maximum size of the corporation is the size that allows it to create the most value for the consumers. Any size that hinders its ability to create value will result in a loss of profits, and if the size hinders its ability enough, it will result in losses. The corporation experiencing losses will then need to downsize. | All enforced limits of corporation size must be arbitrary. The free market regulates the size of corporations through profits and losses. |
DemRocks | I understand, sir, and I'm sure that it's not easy. However, I'm trying to stand up for you and would be happier if you stayed. Make yourself a new goal, or such. It's a lot easier for people to walk over you than to compliment you for your kindness, which is why there are few people, but we need kind people to stay. We can't make you stay, but please consider this - if we can get the nice people to stick around, it'll be good for the F2P players who look at P2P and say "Ooh, there are generous people in P2P" or "There are helpful players in P2P, I'll stick around".
tl;dr please consider staying, but leaving is your choice. | I understand, sir, and I'm sure that it's not easy. However, I'm trying to stand up for you and would be happier if you stayed. Make yourself a new goal, or such. It's a lot easier for people to walk over you than to compliment you for your kindness, which is why there are few people, but we need kind people to stay. We can't make you stay, but please consider this - if we can get the nice people to stick around, it'll be good for the F2P players who look at P2P and say "Ooh, there are generous people in P2P" or "There are helpful players in P2P, I'll stick around".
tl;dr please consider staying, but leaving is your choice.
| 2007scape | t5_2wbww | chrg6ac | I understand, sir, and I'm sure that it's not easy. However, I'm trying to stand up for you and would be happier if you stayed. Make yourself a new goal, or such. It's a lot easier for people to walk over you than to compliment you for your kindness, which is why there are few people, but we need kind people to stay. We can't make you stay, but please consider this - if we can get the nice people to stick around, it'll be good for the F2P players who look at P2P and say "Ooh, there are generous people in P2P" or "There are helpful players in P2P, I'll stick around". | please consider staying, but leaving is your choice. |
Yellowboze | >How much better is the game on PC compared to console?
How much better is expanding a game that basically has "epic" written all over it with countless mods that have "more epic" written all over them? New quests, followers, gameplay-elements, interfaces and the list goes on and on and on.
There are also a lot of bugfixes and tweaks available, and if you have a good machine, ENB-mods, new meshes/textures and weather/lighting mods can make you cum with your eyes.
And since you can plug in a controller if you want, it plays exactly like the console version, just with LOADS of content and with uber-gameplay-enhancement. If you choose the right mods, that is.
If you don't plan on using mods, I wouldn't bother buying it for PC.
**tl;dr: Yes.** | >How much better is the game on PC compared to console?
How much better is expanding a game that basically has "epic" written all over it with countless mods that have "more epic" written all over them? New quests, followers, gameplay-elements, interfaces and the list goes on and on and on.
There are also a lot of bugfixes and tweaks available, and if you have a good machine, ENB-mods, new meshes/textures and weather/lighting mods can make you cum with your eyes.
And since you can plug in a controller if you want, it plays exactly like the console version, just with LOADS of content and with uber-gameplay-enhancement. If you choose the right mods, that is.
If you don't plan on using mods, I wouldn't bother buying it for PC.
tl;dr: Yes.
| skyrim | t5_2s837 | chriuci | How much better is the game on PC compared to console?
How much better is expanding a game that basically has "epic" written all over it with countless mods that have "more epic" written all over them? New quests, followers, gameplay-elements, interfaces and the list goes on and on and on.
There are also a lot of bugfixes and tweaks available, and if you have a good machine, ENB-mods, new meshes/textures and weather/lighting mods can make you cum with your eyes.
And since you can plug in a controller if you want, it plays exactly like the console version, just with LOADS of content and with uber-gameplay-enhancement. If you choose the right mods, that is.
If you don't plan on using mods, I wouldn't bother buying it for PC. | Yes. |
SupahBlah | Because I have no life I watched the game. I just want to know what you want? Your TA had an ultra kill at like 10/12 minutes when she had the haste run and just killed them all top/jungle near the tier 2. Beyond godlike at 17 minutes. You also only died 5 times and all of them you're running at them which makes it obvious where you are.
* Death 1: Pushing their tier 2 bottom and they ran at you.
* Death 2: Omnislashed pushing/diving tier 2 mid.
* Death 3: You were farming the enemy jungle when they have ward on their (dire) hill at half health, slark sees this due to the ward and shadow blades in to kill you with shadow blade bonus damage and pounce.
* Death 4: Everyone is off map on dire vision and they have wards in their own jungle so slark assumes (correctly) someone is farming the jungle he checks the camps before finding you are radiant hard camp. Dunno why you're screaming map hack and fuck you, fuck you over and over again when its 30 minutes and you've only died 4 times but whatever.
* Death 5: Slark buys his own smoke to smoke out of his base after your team takes mid and bot rax simply to get out the base and look for you after you kept insulting him in all chat, he randomly finds you in the middle of the river but was heading to the radiant jungle.
37 minutes and the ancient falls, your team is mad salty calling GG NOT WP despite winning easily 51-22 and the TA going 29-5-4 and buying a troll radiance at the end, you were ever so gracious telling slark to fuck off again.
There's no maphack, none of the deaths were suspect you barely even died and if you weren't the ancient apparition I would have thought this was someone trying to show off how pro they are as TA.
Their team completely fell apart and it was pretty much a stomp.
TLDR Stop these shit posts and watch your own replays. | Because I have no life I watched the game. I just want to know what you want? Your TA had an ultra kill at like 10/12 minutes when she had the haste run and just killed them all top/jungle near the tier 2. Beyond godlike at 17 minutes. You also only died 5 times and all of them you're running at them which makes it obvious where you are.
Death 1: Pushing their tier 2 bottom and they ran at you.
Death 2: Omnislashed pushing/diving tier 2 mid.
Death 3: You were farming the enemy jungle when they have ward on their (dire) hill at half health, slark sees this due to the ward and shadow blades in to kill you with shadow blade bonus damage and pounce.
Death 4: Everyone is off map on dire vision and they have wards in their own jungle so slark assumes (correctly) someone is farming the jungle he checks the camps before finding you are radiant hard camp. Dunno why you're screaming map hack and fuck you, fuck you over and over again when its 30 minutes and you've only died 4 times but whatever.
Death 5: Slark buys his own smoke to smoke out of his base after your team takes mid and bot rax simply to get out the base and look for you after you kept insulting him in all chat, he randomly finds you in the middle of the river but was heading to the radiant jungle.
37 minutes and the ancient falls, your team is mad salty calling GG NOT WP despite winning easily 51-22 and the TA going 29-5-4 and buying a troll radiance at the end, you were ever so gracious telling slark to fuck off again.
There's no maphack, none of the deaths were suspect you barely even died and if you weren't the ancient apparition I would have thought this was someone trying to show off how pro they are as TA.
Their team completely fell apart and it was pretty much a stomp.
TLDR Stop these shit posts and watch your own replays.
| DotA2 | t5_2s580 | chrnqbs | Because I have no life I watched the game. I just want to know what you want? Your TA had an ultra kill at like 10/12 minutes when she had the haste run and just killed them all top/jungle near the tier 2. Beyond godlike at 17 minutes. You also only died 5 times and all of them you're running at them which makes it obvious where you are.
Death 1: Pushing their tier 2 bottom and they ran at you.
Death 2: Omnislashed pushing/diving tier 2 mid.
Death 3: You were farming the enemy jungle when they have ward on their (dire) hill at half health, slark sees this due to the ward and shadow blades in to kill you with shadow blade bonus damage and pounce.
Death 4: Everyone is off map on dire vision and they have wards in their own jungle so slark assumes (correctly) someone is farming the jungle he checks the camps before finding you are radiant hard camp. Dunno why you're screaming map hack and fuck you, fuck you over and over again when its 30 minutes and you've only died 4 times but whatever.
Death 5: Slark buys his own smoke to smoke out of his base after your team takes mid and bot rax simply to get out the base and look for you after you kept insulting him in all chat, he randomly finds you in the middle of the river but was heading to the radiant jungle.
37 minutes and the ancient falls, your team is mad salty calling GG NOT WP despite winning easily 51-22 and the TA going 29-5-4 and buying a troll radiance at the end, you were ever so gracious telling slark to fuck off again.
There's no maphack, none of the deaths were suspect you barely even died and if you weren't the ancient apparition I would have thought this was someone trying to show off how pro they are as TA.
Their team completely fell apart and it was pretty much a stomp. | Stop these shit posts and watch your own replays. |
aelwero | I've heard it brought up in general conversation on very rare occasions. Fog machines vary as wildly as mods do, but they dont run hotter or cooler than ecigs generally, because temp determines output level, so optimum temp is sought in both cases, and winds up being roughly the same in either case.
fog machines actually reverse the 'coil' concept we think of as vapers... They run the fluid through a channel, usually a spiral one, in a metal block thats heated. Juice goes in, vapor comes out, bigger 'coil' (tube) and pump, more vapor :)
an actors guild actually has done studies on fog machine vapor exposure, and found some negative effects from it, and there are 'safety guidelines' out there on it, but they didnt find enough evidence of harmful effects to file a lawsuit or get fog machines banned or regulated, so...
fog machines also use different juice than vapers... Mineral oil, glycerin, somethingorother glycerin... So those studies get marginalized.
Plus, fog machines dont look like ohmygod smoking, so no sin tax, and no competition with big tobaccos blu crap, and who cares about some overly entitled actors anyways...
theres a lot more knowledge out there than what the political hounds toss around :)
TL:DR science knows vaping isnt healthy, but its safe enough that actors cant sue fog machines over it, so MUCH better than cigarettes | I've heard it brought up in general conversation on very rare occasions. Fog machines vary as wildly as mods do, but they dont run hotter or cooler than ecigs generally, because temp determines output level, so optimum temp is sought in both cases, and winds up being roughly the same in either case.
fog machines actually reverse the 'coil' concept we think of as vapers... They run the fluid through a channel, usually a spiral one, in a metal block thats heated. Juice goes in, vapor comes out, bigger 'coil' (tube) and pump, more vapor :)
an actors guild actually has done studies on fog machine vapor exposure, and found some negative effects from it, and there are 'safety guidelines' out there on it, but they didnt find enough evidence of harmful effects to file a lawsuit or get fog machines banned or regulated, so...
fog machines also use different juice than vapers... Mineral oil, glycerin, somethingorother glycerin... So those studies get marginalized.
Plus, fog machines dont look like ohmygod smoking, so no sin tax, and no competition with big tobaccos blu crap, and who cares about some overly entitled actors anyways...
theres a lot more knowledge out there than what the political hounds toss around :)
TL:DR science knows vaping isnt healthy, but its safe enough that actors cant sue fog machines over it, so MUCH better than cigarettes
| electronic_cigarette | t5_2qmlu | chrzx8o | I've heard it brought up in general conversation on very rare occasions. Fog machines vary as wildly as mods do, but they dont run hotter or cooler than ecigs generally, because temp determines output level, so optimum temp is sought in both cases, and winds up being roughly the same in either case.
fog machines actually reverse the 'coil' concept we think of as vapers... They run the fluid through a channel, usually a spiral one, in a metal block thats heated. Juice goes in, vapor comes out, bigger 'coil' (tube) and pump, more vapor :)
an actors guild actually has done studies on fog machine vapor exposure, and found some negative effects from it, and there are 'safety guidelines' out there on it, but they didnt find enough evidence of harmful effects to file a lawsuit or get fog machines banned or regulated, so...
fog machines also use different juice than vapers... Mineral oil, glycerin, somethingorother glycerin... So those studies get marginalized.
Plus, fog machines dont look like ohmygod smoking, so no sin tax, and no competition with big tobaccos blu crap, and who cares about some overly entitled actors anyways...
theres a lot more knowledge out there than what the political hounds toss around :) | science knows vaping isnt healthy, but its safe enough that actors cant sue fog machines over it, so MUCH better than cigarettes |
Taylorvongrela | No worries. Happy to answer any questions. The real reason we developed the daily discussion posts was because we didn't want to become /r/bitcoin.
Like most bitcoiners on Reddit, I spent a lot of time in /r/bitcoin learning about the markets and bitcoin itself when I first got involved. Back then when I first subscribed to /r/bitcoin, it was about the size that /r/bitcoinmarkets currently is (~15K). It was a great source of information, and high level discussion of difficult topics was pretty common. But then the April 2013 bubble came, and a lot of new faces started jumping into the bitcoin world as they saw the price hitting $20, then $30, then $40, all in quick succession. There was a huge influx of new users to /r/bitcoin through the rest of the run up to $266, and suddenly /r/bitcoin wasn't the same place anymore. It was filled with a bunch of people who were all new to BTC at the same time, and they all just wanted the price to keep going up. My background and profession is in finance and traditional investments, so seeing a large community suddenly change so drastically (and all permabulls too), that definitely made me see how one-sided /r/bitcoin had become. It only continued to get worse through the rest of last year.
Right around the same time as the April 2013 bubble, I found out about /r/bitcoinmarkets. This sub was filling the gap of what /r/bitcoin had moved away from, but it was specifically focused on trading bitcoin, not just the ultimate success of /r/bitcoin. It was still very quiet in the sub at that time, which kept the discussions on a much higher level.
In the Fall/Winter 2013 bubble run up, /r/bitcoinmarkets was faced with pretty much the same problem that had changed /r/bitcoin before: a slew of new BTC users who all showed up looking to make money, and all have very little knowledge of the bitcoin markets, and very few even have much historical knowledge of bitcoin. The average amount of posts made in the sub on a daily basis jumped significantly, and the quality of the questions went downhill rapidly. Things like "I'm having a problem with Coinbase telling me my purchase was High Risk" would get posted up 10 times a day. The core users of the sub could see what was happening, and people started speaking up about it. So the sub added 4 new mods (including myself), and we drafted new rules (see the Expanded Posting Guidelines at the top of the page), and we started discussing ideas more openly in the sub on how to improve things. The daily discussion threads were born from that. The IRC rooms were born from that. The Wiki was born from that. And a slew of other updates/upgrades that the mod team put in place all sort of stem from last fall when this sub really started to grow.
TL-DR: /r/bitcoin used to be a much more reasonable and informative place before it grew to it's current size. Most of the things that the mods of this sub do is to keep /r/bitcoinmarkets from turning into something like /r/bitcoin has. | No worries. Happy to answer any questions. The real reason we developed the daily discussion posts was because we didn't want to become /r/bitcoin.
Like most bitcoiners on Reddit, I spent a lot of time in /r/bitcoin learning about the markets and bitcoin itself when I first got involved. Back then when I first subscribed to /r/bitcoin, it was about the size that /r/bitcoinmarkets currently is (~15K). It was a great source of information, and high level discussion of difficult topics was pretty common. But then the April 2013 bubble came, and a lot of new faces started jumping into the bitcoin world as they saw the price hitting $20, then $30, then $40, all in quick succession. There was a huge influx of new users to /r/bitcoin through the rest of the run up to $266, and suddenly /r/bitcoin wasn't the same place anymore. It was filled with a bunch of people who were all new to BTC at the same time, and they all just wanted the price to keep going up. My background and profession is in finance and traditional investments, so seeing a large community suddenly change so drastically (and all permabulls too), that definitely made me see how one-sided /r/bitcoin had become. It only continued to get worse through the rest of last year.
Right around the same time as the April 2013 bubble, I found out about /r/bitcoinmarkets. This sub was filling the gap of what /r/bitcoin had moved away from, but it was specifically focused on trading bitcoin, not just the ultimate success of /r/bitcoin. It was still very quiet in the sub at that time, which kept the discussions on a much higher level.
In the Fall/Winter 2013 bubble run up, /r/bitcoinmarkets was faced with pretty much the same problem that had changed /r/bitcoin before: a slew of new BTC users who all showed up looking to make money, and all have very little knowledge of the bitcoin markets, and very few even have much historical knowledge of bitcoin. The average amount of posts made in the sub on a daily basis jumped significantly, and the quality of the questions went downhill rapidly. Things like "I'm having a problem with Coinbase telling me my purchase was High Risk" would get posted up 10 times a day. The core users of the sub could see what was happening, and people started speaking up about it. So the sub added 4 new mods (including myself), and we drafted new rules (see the Expanded Posting Guidelines at the top of the page), and we started discussing ideas more openly in the sub on how to improve things. The daily discussion threads were born from that. The IRC rooms were born from that. The Wiki was born from that. And a slew of other updates/upgrades that the mod team put in place all sort of stem from last fall when this sub really started to grow.
TL-DR: /r/bitcoin used to be a much more reasonable and informative place before it grew to it's current size. Most of the things that the mods of this sub do is to keep /r/bitcoinmarkets from turning into something like /r/bitcoin has.
| BitcoinMarkets | t5_2wwh3 | chsbnrs | No worries. Happy to answer any questions. The real reason we developed the daily discussion posts was because we didn't want to become /r/bitcoin.
Like most bitcoiners on Reddit, I spent a lot of time in /r/bitcoin learning about the markets and bitcoin itself when I first got involved. Back then when I first subscribed to /r/bitcoin, it was about the size that /r/bitcoinmarkets currently is (~15K). It was a great source of information, and high level discussion of difficult topics was pretty common. But then the April 2013 bubble came, and a lot of new faces started jumping into the bitcoin world as they saw the price hitting $20, then $30, then $40, all in quick succession. There was a huge influx of new users to /r/bitcoin through the rest of the run up to $266, and suddenly /r/bitcoin wasn't the same place anymore. It was filled with a bunch of people who were all new to BTC at the same time, and they all just wanted the price to keep going up. My background and profession is in finance and traditional investments, so seeing a large community suddenly change so drastically (and all permabulls too), that definitely made me see how one-sided /r/bitcoin had become. It only continued to get worse through the rest of last year.
Right around the same time as the April 2013 bubble, I found out about /r/bitcoinmarkets. This sub was filling the gap of what /r/bitcoin had moved away from, but it was specifically focused on trading bitcoin, not just the ultimate success of /r/bitcoin. It was still very quiet in the sub at that time, which kept the discussions on a much higher level.
In the Fall/Winter 2013 bubble run up, /r/bitcoinmarkets was faced with pretty much the same problem that had changed /r/bitcoin before: a slew of new BTC users who all showed up looking to make money, and all have very little knowledge of the bitcoin markets, and very few even have much historical knowledge of bitcoin. The average amount of posts made in the sub on a daily basis jumped significantly, and the quality of the questions went downhill rapidly. Things like "I'm having a problem with Coinbase telling me my purchase was High Risk" would get posted up 10 times a day. The core users of the sub could see what was happening, and people started speaking up about it. So the sub added 4 new mods (including myself), and we drafted new rules (see the Expanded Posting Guidelines at the top of the page), and we started discussing ideas more openly in the sub on how to improve things. The daily discussion threads were born from that. The IRC rooms were born from that. The Wiki was born from that. And a slew of other updates/upgrades that the mod team put in place all sort of stem from last fall when this sub really started to grow. | r/bitcoin used to be a much more reasonable and informative place before it grew to it's current size. Most of the things that the mods of this sub do is to keep /r/bitcoinmarkets from turning into something like /r/bitcoin has. |
kiefkilla | You did address rarity however a bigger issue I have with the comparison is that a big part of what I believe the voice effect to be is being a flagship mythic in a set full of duds. Journey into nyx is not an Allstar set however it's no dragons maze. The planeswalker has already shown more playable (and at least more popular) than ral, the gods are at least a casual hit and some easily constructed playable in the right setting. Some removal and value creatures that may have decks in near standard.
Tldr I don't think journey is a dragons maze financially even tho it's a 3rd set | You did address rarity however a bigger issue I have with the comparison is that a big part of what I believe the voice effect to be is being a flagship mythic in a set full of duds. Journey into nyx is not an Allstar set however it's no dragons maze. The planeswalker has already shown more playable (and at least more popular) than ral, the gods are at least a casual hit and some easily constructed playable in the right setting. Some removal and value creatures that may have decks in near standard.
Tldr I don't think journey is a dragons maze financially even tho it's a 3rd set
| mtgfinance | t5_2vv1m | chspnte | You did address rarity however a bigger issue I have with the comparison is that a big part of what I believe the voice effect to be is being a flagship mythic in a set full of duds. Journey into nyx is not an Allstar set however it's no dragons maze. The planeswalker has already shown more playable (and at least more popular) than ral, the gods are at least a casual hit and some easily constructed playable in the right setting. Some removal and value creatures that may have decks in near standard. | I don't think journey is a dragons maze financially even tho it's a 3rd set |
darknesslit | When I started playing LoL I got the game in spanish and instead of ''G'' of gold it was ''O'' of oro.
TLDR; it's 363 gold not 3630 | When I started playing LoL I got the game in spanish and instead of ''G'' of gold it was ''O'' of oro.
TLDR; it's 363 gold not 3630
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | chs7odp | When I started playing LoL I got the game in spanish and instead of ''G'' of gold it was ''O'' of oro. | it's 363 gold not 3630 |
halonut13 | The sooner the better. To my knowledge, you can indicate that you have yet to take the MCAT on the application. Also, I believe you can indicate which courses you are currently taking (ie Physics/ Physics Lab). Both of which is normal and shouldn't really impact your application.
Letters of recommendation can be submitted throughout the application cycle and don't have to be sent alongside the submission of the application.
Keep in mind that schools won't start reviewing your application until they receive your MCAT score.
Source: Recently attended my health professions advising center's application workshop. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
TLDR; Apply ASAP.
Edit: Words | The sooner the better. To my knowledge, you can indicate that you have yet to take the MCAT on the application. Also, I believe you can indicate which courses you are currently taking (ie Physics/ Physics Lab). Both of which is normal and shouldn't really impact your application.
Letters of recommendation can be submitted throughout the application cycle and don't have to be sent alongside the submission of the application.
Keep in mind that schools won't start reviewing your application until they receive your MCAT score.
Source: Recently attended my health professions advising center's application workshop. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
TLDR; Apply ASAP.
Edit: Words
| premed | t5_2rlp9 | chsajhk | The sooner the better. To my knowledge, you can indicate that you have yet to take the MCAT on the application. Also, I believe you can indicate which courses you are currently taking (ie Physics/ Physics Lab). Both of which is normal and shouldn't really impact your application.
Letters of recommendation can be submitted throughout the application cycle and don't have to be sent alongside the submission of the application.
Keep in mind that schools won't start reviewing your application until they receive your MCAT score.
Source: Recently attended my health professions advising center's application workshop. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. | Apply ASAP.
Edit: Words |
Gnashe | MY INTERPRETATION AHEAD. DARK SOULS LORE IS OBSCURE WEEEEEE
Remember, Seath is not actually one of the four great ones. Seath only had a fragment of the Soul of Light (Gwyn's Soul). Along with the four kings.
The four souls are as follows:
* Soul of Death - Nito, First of the Dead (Currently influencing the Rotten)
* Soul of Life - Witch of Izalith (Currently influencing the Lost Sinner)
* Soul of Dark - Furitive Pygmy (Currently IS Nashandra, was Manus)
* Soul of Light - Gwyn, Lord of Fire/Cinder (Currently influencing no one)
However it gets a little more convoluted then that lets remember one thing. Gywn's soul description says he gave most of his power to the "Gods" however the two that stand out are the 4 Kings and Seath the Scaleless. Both of these entities had strong souls that merged with fragments of the Soul of Light!
ALSO when you kill Duke's Dear Freja in order to merge with the Great Soul you must actually PICK IT UP. I believe that Seath's soul is what is what is known as the Writhing Ruin. I believe that Seath's soul influences the cycle in this way.
See something you don't have -> Try to have it -> go way to far and insane to accomplish it.
Seath was jealous of dragons for immortal life. Went insane trying to gain it.
Big Hat Logan was jealous of Seath for his great crystal magic. Went insane trying to gain it.
???? was jealous of something scorpions could do. Went insane trying to gain it.
Duke of Tseldora was jealous of something spiders could do. Went insane trying to gain it.
tl;dr When a soul is strong enough it exists through cycles and makes more cycles
Rotten accepts all that are dead/unwanted like Nito
Sinner tries to reignite first flame just like Witch of Izalith
Iron King is greedy and eventually submerges kingdom like 4 Kings
Seath's soul always influences someone to be jealous and do crazy things for it.
I hope I made some sense! | MY INTERPRETATION AHEAD. DARK SOULS LORE IS OBSCURE WEEEEEE
Remember, Seath is not actually one of the four great ones. Seath only had a fragment of the Soul of Light (Gwyn's Soul). Along with the four kings.
The four souls are as follows:
Soul of Death - Nito, First of the Dead (Currently influencing the Rotten)
Soul of Life - Witch of Izalith (Currently influencing the Lost Sinner)
Soul of Dark - Furitive Pygmy (Currently IS Nashandra, was Manus)
Soul of Light - Gwyn, Lord of Fire/Cinder (Currently influencing no one)
However it gets a little more convoluted then that lets remember one thing. Gywn's soul description says he gave most of his power to the "Gods" however the two that stand out are the 4 Kings and Seath the Scaleless. Both of these entities had strong souls that merged with fragments of the Soul of Light!
ALSO when you kill Duke's Dear Freja in order to merge with the Great Soul you must actually PICK IT UP. I believe that Seath's soul is what is what is known as the Writhing Ruin. I believe that Seath's soul influences the cycle in this way.
See something you don't have -> Try to have it -> go way to far and insane to accomplish it.
Seath was jealous of dragons for immortal life. Went insane trying to gain it.
Big Hat Logan was jealous of Seath for his great crystal magic. Went insane trying to gain it.
???? was jealous of something scorpions could do. Went insane trying to gain it.
Duke of Tseldora was jealous of something spiders could do. Went insane trying to gain it.
tl;dr When a soul is strong enough it exists through cycles and makes more cycles
Rotten accepts all that are dead/unwanted like Nito
Sinner tries to reignite first flame just like Witch of Izalith
Iron King is greedy and eventually submerges kingdom like 4 Kings
Seath's soul always influences someone to be jealous and do crazy things for it.
I hope I made some sense!
| DarkSouls2 | t5_2vqni | chsdg3f | MY INTERPRETATION AHEAD. DARK SOULS LORE IS OBSCURE WEEEEEE
Remember, Seath is not actually one of the four great ones. Seath only had a fragment of the Soul of Light (Gwyn's Soul). Along with the four kings.
The four souls are as follows:
Soul of Death - Nito, First of the Dead (Currently influencing the Rotten)
Soul of Life - Witch of Izalith (Currently influencing the Lost Sinner)
Soul of Dark - Furitive Pygmy (Currently IS Nashandra, was Manus)
Soul of Light - Gwyn, Lord of Fire/Cinder (Currently influencing no one)
However it gets a little more convoluted then that lets remember one thing. Gywn's soul description says he gave most of his power to the "Gods" however the two that stand out are the 4 Kings and Seath the Scaleless. Both of these entities had strong souls that merged with fragments of the Soul of Light!
ALSO when you kill Duke's Dear Freja in order to merge with the Great Soul you must actually PICK IT UP. I believe that Seath's soul is what is what is known as the Writhing Ruin. I believe that Seath's soul influences the cycle in this way.
See something you don't have -> Try to have it -> go way to far and insane to accomplish it.
Seath was jealous of dragons for immortal life. Went insane trying to gain it.
Big Hat Logan was jealous of Seath for his great crystal magic. Went insane trying to gain it.
???? was jealous of something scorpions could do. Went insane trying to gain it.
Duke of Tseldora was jealous of something spiders could do. Went insane trying to gain it. | When a soul is strong enough it exists through cycles and makes more cycles
Rotten accepts all that are dead/unwanted like Nito
Sinner tries to reignite first flame just like Witch of Izalith
Iron King is greedy and eventually submerges kingdom like 4 Kings
Seath's soul always influences someone to be jealous and do crazy things for it.
I hope I made some sense! |
noonespecific | The only one I can talk about is Breach and Clear. Picked it up in a bundle a while back, it's sort of like X-Com lite.
Not much of a tech tree, but you can customize weapons each team member has, equipment like armour and grenades, and each guy has a class with certain abilities.
Plays like X-Com,the pseudo real-time thing where you give orders to your team and hit the Go button to watch it all play out. Take advantage of cover and line of sight to take out your enemies.
I played it on Android, and it's a little hard to get used to control wise in my opinion. Nothing game breaking, but it's a little hair pulling to think a gesture does one thing but it does another. I think it was easier to play on my Nexus 10 than my HTC One (M7).
Tl;dr: turn based strategy game with army guys where you fight terrorists. Multiple classes, customizable units with customizable weapons and loadouts. X-Com with real world military and no aliens, just terrorists. It's not bad.
| The only one I can talk about is Breach and Clear. Picked it up in a bundle a while back, it's sort of like X-Com lite.
Not much of a tech tree, but you can customize weapons each team member has, equipment like armour and grenades, and each guy has a class with certain abilities.
Plays like X-Com,the pseudo real-time thing where you give orders to your team and hit the Go button to watch it all play out. Take advantage of cover and line of sight to take out your enemies.
I played it on Android, and it's a little hard to get used to control wise in my opinion. Nothing game breaking, but it's a little hair pulling to think a gesture does one thing but it does another. I think it was easier to play on my Nexus 10 than my HTC One (M7).
Tl;dr: turn based strategy game with army guys where you fight terrorists. Multiple classes, customizable units with customizable weapons and loadouts. X-Com with real world military and no aliens, just terrorists. It's not bad.
| GameDeals | t5_2qwx3 | chsfdxt | The only one I can talk about is Breach and Clear. Picked it up in a bundle a while back, it's sort of like X-Com lite.
Not much of a tech tree, but you can customize weapons each team member has, equipment like armour and grenades, and each guy has a class with certain abilities.
Plays like X-Com,the pseudo real-time thing where you give orders to your team and hit the Go button to watch it all play out. Take advantage of cover and line of sight to take out your enemies.
I played it on Android, and it's a little hard to get used to control wise in my opinion. Nothing game breaking, but it's a little hair pulling to think a gesture does one thing but it does another. I think it was easier to play on my Nexus 10 than my HTC One (M7). | turn based strategy game with army guys where you fight terrorists. Multiple classes, customizable units with customizable weapons and loadouts. X-Com with real world military and no aliens, just terrorists. It's not bad. |
zizou00 | It's a long story but I'll see what I can do.
Starting off, humans can sing out what we'd call a diatonic scale. (think Do-Re-Mi, the Solfege terms for diatonic notes). These notes sound good together, and moving from one to another sounds right.
So for each starting note, a scale was devised based on what we now call the Solfege scale. Each of these scales (or Modes) was used for hundreds of years, and certain instruments could only play in certain modes.
A good way to think about this is by looking at a guitar (a picture will do, but if you have one near by, that'll do nicely). A guitar string has a set note. The lowest string normally being tuned to E. If we take that E string and split it directly in half, we hear the same note, but higher (this is to do with harmonics). Splitting the whole string a third from the top gives us another nice sounding note. In the case of this string, we hear a B, which is a 5th above the original note (or 7 half-steps). By doing this, musicians of the past figured out a set of notes that sound good to human ears, and they would make instruments that sound good in a particular key.
However, it was impossible to play these instruments in keys they weren't designed for. Lutes had to be re-tuned and woodwind instruments had to be swapped.
Along came two seperate people who figured out the same thing, a thing called "Equal temperament". Zhu Zaiyu and Simon Stevin were both trying to figure out a way to approximate the notes that sound good so they could design instruments to work in all keys. Because this equal temperament is an approximation, some notes were brought closer together and some were moved further apart.
Using your example, B# is omitted from the equal temperament because it is so close to the new C that it is obsolete.
So TL;DR, B# exists, but it's not used anymore, thanks to equal temperament | It's a long story but I'll see what I can do.
Starting off, humans can sing out what we'd call a diatonic scale. (think Do-Re-Mi, the Solfege terms for diatonic notes). These notes sound good together, and moving from one to another sounds right.
So for each starting note, a scale was devised based on what we now call the Solfege scale. Each of these scales (or Modes) was used for hundreds of years, and certain instruments could only play in certain modes.
A good way to think about this is by looking at a guitar (a picture will do, but if you have one near by, that'll do nicely). A guitar string has a set note. The lowest string normally being tuned to E. If we take that E string and split it directly in half, we hear the same note, but higher (this is to do with harmonics). Splitting the whole string a third from the top gives us another nice sounding note. In the case of this string, we hear a B, which is a 5th above the original note (or 7 half-steps). By doing this, musicians of the past figured out a set of notes that sound good to human ears, and they would make instruments that sound good in a particular key.
However, it was impossible to play these instruments in keys they weren't designed for. Lutes had to be re-tuned and woodwind instruments had to be swapped.
Along came two seperate people who figured out the same thing, a thing called "Equal temperament". Zhu Zaiyu and Simon Stevin were both trying to figure out a way to approximate the notes that sound good so they could design instruments to work in all keys. Because this equal temperament is an approximation, some notes were brought closer together and some were moved further apart.
Using your example, B# is omitted from the equal temperament because it is so close to the new C that it is obsolete.
So TL;DR, B# exists, but it's not used anymore, thanks to equal temperament
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | chsiab9 | It's a long story but I'll see what I can do.
Starting off, humans can sing out what we'd call a diatonic scale. (think Do-Re-Mi, the Solfege terms for diatonic notes). These notes sound good together, and moving from one to another sounds right.
So for each starting note, a scale was devised based on what we now call the Solfege scale. Each of these scales (or Modes) was used for hundreds of years, and certain instruments could only play in certain modes.
A good way to think about this is by looking at a guitar (a picture will do, but if you have one near by, that'll do nicely). A guitar string has a set note. The lowest string normally being tuned to E. If we take that E string and split it directly in half, we hear the same note, but higher (this is to do with harmonics). Splitting the whole string a third from the top gives us another nice sounding note. In the case of this string, we hear a B, which is a 5th above the original note (or 7 half-steps). By doing this, musicians of the past figured out a set of notes that sound good to human ears, and they would make instruments that sound good in a particular key.
However, it was impossible to play these instruments in keys they weren't designed for. Lutes had to be re-tuned and woodwind instruments had to be swapped.
Along came two seperate people who figured out the same thing, a thing called "Equal temperament". Zhu Zaiyu and Simon Stevin were both trying to figure out a way to approximate the notes that sound good so they could design instruments to work in all keys. Because this equal temperament is an approximation, some notes were brought closer together and some were moved further apart.
Using your example, B# is omitted from the equal temperament because it is so close to the new C that it is obsolete.
So | B# exists, but it's not used anymore, thanks to equal temperament |
Mitchell2546 | It has to do with our scale systems. In the major mode, there is always a half step between the last note (leading tone) and the first note (tonic). This is just the way it's evolved over time, and this relationship is a driving factor of common practice harmony, as it creates the V-I movement so prevalent in music from periods past. In the "simplest" scale - the one with no sharps or flats, c major - we can see this. The last note, b, has to be one half step away from the first note, c, and so there's no B#. (Well technically there is, but not for our purposes right now.)
TL;DR, if you look at the c scale, you have to have a half step between the last two notes.
Source: years of musical training | It has to do with our scale systems. In the major mode, there is always a half step between the last note (leading tone) and the first note (tonic). This is just the way it's evolved over time, and this relationship is a driving factor of common practice harmony, as it creates the V-I movement so prevalent in music from periods past. In the "simplest" scale - the one with no sharps or flats, c major - we can see this. The last note, b, has to be one half step away from the first note, c, and so there's no B#. (Well technically there is, but not for our purposes right now.)
TL;DR, if you look at the c scale, you have to have a half step between the last two notes.
Source: years of musical training
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | chsi3qa | It has to do with our scale systems. In the major mode, there is always a half step between the last note (leading tone) and the first note (tonic). This is just the way it's evolved over time, and this relationship is a driving factor of common practice harmony, as it creates the V-I movement so prevalent in music from periods past. In the "simplest" scale - the one with no sharps or flats, c major - we can see this. The last note, b, has to be one half step away from the first note, c, and so there's no B#. (Well technically there is, but not for our purposes right now.) | if you look at the c scale, you have to have a half step between the last two notes.
Source: years of musical training |
Pacoeltaco | There are a lot of reasons. Especially in endgame. If we are talking about 4man dungeons I would say it is simpler.
In a 4man dungeon there is less pressure to perform. The healers have less to do unless the tank decided to aggro half the dungeon(which happens a lot in the lvl50 dungeons) The DPS can usually slack a bit and things still die. What causes failures is people not syncing well. Communications regarding intent...if the healer is being lazy and not expecting 20 mobs to be wailing on the tank...there's gonna be issues.
In endgame the pressure increases. It's not unusual for a group to fall apart after one run. The number of simultaneous mechanics in a boss fight increases exponentially.
For Mog EX for example.
Tanks: The tanks have to hold three mobs, the king and a War and Pld. The War/Pld get stacks of a buff from proximity of the King. So the king has to be swapped after so many stacks. Thrown in is a aggro reset on the tanks which can be highly aggravating to deal with. Top it all off with the need to keep the King away from as many other mogs as possible at all times and things get hectic.
Healers: The two healers have to manage heals over a very wide arena, but can't stand in the center due to the mogs triforce attack. The tanks take a heavy amount of damage and are frequently moving. When the Pld mog decides to use bemoggled and draws in his three nearest people, the healers have to be away from him so they don't get bemoggled, and then have to esuna/leech the three who did get pulled in before they die. They also have to esuna/leech the debuff from Moogle-go-round or you instantly lose up to 2 players. Top this off with heavy random damage to others from the Archer mob and aoes flying everywhere and the big boom of mog meteor....its kinda stressful.
DPS: These dudes run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to keep all of the moogles at the same health so they die at the same time. They have to do this three times in a row, perfectly, or everyone just goes kaput. Throw in Dodging triforce, meteors, cleaves and hitting both the blm and whm mogs to cancel meteors and holy...they've got a lot to focus on at a given time.
I say all that to say this. The game has amazing balance. Each fight is very different once you hit lvl 50. Anyone can cause a fail, everyone must be doing their job to the best of their abilities. Little things can make a huge difference. Gear can make a difference, but is not always required. Incompetence will not be tolerated by many people. However, willingness to learn and swiftly picking up what you need to do will be rewarded heavily. It also helps if people actually do a little research before going into a fight. Seriously...go watch Mrhappy or something...no excuses....
In my opinion, the biggest issues people have is tunnel vision. Anyone can get it. Especially after 18 failed runs of a coil etc.
tl;dr Communication(between the team), Knowledge(of the fight mechanics), Expertise(regarding their class) are all required for this game to work. Some people just don't have it, the class they play doesn't matter in the slightest.
*edit I ramble from time to time. Hope this helps op :D | There are a lot of reasons. Especially in endgame. If we are talking about 4man dungeons I would say it is simpler.
In a 4man dungeon there is less pressure to perform. The healers have less to do unless the tank decided to aggro half the dungeon(which happens a lot in the lvl50 dungeons) The DPS can usually slack a bit and things still die. What causes failures is people not syncing well. Communications regarding intent...if the healer is being lazy and not expecting 20 mobs to be wailing on the tank...there's gonna be issues.
In endgame the pressure increases. It's not unusual for a group to fall apart after one run. The number of simultaneous mechanics in a boss fight increases exponentially.
For Mog EX for example.
Tanks: The tanks have to hold three mobs, the king and a War and Pld. The War/Pld get stacks of a buff from proximity of the King. So the king has to be swapped after so many stacks. Thrown in is a aggro reset on the tanks which can be highly aggravating to deal with. Top it all off with the need to keep the King away from as many other mogs as possible at all times and things get hectic.
Healers: The two healers have to manage heals over a very wide arena, but can't stand in the center due to the mogs triforce attack. The tanks take a heavy amount of damage and are frequently moving. When the Pld mog decides to use bemoggled and draws in his three nearest people, the healers have to be away from him so they don't get bemoggled, and then have to esuna/leech the three who did get pulled in before they die. They also have to esuna/leech the debuff from Moogle-go-round or you instantly lose up to 2 players. Top this off with heavy random damage to others from the Archer mob and aoes flying everywhere and the big boom of mog meteor....its kinda stressful.
DPS: These dudes run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to keep all of the moogles at the same health so they die at the same time. They have to do this three times in a row, perfectly, or everyone just goes kaput. Throw in Dodging triforce, meteors, cleaves and hitting both the blm and whm mogs to cancel meteors and holy...they've got a lot to focus on at a given time.
I say all that to say this. The game has amazing balance. Each fight is very different once you hit lvl 50. Anyone can cause a fail, everyone must be doing their job to the best of their abilities. Little things can make a huge difference. Gear can make a difference, but is not always required. Incompetence will not be tolerated by many people. However, willingness to learn and swiftly picking up what you need to do will be rewarded heavily. It also helps if people actually do a little research before going into a fight. Seriously...go watch Mrhappy or something...no excuses....
In my opinion, the biggest issues people have is tunnel vision. Anyone can get it. Especially after 18 failed runs of a coil etc.
tl;dr Communication(between the team), Knowledge(of the fight mechanics), Expertise(regarding their class) are all required for this game to work. Some people just don't have it, the class they play doesn't matter in the slightest.
*edit I ramble from time to time. Hope this helps op :D
| ffxiv | t5_2rgs7 | chu628t | There are a lot of reasons. Especially in endgame. If we are talking about 4man dungeons I would say it is simpler.
In a 4man dungeon there is less pressure to perform. The healers have less to do unless the tank decided to aggro half the dungeon(which happens a lot in the lvl50 dungeons) The DPS can usually slack a bit and things still die. What causes failures is people not syncing well. Communications regarding intent...if the healer is being lazy and not expecting 20 mobs to be wailing on the tank...there's gonna be issues.
In endgame the pressure increases. It's not unusual for a group to fall apart after one run. The number of simultaneous mechanics in a boss fight increases exponentially.
For Mog EX for example.
Tanks: The tanks have to hold three mobs, the king and a War and Pld. The War/Pld get stacks of a buff from proximity of the King. So the king has to be swapped after so many stacks. Thrown in is a aggro reset on the tanks which can be highly aggravating to deal with. Top it all off with the need to keep the King away from as many other mogs as possible at all times and things get hectic.
Healers: The two healers have to manage heals over a very wide arena, but can't stand in the center due to the mogs triforce attack. The tanks take a heavy amount of damage and are frequently moving. When the Pld mog decides to use bemoggled and draws in his three nearest people, the healers have to be away from him so they don't get bemoggled, and then have to esuna/leech the three who did get pulled in before they die. They also have to esuna/leech the debuff from Moogle-go-round or you instantly lose up to 2 players. Top this off with heavy random damage to others from the Archer mob and aoes flying everywhere and the big boom of mog meteor....its kinda stressful.
DPS: These dudes run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to keep all of the moogles at the same health so they die at the same time. They have to do this three times in a row, perfectly, or everyone just goes kaput. Throw in Dodging triforce, meteors, cleaves and hitting both the blm and whm mogs to cancel meteors and holy...they've got a lot to focus on at a given time.
I say all that to say this. The game has amazing balance. Each fight is very different once you hit lvl 50. Anyone can cause a fail, everyone must be doing their job to the best of their abilities. Little things can make a huge difference. Gear can make a difference, but is not always required. Incompetence will not be tolerated by many people. However, willingness to learn and swiftly picking up what you need to do will be rewarded heavily. It also helps if people actually do a little research before going into a fight. Seriously...go watch Mrhappy or something...no excuses....
In my opinion, the biggest issues people have is tunnel vision. Anyone can get it. Especially after 18 failed runs of a coil etc. | Communication(between the team), Knowledge(of the fight mechanics), Expertise(regarding their class) are all required for this game to work. Some people just don't have it, the class they play doesn't matter in the slightest.
*edit I ramble from time to time. Hope this helps op :D |
Riddla26 | To be honest, that question is sort of irrelevant at the moment. You'll run it, but you won't run it well, consistently. No one can right now as there are a fair few issues with it. Your CPU might struggle and your gfx card isn't great, but you might be able to get it going acceptably on maybe medium with some stuff turned off.
For comparison, I'm running the following:
* i7 2600k OC'd to 4.2Ghz
* 8Gb Corsair 1333Mhz DDR3
* 2x R8 280X in Crossfire
I get, dependant on time of day and the area of the city, between 20 and 60 fps. Indoors it shoots up to 90. That's running some things on ultra, some on high, vsync off, FSAA on at 1080p. There's an issue with ultra textures, there's also an issue with the page file, making it a requirement to use the -disablepagefilecheck switch on a shortcut to the game to get it to not stutter like a bastard. It's so inconsistent though, it's a real bugbear. Sometimes it runs as it should, then you turn a corner and performance plummets.
To compare one R9 280X to your card, [see here.](
Now it's not a bad rig, but to run Watch_Dogs at full pelt is requiring something like SLi Titans at the moment until a patch hits. The latest AMD 14.6 beta drivers (get them from Guru3D) have increased my performance by about 30% however so they're well worth it.
Tl;dr - Yep, but not well, but don't feel bad, because I spent £440 on twin R9 280X's to run this game and I don't run it well either. | To be honest, that question is sort of irrelevant at the moment. You'll run it, but you won't run it well, consistently. No one can right now as there are a fair few issues with it. Your CPU might struggle and your gfx card isn't great, but you might be able to get it going acceptably on maybe medium with some stuff turned off.
For comparison, I'm running the following:
i7 2600k OC'd to 4.2Ghz
8Gb Corsair 1333Mhz DDR3
2x R8 280X in Crossfire
I get, dependant on time of day and the area of the city, between 20 and 60 fps. Indoors it shoots up to 90. That's running some things on ultra, some on high, vsync off, FSAA on at 1080p. There's an issue with ultra textures, there's also an issue with the page file, making it a requirement to use the -disablepagefilecheck switch on a shortcut to the game to get it to not stutter like a bastard. It's so inconsistent though, it's a real bugbear. Sometimes it runs as it should, then you turn a corner and performance plummets.
To compare one R9 280X to your card, [see here.](
Now it's not a bad rig, but to run Watch_Dogs at full pelt is requiring something like SLi Titans at the moment until a patch hits. The latest AMD 14.6 beta drivers (get them from Guru3D) have increased my performance by about 30% however so they're well worth it.
Tl;dr - Yep, but not well, but don't feel bad, because I spent £440 on twin R9 280X's to run this game and I don't run it well either.
| 24hoursupport | t5_2rv00 | chst6dy | To be honest, that question is sort of irrelevant at the moment. You'll run it, but you won't run it well, consistently. No one can right now as there are a fair few issues with it. Your CPU might struggle and your gfx card isn't great, but you might be able to get it going acceptably on maybe medium with some stuff turned off.
For comparison, I'm running the following:
i7 2600k OC'd to 4.2Ghz
8Gb Corsair 1333Mhz DDR3
2x R8 280X in Crossfire
I get, dependant on time of day and the area of the city, between 20 and 60 fps. Indoors it shoots up to 90. That's running some things on ultra, some on high, vsync off, FSAA on at 1080p. There's an issue with ultra textures, there's also an issue with the page file, making it a requirement to use the -disablepagefilecheck switch on a shortcut to the game to get it to not stutter like a bastard. It's so inconsistent though, it's a real bugbear. Sometimes it runs as it should, then you turn a corner and performance plummets.
To compare one R9 280X to your card, [see here.](
Now it's not a bad rig, but to run Watch_Dogs at full pelt is requiring something like SLi Titans at the moment until a patch hits. The latest AMD 14.6 beta drivers (get them from Guru3D) have increased my performance by about 30% however so they're well worth it. | Yep, but not well, but don't feel bad, because I spent £440 on twin R9 280X's to run this game and I don't run it well either. |
Kyoraki | Oh don't worry, the Commonwealth doesn't work like that. All it is, is an exclusive set of trade deals for former members of the empire. That way all the modern economic groundwork we set in place doesn't go to waste, and everyone gets the bonus of not being forcibly ruled by a small island nation on the other side of the globe, which they never liked for some reason.
tl;dr, your debt and healthcare problems are still you own. Sorry about that. | Oh don't worry, the Commonwealth doesn't work like that. All it is, is an exclusive set of trade deals for former members of the empire. That way all the modern economic groundwork we set in place doesn't go to waste, and everyone gets the bonus of not being forcibly ruled by a small island nation on the other side of the globe, which they never liked for some reason.
tl;dr, your debt and healthcare problems are still you own. Sorry about that.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | chtzeg1 | Oh don't worry, the Commonwealth doesn't work like that. All it is, is an exclusive set of trade deals for former members of the empire. That way all the modern economic groundwork we set in place doesn't go to waste, and everyone gets the bonus of not being forcibly ruled by a small island nation on the other side of the globe, which they never liked for some reason. | your debt and healthcare problems are still you own. Sorry about that. |
notdeadanymore | It's difficult for people to understand your point of view when they've had sex themselves, and they know first hand that there is no lasting 'special bond' from vaginal intercourse. For a long time I was an "everything but" Christian girl and my perceived virginity was very important to me. I changed my mind, but I still remember how incredibly important the line I'd drawn was to me at the time.
Honestly, you need to end this relationship. First of all, marriage matters to you and he's not sure he ever wants to get married. How can you know he will ever actually go through with marriage? I was in a relationship where he was at first lukewarm about marriage and as time went on, he became more and more sure that he never wanted to get married.
Secondly, it's unfortunate that he didn't take you seriously at the beginning of the relationship. I don't agree that your refusal to have sex before marriage means you're not committed to the relationship, but I also understand not wanting to commit to marriage with someone who won't have sex with you. I know that you feel compatible sexually already, but for many people intercourse is the main event. It is very possible to be happy with your oral/manual sex life but to be extremely mismatched when it comes to sexual intercourse. You won't know until you've tried it...and obviously, by the time you're married, it's too late.
This is why it's important that your partner also wants to wait for marriage... that it matters to him as an individual as well as being something he thinks is beneficial to your relationship. If you're both invested in waiting, then you'll be committed to making it work once you're married. If he waits because you want to, gets married because you want to... and things are tough once you're married... blame and resentment will fall on you.
TL;DR: You're right, there is no compromise here. Save yourselves deeper heartbreak down the line and find someone whose values line up with yours. | It's difficult for people to understand your point of view when they've had sex themselves, and they know first hand that there is no lasting 'special bond' from vaginal intercourse. For a long time I was an "everything but" Christian girl and my perceived virginity was very important to me. I changed my mind, but I still remember how incredibly important the line I'd drawn was to me at the time.
Honestly, you need to end this relationship. First of all, marriage matters to you and he's not sure he ever wants to get married. How can you know he will ever actually go through with marriage? I was in a relationship where he was at first lukewarm about marriage and as time went on, he became more and more sure that he never wanted to get married.
Secondly, it's unfortunate that he didn't take you seriously at the beginning of the relationship. I don't agree that your refusal to have sex before marriage means you're not committed to the relationship, but I also understand not wanting to commit to marriage with someone who won't have sex with you. I know that you feel compatible sexually already, but for many people intercourse is the main event. It is very possible to be happy with your oral/manual sex life but to be extremely mismatched when it comes to sexual intercourse. You won't know until you've tried it...and obviously, by the time you're married, it's too late.
This is why it's important that your partner also wants to wait for marriage... that it matters to him as an individual as well as being something he thinks is beneficial to your relationship. If you're both invested in waiting, then you'll be committed to making it work once you're married. If he waits because you want to, gets married because you want to... and things are tough once you're married... blame and resentment will fall on you.
TL;DR: You're right, there is no compromise here. Save yourselves deeper heartbreak down the line and find someone whose values line up with yours.
| relationships | t5_2qjvn | cht4ckq | It's difficult for people to understand your point of view when they've had sex themselves, and they know first hand that there is no lasting 'special bond' from vaginal intercourse. For a long time I was an "everything but" Christian girl and my perceived virginity was very important to me. I changed my mind, but I still remember how incredibly important the line I'd drawn was to me at the time.
Honestly, you need to end this relationship. First of all, marriage matters to you and he's not sure he ever wants to get married. How can you know he will ever actually go through with marriage? I was in a relationship where he was at first lukewarm about marriage and as time went on, he became more and more sure that he never wanted to get married.
Secondly, it's unfortunate that he didn't take you seriously at the beginning of the relationship. I don't agree that your refusal to have sex before marriage means you're not committed to the relationship, but I also understand not wanting to commit to marriage with someone who won't have sex with you. I know that you feel compatible sexually already, but for many people intercourse is the main event. It is very possible to be happy with your oral/manual sex life but to be extremely mismatched when it comes to sexual intercourse. You won't know until you've tried it...and obviously, by the time you're married, it's too late.
This is why it's important that your partner also wants to wait for marriage... that it matters to him as an individual as well as being something he thinks is beneficial to your relationship. If you're both invested in waiting, then you'll be committed to making it work once you're married. If he waits because you want to, gets married because you want to... and things are tough once you're married... blame and resentment will fall on you. | You're right, there is no compromise here. Save yourselves deeper heartbreak down the line and find someone whose values line up with yours. |
HotDickens | Agree wholeheartedly with this, consent is very sexy! and wanted to add:
This is coming from someone who is making a huge compromise in her own relationship.
OP, so far, it sounds like you have a closed mind about this, by saying that you KNOW you're not ever going to change your mind. You're 25, I'm sure there's something you've changed your mind on before that you thought you never would. **Sometimes when we make these decisions in our values, your real feelings start to take a back seat to the principle of being consistent.** Think about your decision and how you feel about it then decide if you should talk to your partner about it. Sometimes it can be really nice to hear the reasons they want something you don't and it can convince you to be more open to the idea. but first you gotta decide weather you're open to being open.
Now I want to talk to you about something really important that you touched on a little bit in your post: there are other ways partners express commitment to one another outside of marriage. You've mentioned that your boy feels that sex is an expression of commitment. You've also said it yourself that sex creates a special bond, and it even enhances the special bond that already exists. I'm willing to bet that your boyfriend probably shares this view and isn't it beautiful that your boyfriend wants to share that with you? I think too often in our society we think men just want sex because they're horny, and women want sex because of intimacy when that's a load of gender bullshit.
In your post, I think you have a somewhat unhealthy view of sex. Using language and phrases like "giving up" which I think might be rooted in putting your virginity in a weird place. You see sex as something you are sacrificing, something that you are giving up when he sees you not having sex as you giving up on wanting a fulfilling relationship. He also said he's willing to wait 1-2 years for you, and that's another expression of commitment. He is telling you he wants to be with you in a long term sense, but let's you know he still wants that physical relationship with you.
You need to be very honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it. Just because you marry someone, doesn't mean you're going to spend the rest of your life with them. And just because you're not married to someone, doesn't mean they're not going to be with you for the rest of your life. Marriage as an institution has little to do with two people staying together, the people in the relationship are the ones who have to do the work to stay together.
TL;DR: You've been dating this guy for 5 months, and that to me that is a very short amount of time compared to your decision to wait. Though, 5 months is also long enough to have serious feelings for a person. If you think maybe you're open to having a sexual relationship with your partner, talk to him about why he wants one and figure out what you want. If you're uncomfortable and feel no desire to change your stance, you deserve someone who respects that stance. Be honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it. | Agree wholeheartedly with this, consent is very sexy! and wanted to add:
This is coming from someone who is making a huge compromise in her own relationship.
OP, so far, it sounds like you have a closed mind about this, by saying that you KNOW you're not ever going to change your mind. You're 25, I'm sure there's something you've changed your mind on before that you thought you never would. Sometimes when we make these decisions in our values, your real feelings start to take a back seat to the principle of being consistent. Think about your decision and how you feel about it then decide if you should talk to your partner about it. Sometimes it can be really nice to hear the reasons they want something you don't and it can convince you to be more open to the idea. but first you gotta decide weather you're open to being open.
Now I want to talk to you about something really important that you touched on a little bit in your post: there are other ways partners express commitment to one another outside of marriage. You've mentioned that your boy feels that sex is an expression of commitment. You've also said it yourself that sex creates a special bond, and it even enhances the special bond that already exists. I'm willing to bet that your boyfriend probably shares this view and isn't it beautiful that your boyfriend wants to share that with you? I think too often in our society we think men just want sex because they're horny, and women want sex because of intimacy when that's a load of gender bullshit.
In your post, I think you have a somewhat unhealthy view of sex. Using language and phrases like "giving up" which I think might be rooted in putting your virginity in a weird place. You see sex as something you are sacrificing, something that you are giving up when he sees you not having sex as you giving up on wanting a fulfilling relationship. He also said he's willing to wait 1-2 years for you, and that's another expression of commitment. He is telling you he wants to be with you in a long term sense, but let's you know he still wants that physical relationship with you.
You need to be very honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it. Just because you marry someone, doesn't mean you're going to spend the rest of your life with them. And just because you're not married to someone, doesn't mean they're not going to be with you for the rest of your life. Marriage as an institution has little to do with two people staying together, the people in the relationship are the ones who have to do the work to stay together.
TL;DR: You've been dating this guy for 5 months, and that to me that is a very short amount of time compared to your decision to wait. Though, 5 months is also long enough to have serious feelings for a person. If you think maybe you're open to having a sexual relationship with your partner, talk to him about why he wants one and figure out what you want. If you're uncomfortable and feel no desire to change your stance, you deserve someone who respects that stance. Be honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it.
| relationships | t5_2qjvn | cht9jma | Agree wholeheartedly with this, consent is very sexy! and wanted to add:
This is coming from someone who is making a huge compromise in her own relationship.
OP, so far, it sounds like you have a closed mind about this, by saying that you KNOW you're not ever going to change your mind. You're 25, I'm sure there's something you've changed your mind on before that you thought you never would. Sometimes when we make these decisions in our values, your real feelings start to take a back seat to the principle of being consistent. Think about your decision and how you feel about it then decide if you should talk to your partner about it. Sometimes it can be really nice to hear the reasons they want something you don't and it can convince you to be more open to the idea. but first you gotta decide weather you're open to being open.
Now I want to talk to you about something really important that you touched on a little bit in your post: there are other ways partners express commitment to one another outside of marriage. You've mentioned that your boy feels that sex is an expression of commitment. You've also said it yourself that sex creates a special bond, and it even enhances the special bond that already exists. I'm willing to bet that your boyfriend probably shares this view and isn't it beautiful that your boyfriend wants to share that with you? I think too often in our society we think men just want sex because they're horny, and women want sex because of intimacy when that's a load of gender bullshit.
In your post, I think you have a somewhat unhealthy view of sex. Using language and phrases like "giving up" which I think might be rooted in putting your virginity in a weird place. You see sex as something you are sacrificing, something that you are giving up when he sees you not having sex as you giving up on wanting a fulfilling relationship. He also said he's willing to wait 1-2 years for you, and that's another expression of commitment. He is telling you he wants to be with you in a long term sense, but let's you know he still wants that physical relationship with you.
You need to be very honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it. Just because you marry someone, doesn't mean you're going to spend the rest of your life with them. And just because you're not married to someone, doesn't mean they're not going to be with you for the rest of your life. Marriage as an institution has little to do with two people staying together, the people in the relationship are the ones who have to do the work to stay together. | You've been dating this guy for 5 months, and that to me that is a very short amount of time compared to your decision to wait. Though, 5 months is also long enough to have serious feelings for a person. If you think maybe you're open to having a sexual relationship with your partner, talk to him about why he wants one and figure out what you want. If you're uncomfortable and feel no desire to change your stance, you deserve someone who respects that stance. Be honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it. |
solarisfowl | If you have time, watch wingman's hangar.
Otherwise, the TL:DW/DR is that the dog fighting module, where you get in your ship and fly into space (2 gorgeous "maps"), which will be the in-fiction flight simulator, is being released to backers tomorrow.
Everyone gets the single player Vanduul Swarm (like hoard) mode off the bat, and they're doing a phased multiplayer rollout (by citizen number) to make sure they can handle the traffic and that there aren't major unforeseen bugs.
Ships available are the hornet, 300i, and aurora. More features and ships coming after this goes out.
TL:DR (of my TL:DW/DR): module released tomorrow that will let you fly a ship and dogfight with it. Multiplayer aspects are a phased rollout. | If you have time, watch wingman's hangar.
Otherwise, the TL:DW/DR is that the dog fighting module, where you get in your ship and fly into space (2 gorgeous "maps"), which will be the in-fiction flight simulator, is being released to backers tomorrow.
Everyone gets the single player Vanduul Swarm (like hoard) mode off the bat, and they're doing a phased multiplayer rollout (by citizen number) to make sure they can handle the traffic and that there aren't major unforeseen bugs.
Ships available are the hornet, 300i, and aurora. More features and ships coming after this goes out.
TL:DR (of my TL:DW/DR): module released tomorrow that will let you fly a ship and dogfight with it. Multiplayer aspects are a phased rollout.
| starcitizen | t5_2v94d | chthswh | If you have time, watch wingman's hangar.
Otherwise, the TL:DW/DR is that the dog fighting module, where you get in your ship and fly into space (2 gorgeous "maps"), which will be the in-fiction flight simulator, is being released to backers tomorrow.
Everyone gets the single player Vanduul Swarm (like hoard) mode off the bat, and they're doing a phased multiplayer rollout (by citizen number) to make sure they can handle the traffic and that there aren't major unforeseen bugs.
Ships available are the hornet, 300i, and aurora. More features and ships coming after this goes out. | of my TL:DW/DR): module released tomorrow that will let you fly a ship and dogfight with it. Multiplayer aspects are a phased rollout. |
Men13 | > I understand your sentiment, "teach people how to be careful," but this is already widely done.
But that's the WHOLE point they are trying to make! That "teach people how to be careful" is misogyny! I think you completely misunderstand the whole issue.
> they're not saying, "never cover your drink,"
They will never say "never cover your drink". But how will a person know about covering their drink? Are they expected to just "think of it on their own"? Or should someone tell them that's an option to protect themselves?
They won't say "never cover your drink" but they DO prevent people from learning they *can* cover their drink (and no, it isn't "trivial"). They actually DO say "don't tell women they can cover their drinks". Or "don't tell women that if they drink too much and get unconscious, some bad person can take advantage of them". They claim that's victim blaming, that it basically makes the women "to blame" for rape and perpetuates "rape culture".
I just think you completely missed the point of everything here. That is what they are saying - and the counter argument is "telling people to be careful *isn't* victim blaming or rape culture. It's helping them avoid bad things. Look, we always do it, even when rape isn't involved!"
> they're saying, "don't perpetuate the idea that being roofied is a lapse of focus on the victim's behalf; criminals have agency."
No one claims criminals don't have agency. Feminist are saying these ads remove the responsibility from criminals, but telling a person to lock his car doesn't mean the thief isn't responsible.
But yes - like forgetting to lock your car is a laps of focus that might result in your car stolen (by a criminal that is completely responsible for his actions), drinking too much when out alone to the point that you don't know what's going on around you is a laps that might result in an attack. That isn't rape apology any more than the first example is "car thief apology".
This means feminism attacks *any* attempt to educate people as to how they can protect themselves from rape. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
which says:
> Unfortunately, some people think that the way to prevent rape is for potential victims to change their behavior
(like teaching them to cover their drinks or learn self defense?) See that? Telling someone locking their car helps reduce car theft is changing that person's behavior. Telling a kid not to take candy is changing their behavior. Telling me to shred my documents is changing my behavior. OF COURSE we educate people how changing their behavior can help prevent them from being a victim in crime X! What's the other alternative, tell the criminal not to be a criminal?
Is educating people as to how they can minimize being attacked a bad thing? Apparently it is, but ONLY if it's about rape!
> Which takes the blame away from attackers
(which I'm trying to show is absurd with my other examples of "changing the victim's behavior", e.g., locking your car etc. where you obviously don't take blame away from the criminals)
or this:
which says "when you go out with a friend, and you see they drank too much and might put themselves in a vulnerable situation, don't ignore it - help them avoid it!".
But no, that's VICTIM BLAMING, that's RAPE CULTURE, that "blatantly shifts the blame onto victims and friends, and away from the very person who deserves it: the rapist"
Does it though? Telling a person with a brand new Ferrary that he better not park in the bad part of town... does that take away the blame from the car thief? If he is arrested, will they say "oh, but that ferrary guy parked his car in a bad place, so we don't need to blame the thief"?
No. We might say the Ferrary guy is acted stupidly and could have avoided the theft, but the thief is 100% to blame.
Same *should be* here, but for some reason feminists see it differently.
----------------------------------------
**tl;dr**
I think you completely missed the point. Feminists claim that *any* advice as to how to avoid being attacked is victim blaming and takes responsibility away from the criminal. Yes, even showing someone how to cover their drink (they won't tell anyone not to actually cover the drink, but **they will prevent people from learning about the ability to do so** by preventing ads about it). I'm showing that it *isn't* taking away responsibility from the perpetrator and *isn't* rape culture by showing it's done all the time for all other crimes, so why should this crime be different?
**Edit**: you know what? No need to edit. It stays like this. | > I understand your sentiment, "teach people how to be careful," but this is already widely done.
But that's the WHOLE point they are trying to make! That "teach people how to be careful" is misogyny! I think you completely misunderstand the whole issue.
> they're not saying, "never cover your drink,"
They will never say "never cover your drink". But how will a person know about covering their drink? Are they expected to just "think of it on their own"? Or should someone tell them that's an option to protect themselves?
They won't say "never cover your drink" but they DO prevent people from learning they can cover their drink (and no, it isn't "trivial"). They actually DO say "don't tell women they can cover their drinks". Or "don't tell women that if they drink too much and get unconscious, some bad person can take advantage of them". They claim that's victim blaming, that it basically makes the women "to blame" for rape and perpetuates "rape culture".
I just think you completely missed the point of everything here. That is what they are saying - and the counter argument is "telling people to be careful isn't victim blaming or rape culture. It's helping them avoid bad things. Look, we always do it, even when rape isn't involved!"
> they're saying, "don't perpetuate the idea that being roofied is a lapse of focus on the victim's behalf; criminals have agency."
No one claims criminals don't have agency. Feminist are saying these ads remove the responsibility from criminals, but telling a person to lock his car doesn't mean the thief isn't responsible.
But yes - like forgetting to lock your car is a laps of focus that might result in your car stolen (by a criminal that is completely responsible for his actions), drinking too much when out alone to the point that you don't know what's going on around you is a laps that might result in an attack. That isn't rape apology any more than the first example is "car thief apology".
This means feminism attacks any attempt to educate people as to how they can protect themselves from rape. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
which says:
> Unfortunately, some people think that the way to prevent rape is for potential victims to change their behavior
(like teaching them to cover their drinks or learn self defense?) See that? Telling someone locking their car helps reduce car theft is changing that person's behavior. Telling a kid not to take candy is changing their behavior. Telling me to shred my documents is changing my behavior. OF COURSE we educate people how changing their behavior can help prevent them from being a victim in crime X! What's the other alternative, tell the criminal not to be a criminal?
Is educating people as to how they can minimize being attacked a bad thing? Apparently it is, but ONLY if it's about rape!
> Which takes the blame away from attackers
(which I'm trying to show is absurd with my other examples of "changing the victim's behavior", e.g., locking your car etc. where you obviously don't take blame away from the criminals)
or this:
which says "when you go out with a friend, and you see they drank too much and might put themselves in a vulnerable situation, don't ignore it - help them avoid it!".
But no, that's VICTIM BLAMING, that's RAPE CULTURE, that "blatantly shifts the blame onto victims and friends, and away from the very person who deserves it: the rapist"
Does it though? Telling a person with a brand new Ferrary that he better not park in the bad part of town... does that take away the blame from the car thief? If he is arrested, will they say "oh, but that ferrary guy parked his car in a bad place, so we don't need to blame the thief"?
No. We might say the Ferrary guy is acted stupidly and could have avoided the theft, but the thief is 100% to blame.
Same should be here, but for some reason feminists see it differently.
tl;dr
I think you completely missed the point. Feminists claim that any advice as to how to avoid being attacked is victim blaming and takes responsibility away from the criminal. Yes, even showing someone how to cover their drink (they won't tell anyone not to actually cover the drink, but they will prevent people from learning about the ability to do so by preventing ads about it). I'm showing that it isn't taking away responsibility from the perpetrator and isn't rape culture by showing it's done all the time for all other crimes, so why should this crime be different?
Edit : you know what? No need to edit. It stays like this.
| MensRights | t5_2qhk3 | chuv0rl | I understand your sentiment, "teach people how to be careful," but this is already widely done.
But that's the WHOLE point they are trying to make! That "teach people how to be careful" is misogyny! I think you completely misunderstand the whole issue.
> they're not saying, "never cover your drink,"
They will never say "never cover your drink". But how will a person know about covering their drink? Are they expected to just "think of it on their own"? Or should someone tell them that's an option to protect themselves?
They won't say "never cover your drink" but they DO prevent people from learning they can cover their drink (and no, it isn't "trivial"). They actually DO say "don't tell women they can cover their drinks". Or "don't tell women that if they drink too much and get unconscious, some bad person can take advantage of them". They claim that's victim blaming, that it basically makes the women "to blame" for rape and perpetuates "rape culture".
I just think you completely missed the point of everything here. That is what they are saying - and the counter argument is "telling people to be careful isn't victim blaming or rape culture. It's helping them avoid bad things. Look, we always do it, even when rape isn't involved!"
> they're saying, "don't perpetuate the idea that being roofied is a lapse of focus on the victim's behalf; criminals have agency."
No one claims criminals don't have agency. Feminist are saying these ads remove the responsibility from criminals, but telling a person to lock his car doesn't mean the thief isn't responsible.
But yes - like forgetting to lock your car is a laps of focus that might result in your car stolen (by a criminal that is completely responsible for his actions), drinking too much when out alone to the point that you don't know what's going on around you is a laps that might result in an attack. That isn't rape apology any more than the first example is "car thief apology".
This means feminism attacks any attempt to educate people as to how they can protect themselves from rape. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
which says:
> Unfortunately, some people think that the way to prevent rape is for potential victims to change their behavior
(like teaching them to cover their drinks or learn self defense?) See that? Telling someone locking their car helps reduce car theft is changing that person's behavior. Telling a kid not to take candy is changing their behavior. Telling me to shred my documents is changing my behavior. OF COURSE we educate people how changing their behavior can help prevent them from being a victim in crime X! What's the other alternative, tell the criminal not to be a criminal?
Is educating people as to how they can minimize being attacked a bad thing? Apparently it is, but ONLY if it's about rape!
> Which takes the blame away from attackers
(which I'm trying to show is absurd with my other examples of "changing the victim's behavior", e.g., locking your car etc. where you obviously don't take blame away from the criminals)
or this:
which says "when you go out with a friend, and you see they drank too much and might put themselves in a vulnerable situation, don't ignore it - help them avoid it!".
But no, that's VICTIM BLAMING, that's RAPE CULTURE, that "blatantly shifts the blame onto victims and friends, and away from the very person who deserves it: the rapist"
Does it though? Telling a person with a brand new Ferrary that he better not park in the bad part of town... does that take away the blame from the car thief? If he is arrested, will they say "oh, but that ferrary guy parked his car in a bad place, so we don't need to blame the thief"?
No. We might say the Ferrary guy is acted stupidly and could have avoided the theft, but the thief is 100% to blame.
Same should be here, but for some reason feminists see it differently. | I think you completely missed the point. Feminists claim that any advice as to how to avoid being attacked is victim blaming and takes responsibility away from the criminal. Yes, even showing someone how to cover their drink (they won't tell anyone not to actually cover the drink, but they will prevent people from learning about the ability to do so by preventing ads about it). I'm showing that it isn't taking away responsibility from the perpetrator and isn't rape culture by showing it's done all the time for all other crimes, so why should this crime be different?
Edit : you know what? No need to edit. It stays like this. |
runninger | 1st grade. Teacher had a collection of trading cards that he'd sometimes give kids. They were like Sports Illustrated for Kids ones, nothing fancy. He told me if I wrote a short summary of Abraham Lincoln (I had been reading a biography of him), I could have one of his REAL trading cards, not just the little paper SI ones. So I took him up on his offer; wrote like a 5 sentence summary of his life, riddled with spelling and grammar errors that 7 year olds make. Typed it up on the computer though and worked hard on it. He gave me his Jim Thome card (he is a big Indians fan and so was I).
"So what's so great about this?" you ask. Doing that sparked my interest in history, Lincoln, and writing. A decade or so later, I still love history, Lincoln's my favorite president, and I want to be a journalist. All thanks to him, really. He's a good guy; always treats kids like they're important and not just little children. Still my favorite teacher after all the others I had.
Tl;dr Teacher had me write bio of Lincoln in 1st grade for a simple Jim Thome card, ended with me having a passion for history, Lincoln, and writing. | 1st grade. Teacher had a collection of trading cards that he'd sometimes give kids. They were like Sports Illustrated for Kids ones, nothing fancy. He told me if I wrote a short summary of Abraham Lincoln (I had been reading a biography of him), I could have one of his REAL trading cards, not just the little paper SI ones. So I took him up on his offer; wrote like a 5 sentence summary of his life, riddled with spelling and grammar errors that 7 year olds make. Typed it up on the computer though and worked hard on it. He gave me his Jim Thome card (he is a big Indians fan and so was I).
"So what's so great about this?" you ask. Doing that sparked my interest in history, Lincoln, and writing. A decade or so later, I still love history, Lincoln's my favorite president, and I want to be a journalist. All thanks to him, really. He's a good guy; always treats kids like they're important and not just little children. Still my favorite teacher after all the others I had.
Tl;dr Teacher had me write bio of Lincoln in 1st grade for a simple Jim Thome card, ended with me having a passion for history, Lincoln, and writing.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | chtpit3 | 1st grade. Teacher had a collection of trading cards that he'd sometimes give kids. They were like Sports Illustrated for Kids ones, nothing fancy. He told me if I wrote a short summary of Abraham Lincoln (I had been reading a biography of him), I could have one of his REAL trading cards, not just the little paper SI ones. So I took him up on his offer; wrote like a 5 sentence summary of his life, riddled with spelling and grammar errors that 7 year olds make. Typed it up on the computer though and worked hard on it. He gave me his Jim Thome card (he is a big Indians fan and so was I).
"So what's so great about this?" you ask. Doing that sparked my interest in history, Lincoln, and writing. A decade or so later, I still love history, Lincoln's my favorite president, and I want to be a journalist. All thanks to him, really. He's a good guy; always treats kids like they're important and not just little children. Still my favorite teacher after all the others I had. | Teacher had me write bio of Lincoln in 1st grade for a simple Jim Thome card, ended with me having a passion for history, Lincoln, and writing. |
lucasvb | [The relation is explained in this diagram](
* A cos(ωt) = blue
* B sin(ωt) = red
* C cos(ωt - φ) = green
A is the length of the blue segment, and B the length of the red segment. Therefore: C^2 = A^2 + B^2
The phase angle φ is the angle shown in yellow, which is φ = arctan(B / A) = ["atan2"](
This relation, which isn't always obvious to a lot of students, is useful when dealing with [phasors]( and it explains why you need both sines and cosines in a [Fourier series]( to specify an arbitrary wave form, since for that you need to encode the phase of each frequency component as well, in order to properly describe the total waveform.
So, for simplicity, complex numbers are used along with Euler's formula: e^(iθ) = cos(θ) + i sin(θ). With complex numbers, you can just wrap phase and amplitude of each component in a single number, Z = ( Ce^(-iφ) ), and use e^(iωt) for the varying oscillation part: Ze^(iωt) = ( Ce^(-iφ) )e^(iωt) = Ce^i(ωt-φ)
**EDIT**: [**HERE'S A 3D VERSION!**]( (wait for it!). Well, *not quite* 3D, as I didn't add any z-sort to the lines. But you get the idea.
(I hate to watermark stuff I make, but I'm kinda making a living off donations at the moment, so forgive me for that. I just know this will go around. I'll probably make a proper post about this on my tumblr blog anyway.)
**EDIT 2 / caveat**: The 3D version works because we fix a value of C and change only the phase, so we get A = C cos(φ) and B = C sen(φ). This traces a circle in that static diagram I posted above, or an helix with increasing φ on another axis (the 3D animation).
In this scenario, translation along the x axis (2D case) is equivalent to rotation along the φ axis (3D case). This is what makes the animation work.
If you pick A and B arbitrarily and trace an elliptical helix in 3D, rotating it won't produce the same effect, because the helix looks like a wave with varying amplitude as it rotates. So it's not the same thing.
**tl;dr**: please, take the 3D version as eye candy. Use the original 2D animation and the static diagram if you want the educational content. Otherwise, you may be confused. | [The relation is explained in this diagram](
A cos(ωt) = blue
B sin(ωt) = red
C cos(ωt - φ) = green
A is the length of the blue segment, and B the length of the red segment. Therefore: C^2 = A^2 + B^2
The phase angle φ is the angle shown in yellow, which is φ = arctan(B / A) = ["atan2"](
This relation, which isn't always obvious to a lot of students, is useful when dealing with [phasors]( and it explains why you need both sines and cosines in a [Fourier series]( to specify an arbitrary wave form, since for that you need to encode the phase of each frequency component as well, in order to properly describe the total waveform.
So, for simplicity, complex numbers are used along with Euler's formula: e^(iθ) = cos(θ) + i sin(θ). With complex numbers, you can just wrap phase and amplitude of each component in a single number, Z = ( Ce^(-iφ) ), and use e^(iωt) for the varying oscillation part: Ze^(iωt) = ( Ce^(-iφ) )e^(iωt) = Ce^i(ωt-φ)
EDIT : HERE'S A 3D VERSION! . Well, not quite 3D, as I didn't add any z-sort to the lines. But you get the idea.
(I hate to watermark stuff I make, but I'm kinda making a living off donations at the moment, so forgive me for that. I just know this will go around. I'll probably make a proper post about this on my tumblr blog anyway.)
EDIT 2 / caveat : The 3D version works because we fix a value of C and change only the phase, so we get A = C cos(φ) and B = C sen(φ). This traces a circle in that static diagram I posted above, or an helix with increasing φ on another axis (the 3D animation).
In this scenario, translation along the x axis (2D case) is equivalent to rotation along the φ axis (3D case). This is what makes the animation work.
If you pick A and B arbitrarily and trace an elliptical helix in 3D, rotating it won't produce the same effect, because the helix looks like a wave with varying amplitude as it rotates. So it's not the same thing.
tl;dr : please, take the 3D version as eye candy. Use the original 2D animation and the static diagram if you want the educational content. Otherwise, you may be confused.
| educationalgifs | t5_2w708 | chtvork | The relation is explained in this diagram](
A cos(ωt) = blue
B sin(ωt) = red
C cos(ωt - φ) = green
A is the length of the blue segment, and B the length of the red segment. Therefore: C^2 = A^2 + B^2
The phase angle φ is the angle shown in yellow, which is φ = arctan(B / A) = ["atan2"](
This relation, which isn't always obvious to a lot of students, is useful when dealing with [phasors]( and it explains why you need both sines and cosines in a [Fourier series]( to specify an arbitrary wave form, since for that you need to encode the phase of each frequency component as well, in order to properly describe the total waveform.
So, for simplicity, complex numbers are used along with Euler's formula: e^(iθ) = cos(θ) + i sin(θ). With complex numbers, you can just wrap phase and amplitude of each component in a single number, Z = ( Ce^(-iφ) ), and use e^(iωt) for the varying oscillation part: Ze^(iωt) = ( Ce^(-iφ) )e^(iωt) = Ce^i(ωt-φ)
EDIT : HERE'S A 3D VERSION! . Well, not quite 3D, as I didn't add any z-sort to the lines. But you get the idea.
(I hate to watermark stuff I make, but I'm kinda making a living off donations at the moment, so forgive me for that. I just know this will go around. I'll probably make a proper post about this on my tumblr blog anyway.)
EDIT 2 / caveat : The 3D version works because we fix a value of C and change only the phase, so we get A = C cos(φ) and B = C sen(φ). This traces a circle in that static diagram I posted above, or an helix with increasing φ on another axis (the 3D animation).
In this scenario, translation along the x axis (2D case) is equivalent to rotation along the φ axis (3D case). This is what makes the animation work.
If you pick A and B arbitrarily and trace an elliptical helix in 3D, rotating it won't produce the same effect, because the helix looks like a wave with varying amplitude as it rotates. So it's not the same thing. | please, take the 3D version as eye candy. Use the original 2D animation and the static diagram if you want the educational content. Otherwise, you may be confused. |
crunkman21 | Monday, I was awakened by two attractive girls from my class knocking on my door to hang out all day. The rest of the week consisted of Netflix.
Tl;dr chicks & flicks. | Monday, I was awakened by two attractive girls from my class knocking on my door to hang out all day. The rest of the week consisted of Netflix.
Tl;dr chicks & flicks.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | chtyro0 | Monday, I was awakened by two attractive girls from my class knocking on my door to hang out all day. The rest of the week consisted of Netflix. | chicks & flicks. |
Sinergyy | Wow man, congrats, but you are wrong. I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, and I need to tell you that your answer is the best I've heard so far. But it's not correct. Here is why
[If you ask this question to the lie telling bird in front of Hell door he will say "neither". Because the correct answer is both, but he'll lie and tell neither. Now the fun part begins](/sp)
[Now, this answer is in fact "Neither one of the objects doesn't contain heaven. English language thought us that "Neither objects don't contain" or "Both objects don't contain" are the same answer. They have the same meaning in this proposition. So, if you think about it, the truth telling parrot in front of hell's door can reply instead of "both" with "neither" also. ](/sp)
[This makes your argument invalid, because it implies that the lie telling bird will tell you the truth, that neither one of the objects contain heaven. tl;dr Lie telling bird can't answer to your question the way you did. Because he'll say the truth.](/sp)
Waiting your opinion on this. | Wow man, congrats, but you are wrong. I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, and I need to tell you that your answer is the best I've heard so far. But it's not correct. Here is why
If you ask this question to the lie telling bird in front of Hell door he will say "neither". Because the correct answer is both, but he'll lie and tell neither. Now the fun part begins
Now, this answer is in fact "Neither one of the objects doesn't contain heaven. English language thought us that "Neither objects don't contain" or "Both objects don't contain" are the same answer. They have the same meaning in this proposition. So, if you think about it, the truth telling parrot in front of hell's door can reply instead of "both" with "neither" also.
This makes your argument invalid, because it implies that the lie telling bird will tell you the truth, that neither one of the objects contain heaven. tl;dr Lie telling bird can't answer to your question the way you did. Because he'll say the truth.
Waiting your opinion on this.
| riddles | t5_2qiux | chuy0jf | Wow man, congrats, but you are wrong. I'm not trying to argue with you or anything, and I need to tell you that your answer is the best I've heard so far. But it's not correct. Here is why
If you ask this question to the lie telling bird in front of Hell door he will say "neither". Because the correct answer is both, but he'll lie and tell neither. Now the fun part begins
Now, this answer is in fact "Neither one of the objects doesn't contain heaven. English language thought us that "Neither objects don't contain" or "Both objects don't contain" are the same answer. They have the same meaning in this proposition. So, if you think about it, the truth telling parrot in front of hell's door can reply instead of "both" with "neither" also.
This makes your argument invalid, because it implies that the lie telling bird will tell you the truth, that neither one of the objects contain heaven. | Lie telling bird can't answer to your question the way you did. Because he'll say the truth.
Waiting your opinion on this. |
probablyhrenrai | The way I think of it is that a thought has a "critical mass" which, upon reaching this size, begins to develop itself, or at least be developed unconsciously, and so seem to develop itself. To the conscious brain, this difference is insignificant because the conscious brain has *no* part in redefining the thought.
As for the tulpa being limited to the host's mind, I mean that any tulpa, take Kundae for example, cannot truly exist in any other person's mind. Tulpas can't be transferred from mind to mind, nor can they interact with the physical reality because they are thought (and because we do not have telepathy).
**Tl;dr:** I think that the thought that becomes a tulpa gets to be developed enough that the subconscious brain starts to develop that thought automatically and independently of the conscious brain. By a tulpa being limited to the host's mind, I meant not only that they cannot interact with the physical world but also that they cannot exist in anyone else's mind because no way of perfect thought transferring (telepathy) exists.
It should be noted that I do not believe that tulpas are metaphysical beings. | The way I think of it is that a thought has a "critical mass" which, upon reaching this size, begins to develop itself, or at least be developed unconsciously, and so seem to develop itself. To the conscious brain, this difference is insignificant because the conscious brain has no part in redefining the thought.
As for the tulpa being limited to the host's mind, I mean that any tulpa, take Kundae for example, cannot truly exist in any other person's mind. Tulpas can't be transferred from mind to mind, nor can they interact with the physical reality because they are thought (and because we do not have telepathy).
Tl;dr: I think that the thought that becomes a tulpa gets to be developed enough that the subconscious brain starts to develop that thought automatically and independently of the conscious brain. By a tulpa being limited to the host's mind, I meant not only that they cannot interact with the physical world but also that they cannot exist in anyone else's mind because no way of perfect thought transferring (telepathy) exists.
It should be noted that I do not believe that tulpas are metaphysical beings.
| Tulpas | t5_2u69x | chuvfd8 | The way I think of it is that a thought has a "critical mass" which, upon reaching this size, begins to develop itself, or at least be developed unconsciously, and so seem to develop itself. To the conscious brain, this difference is insignificant because the conscious brain has no part in redefining the thought.
As for the tulpa being limited to the host's mind, I mean that any tulpa, take Kundae for example, cannot truly exist in any other person's mind. Tulpas can't be transferred from mind to mind, nor can they interact with the physical reality because they are thought (and because we do not have telepathy). | I think that the thought that becomes a tulpa gets to be developed enough that the subconscious brain starts to develop that thought automatically and independently of the conscious brain. By a tulpa being limited to the host's mind, I meant not only that they cannot interact with the physical world but also that they cannot exist in anyone else's mind because no way of perfect thought transferring (telepathy) exists.
It should be noted that I do not believe that tulpas are metaphysical beings. |
zalifer | You just got the DLC partially for free.
You can join servers with karts (or heli's or whatever in the future), rather than being unable to play those missions at all. You see those assets in full fidelity, and can be a passenger in them.
The ads only show up when you are using content you don't own, such as trying to enter this kart, or the helicoptor, not at any other time. If you are just playing the game, you just play the game, but if you come into contact with DLC you didn't pay for, it reminds you to pay for it, if you use it.
The main menu shows the icon for content you haven't purchased in a different place to content you have purchased, it's not overbearing at all.
TL;DR : Only playing content you have paid for will not change in any way.
You will be able to partially use content you have not paid for, including joining servers running that content, and being a passenger in un-purchased vehicles. | You just got the DLC partially for free.
You can join servers with karts (or heli's or whatever in the future), rather than being unable to play those missions at all. You see those assets in full fidelity, and can be a passenger in them.
The ads only show up when you are using content you don't own, such as trying to enter this kart, or the helicoptor, not at any other time. If you are just playing the game, you just play the game, but if you come into contact with DLC you didn't pay for, it reminds you to pay for it, if you use it.
The main menu shows the icon for content you haven't purchased in a different place to content you have purchased, it's not overbearing at all.
TL;DR : Only playing content you have paid for will not change in any way.
You will be able to partially use content you have not paid for, including joining servers running that content, and being a passenger in un-purchased vehicles.
| arma | t5_2s3q7 | chu1p2t | You just got the DLC partially for free.
You can join servers with karts (or heli's or whatever in the future), rather than being unable to play those missions at all. You see those assets in full fidelity, and can be a passenger in them.
The ads only show up when you are using content you don't own, such as trying to enter this kart, or the helicoptor, not at any other time. If you are just playing the game, you just play the game, but if you come into contact with DLC you didn't pay for, it reminds you to pay for it, if you use it.
The main menu shows the icon for content you haven't purchased in a different place to content you have purchased, it's not overbearing at all. | Only playing content you have paid for will not change in any way.
You will be able to partially use content you have not paid for, including joining servers running that content, and being a passenger in un-purchased vehicles. |
pfaffo | to address your fear: the spectral *will* be worse on the climbs, it will punish you on the long rides, and unless you have it pointing downhill it just won't be as fun as the nerve.
frustrating that the website doesn't tell you the suspension travel on either bike. but they are both 29ers. nerve looks like a xc/trail oriented bike with 120-140mm of travel, the spectral is trail/all mountain with 140-160mm travel. both suspensions are plenty when paired with 29er wheels. typical xc travel for 29er is 100mm. the bigger the wheel, the more inherent suspension there is without having to rely on a fork or shock. just more volume in the tires to soak up hits.
let's say that the decision comes down to only these two bikes.
you deleted your original post so i can't re-read the type of riding you do. but from what i recall, it wasn't that bumpy or downhill. i think between these two bikes, the nerve will serve you over a wider range of terrain and just be more fun than the spectral. 120mm of travel for a 29er is plenty, especially compared to what you're coming from, which i imagine is a 26er with 100mm of travel. the nerve will feel completely different, totally plush, and it will monster truck roll over everything.
don't think long travel and slacker angles as something to merely "grow into." it's a specific tool for a specific job, and what it does well at one thing, it sacrifices in others. it's good for a tiny sliver of the spectrum of riding and terrain out there, and the nerve just covers a bigger sliver of that spectrum.
all mountain--------------trail--------------------------xc
---spectral---------------------
------------nerve-------------
-----your old bike-
[canyon's own website says the spectral is best suited for all mountain and cross country, but the nerve covers all of this AND "marathon" xc, whatever that is]( bear in mind, it's in their interest to overstate a bike's abilities to sell more units. your current riding and local terrain should make the decision for you.
if you find yourself doing any kind of sustained climbs at all, get the nerve. if your long rides look like [this]( get the nerve. i did that on an xc 26er with 100mm in front and 90mm in the back. i wish i had a little more travel, maybe 120, but it was still a lot of fun. it would be a lot more fun on a nerve.
now, if you're lucky enough to have a friend drive you and your bike to the top of that hill so you can rocket down and climb the few inclines between singletrack descents, get the spectral. basically, if your longest climbs are under an hour, then you get to do 20+ minute sustained high speed descents through gnarly, bumpy, rooted, rutted, rocky, droppy bits, get the spectral for a really good time.
but i've [heard bad things about the fox evolution fork]( it comes with. also, 32mm stanchions on a 5" all mountain bike seems like cheapskate corner-cutting to me. if you really do use the spectral for what it's designed for, you may find yourself wishing for a new, stiffer fork with at least 34mm stanchions.
*tl;dr: get the nerve.* | to address your fear: the spectral will be worse on the climbs, it will punish you on the long rides, and unless you have it pointing downhill it just won't be as fun as the nerve.
frustrating that the website doesn't tell you the suspension travel on either bike. but they are both 29ers. nerve looks like a xc/trail oriented bike with 120-140mm of travel, the spectral is trail/all mountain with 140-160mm travel. both suspensions are plenty when paired with 29er wheels. typical xc travel for 29er is 100mm. the bigger the wheel, the more inherent suspension there is without having to rely on a fork or shock. just more volume in the tires to soak up hits.
let's say that the decision comes down to only these two bikes.
you deleted your original post so i can't re-read the type of riding you do. but from what i recall, it wasn't that bumpy or downhill. i think between these two bikes, the nerve will serve you over a wider range of terrain and just be more fun than the spectral. 120mm of travel for a 29er is plenty, especially compared to what you're coming from, which i imagine is a 26er with 100mm of travel. the nerve will feel completely different, totally plush, and it will monster truck roll over everything.
don't think long travel and slacker angles as something to merely "grow into." it's a specific tool for a specific job, and what it does well at one thing, it sacrifices in others. it's good for a tiny sliver of the spectrum of riding and terrain out there, and the nerve just covers a bigger sliver of that spectrum.
all mountain--------------trail--------------------------xc
---spectral---------------------
------------nerve-------------
-----your old bike-
[canyon's own website says the spectral is best suited for all mountain and cross country, but the nerve covers all of this AND "marathon" xc, whatever that is]( bear in mind, it's in their interest to overstate a bike's abilities to sell more units. your current riding and local terrain should make the decision for you.
if you find yourself doing any kind of sustained climbs at all, get the nerve. if your long rides look like [this]( get the nerve. i did that on an xc 26er with 100mm in front and 90mm in the back. i wish i had a little more travel, maybe 120, but it was still a lot of fun. it would be a lot more fun on a nerve.
now, if you're lucky enough to have a friend drive you and your bike to the top of that hill so you can rocket down and climb the few inclines between singletrack descents, get the spectral. basically, if your longest climbs are under an hour, then you get to do 20+ minute sustained high speed descents through gnarly, bumpy, rooted, rutted, rocky, droppy bits, get the spectral for a really good time.
but i've [heard bad things about the fox evolution fork]( it comes with. also, 32mm stanchions on a 5" all mountain bike seems like cheapskate corner-cutting to me. if you really do use the spectral for what it's designed for, you may find yourself wishing for a new, stiffer fork with at least 34mm stanchions.
tl;dr: get the nerve.
| MTB | t5_2qo3d | chv2ze5 | to address your fear: the spectral will be worse on the climbs, it will punish you on the long rides, and unless you have it pointing downhill it just won't be as fun as the nerve.
frustrating that the website doesn't tell you the suspension travel on either bike. but they are both 29ers. nerve looks like a xc/trail oriented bike with 120-140mm of travel, the spectral is trail/all mountain with 140-160mm travel. both suspensions are plenty when paired with 29er wheels. typical xc travel for 29er is 100mm. the bigger the wheel, the more inherent suspension there is without having to rely on a fork or shock. just more volume in the tires to soak up hits.
let's say that the decision comes down to only these two bikes.
you deleted your original post so i can't re-read the type of riding you do. but from what i recall, it wasn't that bumpy or downhill. i think between these two bikes, the nerve will serve you over a wider range of terrain and just be more fun than the spectral. 120mm of travel for a 29er is plenty, especially compared to what you're coming from, which i imagine is a 26er with 100mm of travel. the nerve will feel completely different, totally plush, and it will monster truck roll over everything.
don't think long travel and slacker angles as something to merely "grow into." it's a specific tool for a specific job, and what it does well at one thing, it sacrifices in others. it's good for a tiny sliver of the spectrum of riding and terrain out there, and the nerve just covers a bigger sliver of that spectrum.
all mountain--------------trail--------------------------xc
---spectral---------------------
------------nerve-------------
-----your old bike-
[canyon's own website says the spectral is best suited for all mountain and cross country, but the nerve covers all of this AND "marathon" xc, whatever that is]( bear in mind, it's in their interest to overstate a bike's abilities to sell more units. your current riding and local terrain should make the decision for you.
if you find yourself doing any kind of sustained climbs at all, get the nerve. if your long rides look like [this]( get the nerve. i did that on an xc 26er with 100mm in front and 90mm in the back. i wish i had a little more travel, maybe 120, but it was still a lot of fun. it would be a lot more fun on a nerve.
now, if you're lucky enough to have a friend drive you and your bike to the top of that hill so you can rocket down and climb the few inclines between singletrack descents, get the spectral. basically, if your longest climbs are under an hour, then you get to do 20+ minute sustained high speed descents through gnarly, bumpy, rooted, rutted, rocky, droppy bits, get the spectral for a really good time.
but i've [heard bad things about the fox evolution fork]( it comes with. also, 32mm stanchions on a 5" all mountain bike seems like cheapskate corner-cutting to me. if you really do use the spectral for what it's designed for, you may find yourself wishing for a new, stiffer fork with at least 34mm stanchions. | get the nerve. |
ddmotp | I personally don't have it, but I have a friend who (whom?) I've seen use it briefly before - from what I can tell it seems like a neat software, and he's said he's enjoyed using it thus far. I'm personally considering getting the $12 bundle not only for it, bit for the added bonuses as well, so I'll let you decide :)
TL; DR: I don't own it, but from what I've seen and heard it seems to be a pretty decent tool, esp. if you don't like to put much time into individually drawing out characters. | I personally don't have it, but I have a friend who (whom?) I've seen use it briefly before - from what I can tell it seems like a neat software, and he's said he's enjoyed using it thus far. I'm personally considering getting the $12 bundle not only for it, bit for the added bonuses as well, so I'll let you decide :)
TL; DR: I don't own it, but from what I've seen and heard it seems to be a pretty decent tool, esp. if you don't like to put much time into individually drawing out characters.
| PixelArt | t5_2ql09 | chumgrh | I personally don't have it, but I have a friend who (whom?) I've seen use it briefly before - from what I can tell it seems like a neat software, and he's said he's enjoyed using it thus far. I'm personally considering getting the $12 bundle not only for it, bit for the added bonuses as well, so I'll let you decide :) | I don't own it, but from what I've seen and heard it seems to be a pretty decent tool, esp. if you don't like to put much time into individually drawing out characters. |
MattressMogul | Just a heads up, all mattresses in the U.S. are required to be flame retardant. Some do accomplish this using natural chemicals. Many foam manufacturers are working diligently to improve their foams, especially in bedding. The foam for beds is going to be a much higher grade of foam than you see all around you.
In fact, you probably came in contact with foam in multiple places today. It's all over your car. It's in your carpet pad. Your sofa. It's everywhere. All that stuff is much less regulated than the mattress, and it's been outgassing this whole time. (Really makes you question that new car smell, huh?)
Finally, just be really careful with the "natural" companies. They are some of the shadiest mattress manufacturers out there (as a rule... not calling out any particular one.) They usually market themselves using fear tactics and lies, and I really HATE that. They also are the one's getting called out by the FTC for [not supporting]( their VOC claims.
TL;DR: Just be careful. Latex is natural and a pretty good mattress option. Just watch out for shoddy companies and don't buy into all the fear tactics. | Just a heads up, all mattresses in the U.S. are required to be flame retardant. Some do accomplish this using natural chemicals. Many foam manufacturers are working diligently to improve their foams, especially in bedding. The foam for beds is going to be a much higher grade of foam than you see all around you.
In fact, you probably came in contact with foam in multiple places today. It's all over your car. It's in your carpet pad. Your sofa. It's everywhere. All that stuff is much less regulated than the mattress, and it's been outgassing this whole time. (Really makes you question that new car smell, huh?)
Finally, just be really careful with the "natural" companies. They are some of the shadiest mattress manufacturers out there (as a rule... not calling out any particular one.) They usually market themselves using fear tactics and lies, and I really HATE that. They also are the one's getting called out by the FTC for [not supporting]( their VOC claims.
TL;DR: Just be careful. Latex is natural and a pretty good mattress option. Just watch out for shoddy companies and don't buy into all the fear tactics.
| BuyItForLife | t5_2ss1q | chvg4fn | Just a heads up, all mattresses in the U.S. are required to be flame retardant. Some do accomplish this using natural chemicals. Many foam manufacturers are working diligently to improve their foams, especially in bedding. The foam for beds is going to be a much higher grade of foam than you see all around you.
In fact, you probably came in contact with foam in multiple places today. It's all over your car. It's in your carpet pad. Your sofa. It's everywhere. All that stuff is much less regulated than the mattress, and it's been outgassing this whole time. (Really makes you question that new car smell, huh?)
Finally, just be really careful with the "natural" companies. They are some of the shadiest mattress manufacturers out there (as a rule... not calling out any particular one.) They usually market themselves using fear tactics and lies, and I really HATE that. They also are the one's getting called out by the FTC for [not supporting]( their VOC claims. | Just be careful. Latex is natural and a pretty good mattress option. Just watch out for shoddy companies and don't buy into all the fear tactics. |
Ireallydidnotdoit | While I agree with the SMBC comic quoted below in general there is something to what you're saying. I'm a Classicist and we have the good fortune of being able to trace a significant variety of texts for a very lengthy period of time from two languages and cultures - the Greek and Roma. More so if you count the near eastern stuff that heavily effected early Greek thought...
The thing that jumps out the most to me is i) malleability and ii) acculturation. Canons change, a lot, even within a culture let alone when you go across cultures. There is a significant gap between what we label the best Greco-Roman stuff and what they did, depending on time period. We place such a heavy emphasis on Plato and Aristotle not because of any particular weight they held in their own time but due to the reverence paid them by later Christians and Muslims. So the circumstances around books have the tendency to change.
The other thing is acculturation and the role of society in promoting both literary standards and authors yada yada yada, reasonably obvious, at least within the constraints of this thread.
tl;dr we heavily underestimate the role of chance in things. | While I agree with the SMBC comic quoted below in general there is something to what you're saying. I'm a Classicist and we have the good fortune of being able to trace a significant variety of texts for a very lengthy period of time from two languages and cultures - the Greek and Roma. More so if you count the near eastern stuff that heavily effected early Greek thought...
The thing that jumps out the most to me is i) malleability and ii) acculturation. Canons change, a lot, even within a culture let alone when you go across cultures. There is a significant gap between what we label the best Greco-Roman stuff and what they did, depending on time period. We place such a heavy emphasis on Plato and Aristotle not because of any particular weight they held in their own time but due to the reverence paid them by later Christians and Muslims. So the circumstances around books have the tendency to change.
The other thing is acculturation and the role of society in promoting both literary standards and authors yada yada yada, reasonably obvious, at least within the constraints of this thread.
tl;dr we heavily underestimate the role of chance in things.
| literature | t5_2qhps | chv28i8 | While I agree with the SMBC comic quoted below in general there is something to what you're saying. I'm a Classicist and we have the good fortune of being able to trace a significant variety of texts for a very lengthy period of time from two languages and cultures - the Greek and Roma. More so if you count the near eastern stuff that heavily effected early Greek thought...
The thing that jumps out the most to me is i) malleability and ii) acculturation. Canons change, a lot, even within a culture let alone when you go across cultures. There is a significant gap between what we label the best Greco-Roman stuff and what they did, depending on time period. We place such a heavy emphasis on Plato and Aristotle not because of any particular weight they held in their own time but due to the reverence paid them by later Christians and Muslims. So the circumstances around books have the tendency to change.
The other thing is acculturation and the role of society in promoting both literary standards and authors yada yada yada, reasonably obvious, at least within the constraints of this thread. | we heavily underestimate the role of chance in things. |
antisocialmedic | I wear padded bras because I like the way it changes the shape of my breasts. I also dress pretty modestly across the board, so modest underwear just kind of goes along with that.
It has nothing to do with being ashamed of my body. I just prefer not to show it like that on a daily basis.
Until recently, I worked in an office. We had a pretty lax dress code, but I can tell you that we absolutely were *not* permitted to wear miniskirts or shirts that were considered too revealing. I am not sure where you got your idea of how American office workers dress, but you seem somewhat misled on the topic.
I am not telling you what kind of bra you need to wear and I am not going to draw judgement based on your desire to wear unlined bras. It comes down to personal preferences, so don't judge me for being an American who *happens* to prefer padded bras.
And really, they rarely cover up my nipples anyway. But I *do* find them way more supportive than my unlined bras.
TLDR: Stop acting like the titty police. Everyone has a right to personal preferences, and a preference for padded bras != repression. | I wear padded bras because I like the way it changes the shape of my breasts. I also dress pretty modestly across the board, so modest underwear just kind of goes along with that.
It has nothing to do with being ashamed of my body. I just prefer not to show it like that on a daily basis.
Until recently, I worked in an office. We had a pretty lax dress code, but I can tell you that we absolutely were not permitted to wear miniskirts or shirts that were considered too revealing. I am not sure where you got your idea of how American office workers dress, but you seem somewhat misled on the topic.
I am not telling you what kind of bra you need to wear and I am not going to draw judgement based on your desire to wear unlined bras. It comes down to personal preferences, so don't judge me for being an American who happens to prefer padded bras.
And really, they rarely cover up my nipples anyway. But I do find them way more supportive than my unlined bras.
TLDR: Stop acting like the titty police. Everyone has a right to personal preferences, and a preference for padded bras != repression.
| ABraThatFits | t5_2s8kf | chv2oqt | I wear padded bras because I like the way it changes the shape of my breasts. I also dress pretty modestly across the board, so modest underwear just kind of goes along with that.
It has nothing to do with being ashamed of my body. I just prefer not to show it like that on a daily basis.
Until recently, I worked in an office. We had a pretty lax dress code, but I can tell you that we absolutely were not permitted to wear miniskirts or shirts that were considered too revealing. I am not sure where you got your idea of how American office workers dress, but you seem somewhat misled on the topic.
I am not telling you what kind of bra you need to wear and I am not going to draw judgement based on your desire to wear unlined bras. It comes down to personal preferences, so don't judge me for being an American who happens to prefer padded bras.
And really, they rarely cover up my nipples anyway. But I do find them way more supportive than my unlined bras. | Stop acting like the titty police. Everyone has a right to personal preferences, and a preference for padded bras != repression. |
0_001 | you just went full retard didn't you? We didn't talk about betting, we talked about if SK can challenge Ex-LGB for the second place in sweden.
AND please if you would have ANY idea about sports, you wouldn't write what you just wrote, IN EVERY SPORT not only e-sports you need to compare it like both teams are playing their best, otherwise comparing wouldn't be any useful, you want to know why? okay so here I'll help you out. At any given sport, the worlds best teams don't beat each other based on consistency or any other shit, they beat each other by their daily condition. You understand that?
So if you don't, I give you 2 perfect examples, even from CS. At dreamhack fnatic won vs NiP in the finals, why? because they were on fire, they had a great day, and NiP? if they wouldve had a day as good as fnatic they would've kicked their ass out. Same for EMS One, VP wins over NiP in the finals, because VP had a great showing and again NiP just couldn't perform at their best that day.
Some months later VP, even tho they "should" be the best team right now get totally smashed by LDLC, because LDLC is on a spree and VP can't find their form.
Do you understand that? and after all, we didn't even talk about betting, we had our own little convo about swedish teams, and you come and talk some super bullshit, ty for that, have a nice day.
P.S.: Yes i compare his Awp'ing when he's on fire to the other Awpers when they are on fire, isn't that the only logical thing? jesus christ this subreddit gets me every day again.
TL;DR: In the end every high end sportsgame is a coint toss if you bet on it. | you just went full retard didn't you? We didn't talk about betting, we talked about if SK can challenge Ex-LGB for the second place in sweden.
AND please if you would have ANY idea about sports, you wouldn't write what you just wrote, IN EVERY SPORT not only e-sports you need to compare it like both teams are playing their best, otherwise comparing wouldn't be any useful, you want to know why? okay so here I'll help you out. At any given sport, the worlds best teams don't beat each other based on consistency or any other shit, they beat each other by their daily condition. You understand that?
So if you don't, I give you 2 perfect examples, even from CS. At dreamhack fnatic won vs NiP in the finals, why? because they were on fire, they had a great day, and NiP? if they wouldve had a day as good as fnatic they would've kicked their ass out. Same for EMS One, VP wins over NiP in the finals, because VP had a great showing and again NiP just couldn't perform at their best that day.
Some months later VP, even tho they "should" be the best team right now get totally smashed by LDLC, because LDLC is on a spree and VP can't find their form.
Do you understand that? and after all, we didn't even talk about betting, we had our own little convo about swedish teams, and you come and talk some super bullshit, ty for that, have a nice day.
P.S.: Yes i compare his Awp'ing when he's on fire to the other Awpers when they are on fire, isn't that the only logical thing? jesus christ this subreddit gets me every day again.
TL;DR: In the end every high end sportsgame is a coint toss if you bet on it.
| csgobetting | t5_2zume | chv3x1r | you just went full retard didn't you? We didn't talk about betting, we talked about if SK can challenge Ex-LGB for the second place in sweden.
AND please if you would have ANY idea about sports, you wouldn't write what you just wrote, IN EVERY SPORT not only e-sports you need to compare it like both teams are playing their best, otherwise comparing wouldn't be any useful, you want to know why? okay so here I'll help you out. At any given sport, the worlds best teams don't beat each other based on consistency or any other shit, they beat each other by their daily condition. You understand that?
So if you don't, I give you 2 perfect examples, even from CS. At dreamhack fnatic won vs NiP in the finals, why? because they were on fire, they had a great day, and NiP? if they wouldve had a day as good as fnatic they would've kicked their ass out. Same for EMS One, VP wins over NiP in the finals, because VP had a great showing and again NiP just couldn't perform at their best that day.
Some months later VP, even tho they "should" be the best team right now get totally smashed by LDLC, because LDLC is on a spree and VP can't find their form.
Do you understand that? and after all, we didn't even talk about betting, we had our own little convo about swedish teams, and you come and talk some super bullshit, ty for that, have a nice day.
P.S.: Yes i compare his Awp'ing when he's on fire to the other Awpers when they are on fire, isn't that the only logical thing? jesus christ this subreddit gets me every day again. | In the end every high end sportsgame is a coint toss if you bet on it. |
neureaucrat | I was maybe 8 or 9, had a friend over for dinner. After dinner, we biked to 7-11 to get Slurpees and then play in a park. I drank the whole giant Pepsi slurpee really fast. Minutes later I get the "Oh no, that's not right" hot flash feeling over my whole body and know the race is on. I get on my bike and speed off for home, not even telling my friend what was happening. Spoiler: biking while holding in diarrhea is pretty difficult. I was about a block from my house, standing up on my pedals with my buttcheeks clenched together as hard as I could when...it happened. I full on beefed in my shorts. It somehow all stayed in thanks to my tighty whiteys. The best part of the story is that I was embarrassed and simply took the underwear into the basement and left them in the dirty laundry, filled to the brim with shit. My mom still talks about what a surprise that was.
tl;dr Drank massive slurpee, shit my pants on a bicycle, hid shitty shorts in dirty laundry for my mom to take care of. | I was maybe 8 or 9, had a friend over for dinner. After dinner, we biked to 7-11 to get Slurpees and then play in a park. I drank the whole giant Pepsi slurpee really fast. Minutes later I get the "Oh no, that's not right" hot flash feeling over my whole body and know the race is on. I get on my bike and speed off for home, not even telling my friend what was happening. Spoiler: biking while holding in diarrhea is pretty difficult. I was about a block from my house, standing up on my pedals with my buttcheeks clenched together as hard as I could when...it happened. I full on beefed in my shorts. It somehow all stayed in thanks to my tighty whiteys. The best part of the story is that I was embarrassed and simply took the underwear into the basement and left them in the dirty laundry, filled to the brim with shit. My mom still talks about what a surprise that was.
tl;dr Drank massive slurpee, shit my pants on a bicycle, hid shitty shorts in dirty laundry for my mom to take care of.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | chux4kg | I was maybe 8 or 9, had a friend over for dinner. After dinner, we biked to 7-11 to get Slurpees and then play in a park. I drank the whole giant Pepsi slurpee really fast. Minutes later I get the "Oh no, that's not right" hot flash feeling over my whole body and know the race is on. I get on my bike and speed off for home, not even telling my friend what was happening. Spoiler: biking while holding in diarrhea is pretty difficult. I was about a block from my house, standing up on my pedals with my buttcheeks clenched together as hard as I could when...it happened. I full on beefed in my shorts. It somehow all stayed in thanks to my tighty whiteys. The best part of the story is that I was embarrassed and simply took the underwear into the basement and left them in the dirty laundry, filled to the brim with shit. My mom still talks about what a surprise that was. | Drank massive slurpee, shit my pants on a bicycle, hid shitty shorts in dirty laundry for my mom to take care of. |
momin_q | I'll just copy an old reply of mine to a similar comment:
Near the middle of Mourinho's last season in Madrid, he had some sort of dispute with Casillas. It was allegedly due to Casillas leaking team information to the media via his reporter girlfriend. Casillas never played a single game for the remainder of the season, being replaced by Adan (who is now the keeper of 20th place Real Betis) and Diego Lopez. Mourinho left Madrid at the end of the season for allegedly losing the dressing room. Lopez finished the season amazingly and Casillas was partly to blame for Mourinho's departure, this led to some mixed feelings from the fans on Casillas.
Ancelotti came in and didn't want to lose the vital support of the fans right when he got there. At the start of the season, he announced that he would play the in-form Diego Lopez for La Liga games and the controversial Casillas for all cup games.
Now it's almost the end of the season and Lopez has been pretty average compared to his amazing form last season. Casillas on the other hand has been playing incredible while winning a Copa del Rey and leading Madrid to the Champions League final for their first time in over 10 years. Fans (and the media) have been giving him outstanding support and are longing for his return to La Liga.
I expect Carlo to change the keeper situation again next season if not this season. Lopez leaving is unfortunately the likely scenario.
TL;DR
Fans were divided on Casillas for Mourinho's departure. Ancelotti didn't want to disturb the fan base, so he made the least controversial decision of playing the in-form Lopez in the league and Casillas for everything else. After having an amazing season, most fans are now yearning for Iker to return to being the main keeper.
| I'll just copy an old reply of mine to a similar comment:
Near the middle of Mourinho's last season in Madrid, he had some sort of dispute with Casillas. It was allegedly due to Casillas leaking team information to the media via his reporter girlfriend. Casillas never played a single game for the remainder of the season, being replaced by Adan (who is now the keeper of 20th place Real Betis) and Diego Lopez. Mourinho left Madrid at the end of the season for allegedly losing the dressing room. Lopez finished the season amazingly and Casillas was partly to blame for Mourinho's departure, this led to some mixed feelings from the fans on Casillas.
Ancelotti came in and didn't want to lose the vital support of the fans right when he got there. At the start of the season, he announced that he would play the in-form Diego Lopez for La Liga games and the controversial Casillas for all cup games.
Now it's almost the end of the season and Lopez has been pretty average compared to his amazing form last season. Casillas on the other hand has been playing incredible while winning a Copa del Rey and leading Madrid to the Champions League final for their first time in over 10 years. Fans (and the media) have been giving him outstanding support and are longing for his return to La Liga.
I expect Carlo to change the keeper situation again next season if not this season. Lopez leaving is unfortunately the likely scenario.
TL;DR
Fans were divided on Casillas for Mourinho's departure. Ancelotti didn't want to disturb the fan base, so he made the least controversial decision of playing the in-form Lopez in the league and Casillas for everything else. After having an amazing season, most fans are now yearning for Iker to return to being the main keeper.
| soccer | t5_2qi58 | chvvn7l | I'll just copy an old reply of mine to a similar comment:
Near the middle of Mourinho's last season in Madrid, he had some sort of dispute with Casillas. It was allegedly due to Casillas leaking team information to the media via his reporter girlfriend. Casillas never played a single game for the remainder of the season, being replaced by Adan (who is now the keeper of 20th place Real Betis) and Diego Lopez. Mourinho left Madrid at the end of the season for allegedly losing the dressing room. Lopez finished the season amazingly and Casillas was partly to blame for Mourinho's departure, this led to some mixed feelings from the fans on Casillas.
Ancelotti came in and didn't want to lose the vital support of the fans right when he got there. At the start of the season, he announced that he would play the in-form Diego Lopez for La Liga games and the controversial Casillas for all cup games.
Now it's almost the end of the season and Lopez has been pretty average compared to his amazing form last season. Casillas on the other hand has been playing incredible while winning a Copa del Rey and leading Madrid to the Champions League final for their first time in over 10 years. Fans (and the media) have been giving him outstanding support and are longing for his return to La Liga.
I expect Carlo to change the keeper situation again next season if not this season. Lopez leaving is unfortunately the likely scenario. | Fans were divided on Casillas for Mourinho's departure. Ancelotti didn't want to disturb the fan base, so he made the least controversial decision of playing the in-form Lopez in the league and Casillas for everything else. After having an amazing season, most fans are now yearning for Iker to return to being the main keeper. |
WDC312 | Since I can't say anyone not on Liverpool (ie, not matching my crest) without being crucified, I'll go with Coutinho. Let me explain.
Coutinho is excellent. He is a vital cog in the Liverpool midfield, and has the best close control on the entire team (better than Suarez or Sterling). However, people tend to think he is better than he is at certain things- mostly the things on his highlight reel. They overrate his skills in certain areas while not understanding some of the most important aspects of his game.
The through balls that make it to the YouTube videos with shitty music are incredible, as are the mazy runs he puts together. I don't need to tell you about his assists against Villa or Fulham last year, or the absolutely world class game he had against Newcastle. I also don't need to mention his assists to Sturridge against Everton or Arsenal (holy god, that was one of the sweetest passes I've ever seen).* Coutinho has produced some truly remarkable moments on the field.
^(*I don't need to tell you about them again, but I will anyway because I like talking about them.)
The thing is, everyone thinks these highlights are the most important part of his game, and they form their opinion of his play based on them. Half the time these people end up thinking he is much better than he is, because while these moments are incredible, they are also somewhat few and far between. The other half of the time these people do the opposite, and point to the scarcity of these moments (or crap defending, or whatever floats their boat) as a reason for why Coutinho is "inconsistent".
While they may in some sense be the moments that define him, they are not indicative of the consistent weekly contributions Coutinho makes to the team. Like I said, these moments are rare. What is not rare is Coutinho's ability to hold the ball up under pressure, and make things happen, time and time again. There is not a player at Anfield I would rather have driving at the defense- with the possible exception of Sterling- than Coutinho. There are few players I would prefer to have receiving the ball in transition when the other team is throttling us with an energetic press. In these situations, or even in less intense moments during the game, Coutinho is the perfect outlet. He rarely loses the ball- he often draws the foul- and he is always looking to make his touch have some attacking purpose. He can spot the impossible pass- and pull it off- on occasion, but often he will maneuver himself better, dribbling in and out, so that the pass becomes much easier. He has excellent instincts for how to manipulate the defense to open up where he wants them to.
He is in this way both an excellent possession player, and an excellent counterattacking player. Sure, his shooting could use some work- I think everyone knows that. And absolutely, his moments of magic are beautiful for Liverpool fans to watch. But a lot of people don't realize how useful he is when he just receives the ball in the midfield, dribbles to relieve a bit of pressure, and lays the ball off.
I think [this]( video showcases what I'm talking about reasonably well. Notice how a lot of his final balls don't quite come off, but how he is so good at receiving the ball after Liverpool clear and either drawing the foul, holding it up and keeping possession, or driving at the defense. He doesn't juke or break ankles as often as I think people expect him to, because he often just knows where to go in order to open up space and make it so he doesn't *have* to pull off the hard stuff.
I guess this isn't really me saying he's overrated, but instead that people overrate certain aspects of his game while underrating others. It's hard to blame them- the through balls are exactly the kind of eye candy that make for a good highlight reel. But it does get on my nerves a bit when people mention his inconsistency, or watch a beautiful assist and explain that he would be a great player if those kinds of assists weren't so rare.
**TL;DR: Coutinho isn't exactly the player his highlight reels make him out to be. People overrate the skills they see in the highlight reels, and underrate the other parts of his game.** | Since I can't say anyone not on Liverpool (ie, not matching my crest) without being crucified, I'll go with Coutinho. Let me explain.
Coutinho is excellent. He is a vital cog in the Liverpool midfield, and has the best close control on the entire team (better than Suarez or Sterling). However, people tend to think he is better than he is at certain things- mostly the things on his highlight reel. They overrate his skills in certain areas while not understanding some of the most important aspects of his game.
The through balls that make it to the YouTube videos with shitty music are incredible, as are the mazy runs he puts together. I don't need to tell you about his assists against Villa or Fulham last year, or the absolutely world class game he had against Newcastle. I also don't need to mention his assists to Sturridge against Everton or Arsenal (holy god, that was one of the sweetest passes I've ever seen).* Coutinho has produced some truly remarkable moments on the field.
^(*I don't need to tell you about them again, but I will anyway because I like talking about them.)
The thing is, everyone thinks these highlights are the most important part of his game, and they form their opinion of his play based on them. Half the time these people end up thinking he is much better than he is, because while these moments are incredible, they are also somewhat few and far between. The other half of the time these people do the opposite, and point to the scarcity of these moments (or crap defending, or whatever floats their boat) as a reason for why Coutinho is "inconsistent".
While they may in some sense be the moments that define him, they are not indicative of the consistent weekly contributions Coutinho makes to the team. Like I said, these moments are rare. What is not rare is Coutinho's ability to hold the ball up under pressure, and make things happen, time and time again. There is not a player at Anfield I would rather have driving at the defense- with the possible exception of Sterling- than Coutinho. There are few players I would prefer to have receiving the ball in transition when the other team is throttling us with an energetic press. In these situations, or even in less intense moments during the game, Coutinho is the perfect outlet. He rarely loses the ball- he often draws the foul- and he is always looking to make his touch have some attacking purpose. He can spot the impossible pass- and pull it off- on occasion, but often he will maneuver himself better, dribbling in and out, so that the pass becomes much easier. He has excellent instincts for how to manipulate the defense to open up where he wants them to.
He is in this way both an excellent possession player, and an excellent counterattacking player. Sure, his shooting could use some work- I think everyone knows that. And absolutely, his moments of magic are beautiful for Liverpool fans to watch. But a lot of people don't realize how useful he is when he just receives the ball in the midfield, dribbles to relieve a bit of pressure, and lays the ball off.
I think [this]( video showcases what I'm talking about reasonably well. Notice how a lot of his final balls don't quite come off, but how he is so good at receiving the ball after Liverpool clear and either drawing the foul, holding it up and keeping possession, or driving at the defense. He doesn't juke or break ankles as often as I think people expect him to, because he often just knows where to go in order to open up space and make it so he doesn't have to pull off the hard stuff.
I guess this isn't really me saying he's overrated, but instead that people overrate certain aspects of his game while underrating others. It's hard to blame them- the through balls are exactly the kind of eye candy that make for a good highlight reel. But it does get on my nerves a bit when people mention his inconsistency, or watch a beautiful assist and explain that he would be a great player if those kinds of assists weren't so rare.
TL;DR: Coutinho isn't exactly the player his highlight reels make him out to be. People overrate the skills they see in the highlight reels, and underrate the other parts of his game.
| soccer | t5_2qi58 | chvvrtq | Since I can't say anyone not on Liverpool (ie, not matching my crest) without being crucified, I'll go with Coutinho. Let me explain.
Coutinho is excellent. He is a vital cog in the Liverpool midfield, and has the best close control on the entire team (better than Suarez or Sterling). However, people tend to think he is better than he is at certain things- mostly the things on his highlight reel. They overrate his skills in certain areas while not understanding some of the most important aspects of his game.
The through balls that make it to the YouTube videos with shitty music are incredible, as are the mazy runs he puts together. I don't need to tell you about his assists against Villa or Fulham last year, or the absolutely world class game he had against Newcastle. I also don't need to mention his assists to Sturridge against Everton or Arsenal (holy god, that was one of the sweetest passes I've ever seen).* Coutinho has produced some truly remarkable moments on the field.
^(*I don't need to tell you about them again, but I will anyway because I like talking about them.)
The thing is, everyone thinks these highlights are the most important part of his game, and they form their opinion of his play based on them. Half the time these people end up thinking he is much better than he is, because while these moments are incredible, they are also somewhat few and far between. The other half of the time these people do the opposite, and point to the scarcity of these moments (or crap defending, or whatever floats their boat) as a reason for why Coutinho is "inconsistent".
While they may in some sense be the moments that define him, they are not indicative of the consistent weekly contributions Coutinho makes to the team. Like I said, these moments are rare. What is not rare is Coutinho's ability to hold the ball up under pressure, and make things happen, time and time again. There is not a player at Anfield I would rather have driving at the defense- with the possible exception of Sterling- than Coutinho. There are few players I would prefer to have receiving the ball in transition when the other team is throttling us with an energetic press. In these situations, or even in less intense moments during the game, Coutinho is the perfect outlet. He rarely loses the ball- he often draws the foul- and he is always looking to make his touch have some attacking purpose. He can spot the impossible pass- and pull it off- on occasion, but often he will maneuver himself better, dribbling in and out, so that the pass becomes much easier. He has excellent instincts for how to manipulate the defense to open up where he wants them to.
He is in this way both an excellent possession player, and an excellent counterattacking player. Sure, his shooting could use some work- I think everyone knows that. And absolutely, his moments of magic are beautiful for Liverpool fans to watch. But a lot of people don't realize how useful he is when he just receives the ball in the midfield, dribbles to relieve a bit of pressure, and lays the ball off.
I think [this]( video showcases what I'm talking about reasonably well. Notice how a lot of his final balls don't quite come off, but how he is so good at receiving the ball after Liverpool clear and either drawing the foul, holding it up and keeping possession, or driving at the defense. He doesn't juke or break ankles as often as I think people expect him to, because he often just knows where to go in order to open up space and make it so he doesn't have to pull off the hard stuff.
I guess this isn't really me saying he's overrated, but instead that people overrate certain aspects of his game while underrating others. It's hard to blame them- the through balls are exactly the kind of eye candy that make for a good highlight reel. But it does get on my nerves a bit when people mention his inconsistency, or watch a beautiful assist and explain that he would be a great player if those kinds of assists weren't so rare. | Coutinho isn't exactly the player his highlight reels make him out to be. People overrate the skills they see in the highlight reels, and underrate the other parts of his game. |
ThelCrystal | The matchmaking in this game is horrendous. It has been looked into by a few people on this sub for arena. They found that they often fought players there were at 7+ wins when they were just starting a run with less than 2 wins. This was all self-reported though. They could only add people after a match and ask but the results seemed fairly universal so I don't see any reason to doubt that much.
The matchmaking also doesn't take into account dust value of a deck at all. Some people say it shouldn't, but I think as long as the bounds are large enough it should be taken into consideration. As it stands, there is no reason why the game wouldn't think to pair a brand new player with nothing but basics against a top tier control warrior deck with at least 4 legendaries and a slew of rares and epics in it. As long as their rank is similar. I know that legendaries don't equal wins but they are a significant part of making some of the stronger decks in the game. Epics and rares count as well at the lowest ranks. Even a Zoo warlock is very bad if they can't get the rares required as finishers in the deck.
In regards to the first poster though, you are likely on tilt. I spend most of my time in hearthstone in such a mental state and rarely play now because of it. I don't play enough to build up a card collection and I got very very tired of playing the budget decks even when they got me plenty of easy wins. I'm just sick of Zoo and Kolento hunter, etc. I want to play more fun decks but I lack the gold/dust/time to have fun that way.
tl;dr: Hearthstone is heavy rng, matchmaking is really bad, your decks will regularly lose to people who just have more stuff than you even if they are a worse player. | The matchmaking in this game is horrendous. It has been looked into by a few people on this sub for arena. They found that they often fought players there were at 7+ wins when they were just starting a run with less than 2 wins. This was all self-reported though. They could only add people after a match and ask but the results seemed fairly universal so I don't see any reason to doubt that much.
The matchmaking also doesn't take into account dust value of a deck at all. Some people say it shouldn't, but I think as long as the bounds are large enough it should be taken into consideration. As it stands, there is no reason why the game wouldn't think to pair a brand new player with nothing but basics against a top tier control warrior deck with at least 4 legendaries and a slew of rares and epics in it. As long as their rank is similar. I know that legendaries don't equal wins but they are a significant part of making some of the stronger decks in the game. Epics and rares count as well at the lowest ranks. Even a Zoo warlock is very bad if they can't get the rares required as finishers in the deck.
In regards to the first poster though, you are likely on tilt. I spend most of my time in hearthstone in such a mental state and rarely play now because of it. I don't play enough to build up a card collection and I got very very tired of playing the budget decks even when they got me plenty of easy wins. I'm just sick of Zoo and Kolento hunter, etc. I want to play more fun decks but I lack the gold/dust/time to have fun that way.
tl;dr: Hearthstone is heavy rng, matchmaking is really bad, your decks will regularly lose to people who just have more stuff than you even if they are a worse player.
| hearthstone | t5_2w31t | chvxx62 | The matchmaking in this game is horrendous. It has been looked into by a few people on this sub for arena. They found that they often fought players there were at 7+ wins when they were just starting a run with less than 2 wins. This was all self-reported though. They could only add people after a match and ask but the results seemed fairly universal so I don't see any reason to doubt that much.
The matchmaking also doesn't take into account dust value of a deck at all. Some people say it shouldn't, but I think as long as the bounds are large enough it should be taken into consideration. As it stands, there is no reason why the game wouldn't think to pair a brand new player with nothing but basics against a top tier control warrior deck with at least 4 legendaries and a slew of rares and epics in it. As long as their rank is similar. I know that legendaries don't equal wins but they are a significant part of making some of the stronger decks in the game. Epics and rares count as well at the lowest ranks. Even a Zoo warlock is very bad if they can't get the rares required as finishers in the deck.
In regards to the first poster though, you are likely on tilt. I spend most of my time in hearthstone in such a mental state and rarely play now because of it. I don't play enough to build up a card collection and I got very very tired of playing the budget decks even when they got me plenty of easy wins. I'm just sick of Zoo and Kolento hunter, etc. I want to play more fun decks but I lack the gold/dust/time to have fun that way. | Hearthstone is heavy rng, matchmaking is really bad, your decks will regularly lose to people who just have more stuff than you even if they are a worse player. |
Galihan | In One Piece, there is a special sort of special spirit power, similar to the Force, that exists in all living things but very few have the fortune to awaken and even fewer have the skill to train. This is Haki. There are two main kinds that most people, with enough training and willpower, can learn.
There's Observation Haki that grants a sort of precognitive sixth sense that allows you to dodge incoming attacks with ease, and Armament Haki that allows you augment oneself with supernaturally buffed defense or attack, being one of the few and most reliable ways to defeat Logia-Type Devil Fruit users (people who obtained special powers to turn into a unique element, such as [Ace or Smoker,]( and commonly thought to be otherwise intangible.)
The third kind of Haki, Conqueror's Haki, is incredibly rare and only appears in few incredibly powerful people destined for greatness. Conqueror's Haki is essentially a buff to one's spirit and charisma, dominating the will of others with your own. It can be passive, allowing Luffy to naturally amass friends and allies everywhere he goes, even convincing former enemies to rally around him. It can also be weaponized, able to calm, scare away, or even tame giant monsters easily, as well as outright incapacitate the weak-minded into submission as shown in the video.
TL;DR -[ Luffy is a Jedi.]( | In One Piece, there is a special sort of special spirit power, similar to the Force, that exists in all living things but very few have the fortune to awaken and even fewer have the skill to train. This is Haki. There are two main kinds that most people, with enough training and willpower, can learn.
There's Observation Haki that grants a sort of precognitive sixth sense that allows you to dodge incoming attacks with ease, and Armament Haki that allows you augment oneself with supernaturally buffed defense or attack, being one of the few and most reliable ways to defeat Logia-Type Devil Fruit users (people who obtained special powers to turn into a unique element, such as Ace or Smoker,
The third kind of Haki, Conqueror's Haki, is incredibly rare and only appears in few incredibly powerful people destined for greatness. Conqueror's Haki is essentially a buff to one's spirit and charisma, dominating the will of others with your own. It can be passive, allowing Luffy to naturally amass friends and allies everywhere he goes, even convincing former enemies to rally around him. It can also be weaponized, able to calm, scare away, or even tame giant monsters easily, as well as outright incapacitate the weak-minded into submission as shown in the video.
TL;DR -[ Luffy is a Jedi.](
| whowouldwin | t5_2s599 | chw8ol8 | In One Piece, there is a special sort of special spirit power, similar to the Force, that exists in all living things but very few have the fortune to awaken and even fewer have the skill to train. This is Haki. There are two main kinds that most people, with enough training and willpower, can learn.
There's Observation Haki that grants a sort of precognitive sixth sense that allows you to dodge incoming attacks with ease, and Armament Haki that allows you augment oneself with supernaturally buffed defense or attack, being one of the few and most reliable ways to defeat Logia-Type Devil Fruit users (people who obtained special powers to turn into a unique element, such as Ace or Smoker,
The third kind of Haki, Conqueror's Haki, is incredibly rare and only appears in few incredibly powerful people destined for greatness. Conqueror's Haki is essentially a buff to one's spirit and charisma, dominating the will of others with your own. It can be passive, allowing Luffy to naturally amass friends and allies everywhere he goes, even convincing former enemies to rally around him. It can also be weaponized, able to calm, scare away, or even tame giant monsters easily, as well as outright incapacitate the weak-minded into submission as shown in the video. | Luffy is a Jedi.]( |
sombraptor | That's not Godzilla. That's Zilla. Basically, Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to the Godzilla franchise, and made that atrocious movie in 1998. The movie was SO bad that they had to legally change the character's copyright to simply "Zilla" because the people at Toho, the original owners of Godzilla, believed that they had taken the "God" out of Godzilla.
TL;DR: That's Zilla. | That's not Godzilla. That's Zilla. Basically, Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to the Godzilla franchise, and made that atrocious movie in 1998. The movie was SO bad that they had to legally change the character's copyright to simply "Zilla" because the people at Toho, the original owners of Godzilla, believed that they had taken the "God" out of Godzilla.
TL;DR: That's Zilla.
| whowouldwin | t5_2s599 | chwckhx | That's not Godzilla. That's Zilla. Basically, Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to the Godzilla franchise, and made that atrocious movie in 1998. The movie was SO bad that they had to legally change the character's copyright to simply "Zilla" because the people at Toho, the original owners of Godzilla, believed that they had taken the "God" out of Godzilla. | That's Zilla. |
Tabatron | To be honest, unless you're good friends with someone in a top 10 guild you'll probably not get in. Most top guilds are invite only as they are at max capacity 99% of the time (even if realmeye shows <50, they keep inactive friends).
Your best bet is to just play the game normally and as you get better you'll eventually get invited into a mid-tier guild. Just make friends and have fun. The best times I've had in RotMG is when I was in a mid-tier guild called 'Bloodlust Empire'. We had an active mumble/teamspeak server and I had a blast playing with people there (even if some of them were not as skilled).
TL;DR : Find a guild with people that you enjoy playing with, not just one that is ranked high on realmeye. | To be honest, unless you're good friends with someone in a top 10 guild you'll probably not get in. Most top guilds are invite only as they are at max capacity 99% of the time (even if realmeye shows <50, they keep inactive friends).
Your best bet is to just play the game normally and as you get better you'll eventually get invited into a mid-tier guild. Just make friends and have fun. The best times I've had in RotMG is when I was in a mid-tier guild called 'Bloodlust Empire'. We had an active mumble/teamspeak server and I had a blast playing with people there (even if some of them were not as skilled).
TL;DR : Find a guild with people that you enjoy playing with, not just one that is ranked high on realmeye.
| RotMG | t5_2s505 | chw5ii1 | To be honest, unless you're good friends with someone in a top 10 guild you'll probably not get in. Most top guilds are invite only as they are at max capacity 99% of the time (even if realmeye shows <50, they keep inactive friends).
Your best bet is to just play the game normally and as you get better you'll eventually get invited into a mid-tier guild. Just make friends and have fun. The best times I've had in RotMG is when I was in a mid-tier guild called 'Bloodlust Empire'. We had an active mumble/teamspeak server and I had a blast playing with people there (even if some of them were not as skilled). | Find a guild with people that you enjoy playing with, not just one that is ranked high on realmeye. |
Mu0nNeutrino | > In TT... Heatsinks do not increase heat capacity.
I just want to point out that this is not actually true. The two heat systems do work differently, yes, thanks to the fact that one of them is turn-based while the other is continuous, but MWO's boosted heat capacity actually works out to the exact same thing as TT when you start digging into it.
The key is that in TT, your heat sinks are subtracted from your heat generation before the result is added to your heat total. This has the same effect as heat sinks boosting max capacity in MWO - it prevents an alpha of >30 points from instantly shutting you down. In MWO, if you have 10 (true) DHS and fire an alpha of 35 heat, this leaves you at 35/50, aka 15 points below your shutdown threshold. In TT, if you have those same 10 DHS and fire that same 35 heat point alpha, the 20 heat dissipation is subtracted from the heat spike and you are left at 15/30, again 15 points below the shutdown threshold.
tl;dr - MWO's heat sinks increasing heat capacity has the same effect as TT subtracting your heat dissipation before adding to the total, just in a way that works in a real-time environment. | > In TT... Heatsinks do not increase heat capacity.
I just want to point out that this is not actually true. The two heat systems do work differently, yes, thanks to the fact that one of them is turn-based while the other is continuous, but MWO's boosted heat capacity actually works out to the exact same thing as TT when you start digging into it.
The key is that in TT, your heat sinks are subtracted from your heat generation before the result is added to your heat total. This has the same effect as heat sinks boosting max capacity in MWO - it prevents an alpha of >30 points from instantly shutting you down. In MWO, if you have 10 (true) DHS and fire an alpha of 35 heat, this leaves you at 35/50, aka 15 points below your shutdown threshold. In TT, if you have those same 10 DHS and fire that same 35 heat point alpha, the 20 heat dissipation is subtracted from the heat spike and you are left at 15/30, again 15 points below the shutdown threshold.
tl;dr - MWO's heat sinks increasing heat capacity has the same effect as TT subtracting your heat dissipation before adding to the total, just in a way that works in a real-time environment.
| OutreachHPG | t5_2zm77 | chwtxxi | In TT... Heatsinks do not increase heat capacity.
I just want to point out that this is not actually true. The two heat systems do work differently, yes, thanks to the fact that one of them is turn-based while the other is continuous, but MWO's boosted heat capacity actually works out to the exact same thing as TT when you start digging into it.
The key is that in TT, your heat sinks are subtracted from your heat generation before the result is added to your heat total. This has the same effect as heat sinks boosting max capacity in MWO - it prevents an alpha of >30 points from instantly shutting you down. In MWO, if you have 10 (true) DHS and fire an alpha of 35 heat, this leaves you at 35/50, aka 15 points below your shutdown threshold. In TT, if you have those same 10 DHS and fire that same 35 heat point alpha, the 20 heat dissipation is subtracted from the heat spike and you are left at 15/30, again 15 points below the shutdown threshold. | MWO's heat sinks increasing heat capacity has the same effect as TT subtracting your heat dissipation before adding to the total, just in a way that works in a real-time environment. |
Nested90 | Multishot arsenal is a big drop in dps for a physical build (just tested it actually - dropped my base multishot from 9mil to 5mil). So I'd stick with full broadside. Shooting stars is superior for a physical build, no question. spitfire turrents could be ok if you use ballistics; not really needed, plus the 15% damg mitigation from guardian is pretty useful.
TLDR: Don't build around ballistics... the element type maters more than the rockets. | Multishot arsenal is a big drop in dps for a physical build (just tested it actually - dropped my base multishot from 9mil to 5mil). So I'd stick with full broadside. Shooting stars is superior for a physical build, no question. spitfire turrents could be ok if you use ballistics; not really needed, plus the 15% damg mitigation from guardian is pretty useful.
TLDR: Don't build around ballistics... the element type maters more than the rockets.
| Diablo3DemonHunters | t5_2w1a3 | chwn8sd | Multishot arsenal is a big drop in dps for a physical build (just tested it actually - dropped my base multishot from 9mil to 5mil). So I'd stick with full broadside. Shooting stars is superior for a physical build, no question. spitfire turrents could be ok if you use ballistics; not really needed, plus the 15% damg mitigation from guardian is pretty useful. | Don't build around ballistics... the element type maters more than the rockets. |
jimifrusciante | I started by learning a bit of Nirvana. Polly or Smells Like Teen Spirit are a good start. Play the 3 string power chords and get used to these. After a while, add in more.
I only ever play full barre chords rooted on the E string. The 'A' shape rooted on the A string is a jerk, be patient with it.
TL;DR Learn the Smells Like Teen Spirit main riff. Then learn the rhythm to the Stairway to Heaven solo/ending. | I started by learning a bit of Nirvana. Polly or Smells Like Teen Spirit are a good start. Play the 3 string power chords and get used to these. After a while, add in more.
I only ever play full barre chords rooted on the E string. The 'A' shape rooted on the A string is a jerk, be patient with it.
TL;DR Learn the Smells Like Teen Spirit main riff. Then learn the rhythm to the Stairway to Heaven solo/ending.
| Guitar | t5_2qi79 | chwzvxq | I started by learning a bit of Nirvana. Polly or Smells Like Teen Spirit are a good start. Play the 3 string power chords and get used to these. After a while, add in more.
I only ever play full barre chords rooted on the E string. The 'A' shape rooted on the A string is a jerk, be patient with it. | Learn the Smells Like Teen Spirit main riff. Then learn the rhythm to the Stairway to Heaven solo/ending. |
Lalaithial | Are you and the girl exclusive or just casually seeing each other? I think, unless you are willing to completely stop this online relationship, you should make it clear to her that things are not exclusive (and then you have to be okay with her seeing other people).
You don't have to tell her what exactly what's going on online, and at this phase in your life I think it's fine not telling anyone and exploring in secret. I cannot even tell you the amount of things I was into that seemed so strange and awful to me at eighteen that don't phase me (or my partner) at all now. Please, don't be too hard on yourself.
Tl;Dr I think it's fine to keep this as a secret as long as you let this girl know your only interested in something casual. You can do this without divulging all the specifics to her. | Are you and the girl exclusive or just casually seeing each other? I think, unless you are willing to completely stop this online relationship, you should make it clear to her that things are not exclusive (and then you have to be okay with her seeing other people).
You don't have to tell her what exactly what's going on online, and at this phase in your life I think it's fine not telling anyone and exploring in secret. I cannot even tell you the amount of things I was into that seemed so strange and awful to me at eighteen that don't phase me (or my partner) at all now. Please, don't be too hard on yourself.
Tl;Dr I think it's fine to keep this as a secret as long as you let this girl know your only interested in something casual. You can do this without divulging all the specifics to her.
| confession | t5_2qo2a | chx6ou2 | Are you and the girl exclusive or just casually seeing each other? I think, unless you are willing to completely stop this online relationship, you should make it clear to her that things are not exclusive (and then you have to be okay with her seeing other people).
You don't have to tell her what exactly what's going on online, and at this phase in your life I think it's fine not telling anyone and exploring in secret. I cannot even tell you the amount of things I was into that seemed so strange and awful to me at eighteen that don't phase me (or my partner) at all now. Please, don't be too hard on yourself. | I think it's fine to keep this as a secret as long as you let this girl know your only interested in something casual. You can do this without divulging all the specifics to her. |
P0MI | Usually when you think of how well an ap scales you think of a few things. One - how much cc do they get as they level up? This is why elise is so popular in the jungle with a CDR build. Her cocoon becomes a 2 second stun on a 6 second cooldown with max cdr. Another way to interpret how good an ap champion scales into the late game is looking at their AP ratios, in my opinion Orianna is a perfect example of this. She has solid ap ratios and a lot of them as well. Her passive, q, w, e shield and e damage on return, and ult all have ap ratios, and she provides utility and cc so she is like the queen of scaling mids. Other reasons ap champs can scale is because they build items that get stronger as the game goes on. Champs like ryze and karthus come to mind because they build tear into rod of ages most of the time thus making them weak early but incredibly strong later in the game.
TLDR: AP Ratios > Item Builds> CC> Utility - all of these qualities are what determines how well an ap champs scales into the late game. | Usually when you think of how well an ap scales you think of a few things. One - how much cc do they get as they level up? This is why elise is so popular in the jungle with a CDR build. Her cocoon becomes a 2 second stun on a 6 second cooldown with max cdr. Another way to interpret how good an ap champion scales into the late game is looking at their AP ratios, in my opinion Orianna is a perfect example of this. She has solid ap ratios and a lot of them as well. Her passive, q, w, e shield and e damage on return, and ult all have ap ratios, and she provides utility and cc so she is like the queen of scaling mids. Other reasons ap champs can scale is because they build items that get stronger as the game goes on. Champs like ryze and karthus come to mind because they build tear into rod of ages most of the time thus making them weak early but incredibly strong later in the game.
TLDR: AP Ratios > Item Builds> CC> Utility - all of these qualities are what determines how well an ap champs scales into the late game.
| summonerschool | t5_2t9x3 | chx0fyr | Usually when you think of how well an ap scales you think of a few things. One - how much cc do they get as they level up? This is why elise is so popular in the jungle with a CDR build. Her cocoon becomes a 2 second stun on a 6 second cooldown with max cdr. Another way to interpret how good an ap champion scales into the late game is looking at their AP ratios, in my opinion Orianna is a perfect example of this. She has solid ap ratios and a lot of them as well. Her passive, q, w, e shield and e damage on return, and ult all have ap ratios, and she provides utility and cc so she is like the queen of scaling mids. Other reasons ap champs can scale is because they build items that get stronger as the game goes on. Champs like ryze and karthus come to mind because they build tear into rod of ages most of the time thus making them weak early but incredibly strong later in the game. | AP Ratios > Item Builds> CC> Utility - all of these qualities are what determines how well an ap champs scales into the late game. |
Pec0 | Sound like John is dealing with some pretty difficult things. First of all, it sounds as if he's gay and not o.k. with it. It also seems like the underlying issue is how to convince a friend/family member that they are making a mistake, and how to make it clear that you support the individual but not he decisions they are making. It sounds like you family needs to have an intervention to help Lucy realize the mistakes she's making, and it sounds like John needs some therapy to figure out what he wants out of life.
I'm sorry that you've been put in this position, but having a sister i was once really close to, and having grown apart over the years, it seems to me the most important thing is your relationship with your family, and that everyone is on the same page of "Lucy is f'ing up, but we have to support her so she knows she's loved." While I agree with the sentiment behind your family's idea's, i don't think "supporting every decision Lucy makes" and "supporting Lucy" are the same idea. Your family, as a unit, should make it clear to her that you all are unhappy of the situation, and that from your perspective that it seems like SHE should be unhappy about the situation, and then try to figure out why she is putting herself in such a bad place.
Also, my parents were born 10 years apart, so I'm a full believer in age meaning less as you get older, but a 20 year age difference? John is dating women much, MUCH younger for him for a reason. Maybe a women his age wouldn't put up with this shit, while he's hoping a young girl will trick herself into thinking all this shit he's putting her through is acceptable.
TL;DR: You're not wrong. Good on you for trying to help your sister, and don't loose focus on what the important relationships in your life are! Good luck. | Sound like John is dealing with some pretty difficult things. First of all, it sounds as if he's gay and not o.k. with it. It also seems like the underlying issue is how to convince a friend/family member that they are making a mistake, and how to make it clear that you support the individual but not he decisions they are making. It sounds like you family needs to have an intervention to help Lucy realize the mistakes she's making, and it sounds like John needs some therapy to figure out what he wants out of life.
I'm sorry that you've been put in this position, but having a sister i was once really close to, and having grown apart over the years, it seems to me the most important thing is your relationship with your family, and that everyone is on the same page of "Lucy is f'ing up, but we have to support her so she knows she's loved." While I agree with the sentiment behind your family's idea's, i don't think "supporting every decision Lucy makes" and "supporting Lucy" are the same idea. Your family, as a unit, should make it clear to her that you all are unhappy of the situation, and that from your perspective that it seems like SHE should be unhappy about the situation, and then try to figure out why she is putting herself in such a bad place.
Also, my parents were born 10 years apart, so I'm a full believer in age meaning less as you get older, but a 20 year age difference? John is dating women much, MUCH younger for him for a reason. Maybe a women his age wouldn't put up with this shit, while he's hoping a young girl will trick herself into thinking all this shit he's putting her through is acceptable.
TL;DR: You're not wrong. Good on you for trying to help your sister, and don't loose focus on what the important relationships in your life are! Good luck.
| amiwrong | t5_2sf00 | chxmb0m | Sound like John is dealing with some pretty difficult things. First of all, it sounds as if he's gay and not o.k. with it. It also seems like the underlying issue is how to convince a friend/family member that they are making a mistake, and how to make it clear that you support the individual but not he decisions they are making. It sounds like you family needs to have an intervention to help Lucy realize the mistakes she's making, and it sounds like John needs some therapy to figure out what he wants out of life.
I'm sorry that you've been put in this position, but having a sister i was once really close to, and having grown apart over the years, it seems to me the most important thing is your relationship with your family, and that everyone is on the same page of "Lucy is f'ing up, but we have to support her so she knows she's loved." While I agree with the sentiment behind your family's idea's, i don't think "supporting every decision Lucy makes" and "supporting Lucy" are the same idea. Your family, as a unit, should make it clear to her that you all are unhappy of the situation, and that from your perspective that it seems like SHE should be unhappy about the situation, and then try to figure out why she is putting herself in such a bad place.
Also, my parents were born 10 years apart, so I'm a full believer in age meaning less as you get older, but a 20 year age difference? John is dating women much, MUCH younger for him for a reason. Maybe a women his age wouldn't put up with this shit, while he's hoping a young girl will trick herself into thinking all this shit he's putting her through is acceptable. | You're not wrong. Good on you for trying to help your sister, and don't loose focus on what the important relationships in your life are! Good luck. |
Sacrix | >No they won't, because customers will never use them again if they do so
Been living under a rock? Snowden exposed how many companies including the big players pass all kinds of data towards the NSA, yet everyone still uses services by these companies.
>You are the type of tin-foil conspiracy theorist that will call every corporation innately evil because, by law, directors' owe a duty to the company and this means making financially sound (as opposed to morally ethical) decisions.
Uh, no. What the fuck. Also, you'll find that "conspiracy theorist" doesn't carry much weight anymore. Everyone who claimed the governments are spying on us were correct. Again, been living under a rock? Ever heard of what Snowden did?
>But part of this 'evil' is the counterbalance that outright selling personal information to the government will lose customers and thus be against the interests of that company.
That depends. If a company makes money by doing so, they do so. Economics 101. If a company can do so without the public knowing about it, they do so. If a company earns more money by selling the data than they lose customers (see above, they barely lose customers), they do so. It takes a twisted mind or one intended to spread propaganda to view it any other way.
>Furthermore, most companies are contractually obliged by their privacy policy not to sell your personal information to an intelligence department and only marketing relevant information is used (e.g. your viewing habits on Youtube).
First of all, my "viewing habits on YouTube" are personal information. "Marketing relevant information" is personal information, especially in the case of targeted advertisements everyone's doing these days. It is a characteristic unique to the individual. But that aside, these "most companies" you refer to have designed their contracts in such a way they can sell it to whom they please and get away with it. That's how it works. That's how it's been going for years, if not ever since the emergence of the Internet. On top of that: You don't need to be a member of any service for the company to collect data on you. See Facebook ghost/shadow profiles.
>If the public got wind of one company that was selling incredibly private information to the Government they would absolutely be fucked - competitors could use it against them in smear campaigns, contracts will be broken and sued upon, faith will be lost in the company, shareholders will get spooked and sell their shares.
Hahahahahahaha- you aren't serious, are you? Have you really been offline for the past 10 years? Sorry, but what you claim is downright false. Companies have been selling your data to other companies, especially advertising companies. Where do you think targeted ads come from?
>So again, I say that I don't give a toss as to whether a company uses marketing information about me and sells that around (within reason).
That's fine. If you don't care about your privacy, that's all up to you.
>I care if you assert they sell it to the Government.
That's strange how you draw the line for yourself there, but okay. If you truly care, you should be enraged by now, but since you seem to be under the illusion that you are a free untracked anonymous person on the Interwebs, I'm afraid you don't realize how wrong you are yet. I say wrong, instead of ignorant or unknowing, because you actively make false claims instead of merely not knowing what's been going on the past decade.
>They might be compelled to get it, but they don't sell it. Yeah I'm uncomfortable about other information companies might have that could get dug up later in my life by individuals, but this law isn't about that so that's off-topic.
Wait- hold the fucking phone. What law? Is there a single law for Government Surveillance? Wow, I thought it was much more deeply rooted than that! Pfew, guess things aren't as bad after all.
Oh wait, that's wrong.
And, last, you are uncomfortable with information companies having details about you that could haunt you later (which, mind you, is part of what the NSA does), but you claim "this law", whatever law you mean by that, isn't about that? While the subject of this thread is mass government surveillance that does exactly what you're uncomfortable with? That genuinely confuses me. Did you try to say something else and did I just misinterpret some sloppy phrases, or do you really not know what you're saying?
**Tl;dr: Person above doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Been living under a rock for the past decade or something.** | >No they won't, because customers will never use them again if they do so
Been living under a rock? Snowden exposed how many companies including the big players pass all kinds of data towards the NSA, yet everyone still uses services by these companies.
>You are the type of tin-foil conspiracy theorist that will call every corporation innately evil because, by law, directors' owe a duty to the company and this means making financially sound (as opposed to morally ethical) decisions.
Uh, no. What the fuck. Also, you'll find that "conspiracy theorist" doesn't carry much weight anymore. Everyone who claimed the governments are spying on us were correct. Again, been living under a rock? Ever heard of what Snowden did?
>But part of this 'evil' is the counterbalance that outright selling personal information to the government will lose customers and thus be against the interests of that company.
That depends. If a company makes money by doing so, they do so. Economics 101. If a company can do so without the public knowing about it, they do so. If a company earns more money by selling the data than they lose customers (see above, they barely lose customers), they do so. It takes a twisted mind or one intended to spread propaganda to view it any other way.
>Furthermore, most companies are contractually obliged by their privacy policy not to sell your personal information to an intelligence department and only marketing relevant information is used (e.g. your viewing habits on Youtube).
First of all, my "viewing habits on YouTube" are personal information. "Marketing relevant information" is personal information, especially in the case of targeted advertisements everyone's doing these days. It is a characteristic unique to the individual. But that aside, these "most companies" you refer to have designed their contracts in such a way they can sell it to whom they please and get away with it. That's how it works. That's how it's been going for years, if not ever since the emergence of the Internet. On top of that: You don't need to be a member of any service for the company to collect data on you. See Facebook ghost/shadow profiles.
>If the public got wind of one company that was selling incredibly private information to the Government they would absolutely be fucked - competitors could use it against them in smear campaigns, contracts will be broken and sued upon, faith will be lost in the company, shareholders will get spooked and sell their shares.
Hahahahahahaha- you aren't serious, are you? Have you really been offline for the past 10 years? Sorry, but what you claim is downright false. Companies have been selling your data to other companies, especially advertising companies. Where do you think targeted ads come from?
>So again, I say that I don't give a toss as to whether a company uses marketing information about me and sells that around (within reason).
That's fine. If you don't care about your privacy, that's all up to you.
>I care if you assert they sell it to the Government.
That's strange how you draw the line for yourself there, but okay. If you truly care, you should be enraged by now, but since you seem to be under the illusion that you are a free untracked anonymous person on the Interwebs, I'm afraid you don't realize how wrong you are yet. I say wrong, instead of ignorant or unknowing, because you actively make false claims instead of merely not knowing what's been going on the past decade.
>They might be compelled to get it, but they don't sell it. Yeah I'm uncomfortable about other information companies might have that could get dug up later in my life by individuals, but this law isn't about that so that's off-topic.
Wait- hold the fucking phone. What law? Is there a single law for Government Surveillance? Wow, I thought it was much more deeply rooted than that! Pfew, guess things aren't as bad after all.
Oh wait, that's wrong.
And, last, you are uncomfortable with information companies having details about you that could haunt you later (which, mind you, is part of what the NSA does), but you claim "this law", whatever law you mean by that, isn't about that? While the subject of this thread is mass government surveillance that does exactly what you're uncomfortable with? That genuinely confuses me. Did you try to say something else and did I just misinterpret some sloppy phrases, or do you really not know what you're saying?
Tl;dr: Person above doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Been living under a rock for the past decade or something.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | chy2e87 | No they won't, because customers will never use them again if they do so
Been living under a rock? Snowden exposed how many companies including the big players pass all kinds of data towards the NSA, yet everyone still uses services by these companies.
>You are the type of tin-foil conspiracy theorist that will call every corporation innately evil because, by law, directors' owe a duty to the company and this means making financially sound (as opposed to morally ethical) decisions.
Uh, no. What the fuck. Also, you'll find that "conspiracy theorist" doesn't carry much weight anymore. Everyone who claimed the governments are spying on us were correct. Again, been living under a rock? Ever heard of what Snowden did?
>But part of this 'evil' is the counterbalance that outright selling personal information to the government will lose customers and thus be against the interests of that company.
That depends. If a company makes money by doing so, they do so. Economics 101. If a company can do so without the public knowing about it, they do so. If a company earns more money by selling the data than they lose customers (see above, they barely lose customers), they do so. It takes a twisted mind or one intended to spread propaganda to view it any other way.
>Furthermore, most companies are contractually obliged by their privacy policy not to sell your personal information to an intelligence department and only marketing relevant information is used (e.g. your viewing habits on Youtube).
First of all, my "viewing habits on YouTube" are personal information. "Marketing relevant information" is personal information, especially in the case of targeted advertisements everyone's doing these days. It is a characteristic unique to the individual. But that aside, these "most companies" you refer to have designed their contracts in such a way they can sell it to whom they please and get away with it. That's how it works. That's how it's been going for years, if not ever since the emergence of the Internet. On top of that: You don't need to be a member of any service for the company to collect data on you. See Facebook ghost/shadow profiles.
>If the public got wind of one company that was selling incredibly private information to the Government they would absolutely be fucked - competitors could use it against them in smear campaigns, contracts will be broken and sued upon, faith will be lost in the company, shareholders will get spooked and sell their shares.
Hahahahahahaha- you aren't serious, are you? Have you really been offline for the past 10 years? Sorry, but what you claim is downright false. Companies have been selling your data to other companies, especially advertising companies. Where do you think targeted ads come from?
>So again, I say that I don't give a toss as to whether a company uses marketing information about me and sells that around (within reason).
That's fine. If you don't care about your privacy, that's all up to you.
>I care if you assert they sell it to the Government.
That's strange how you draw the line for yourself there, but okay. If you truly care, you should be enraged by now, but since you seem to be under the illusion that you are a free untracked anonymous person on the Interwebs, I'm afraid you don't realize how wrong you are yet. I say wrong, instead of ignorant or unknowing, because you actively make false claims instead of merely not knowing what's been going on the past decade.
>They might be compelled to get it, but they don't sell it. Yeah I'm uncomfortable about other information companies might have that could get dug up later in my life by individuals, but this law isn't about that so that's off-topic.
Wait- hold the fucking phone. What law? Is there a single law for Government Surveillance? Wow, I thought it was much more deeply rooted than that! Pfew, guess things aren't as bad after all.
Oh wait, that's wrong.
And, last, you are uncomfortable with information companies having details about you that could haunt you later (which, mind you, is part of what the NSA does), but you claim "this law", whatever law you mean by that, isn't about that? While the subject of this thread is mass government surveillance that does exactly what you're uncomfortable with? That genuinely confuses me. Did you try to say something else and did I just misinterpret some sloppy phrases, or do you really not know what you're saying? | Person above doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Been living under a rock for the past decade or something. |
Pec0 | I am, also, a 28 year old male, and a preschool teacher, and taking classes to be a better preschool teacher, and i spent years 0-7 in a two bedroom apartment in San Francisco, AND i have a sister who is 4 years younger. (for 3 years, we both slept in closets). (I'm also long winded, and I hate capitalizing my I's, so deal with it!)
Recent research on brain development in children has shown that the biggest influence on how well a person grows up is not genetics or family income or a racial/cultural factor, but how mush stress is constant in the child's growing environment. You can have a poor couple who fill their modest house with few items and provide caring and nourishing experiences for their child with what they have, and that child can grow up to be able to succeed.
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible for adults who are barely making ends meet to live a stress-free (or even low-stress) life. Chances are, if you're worried about where the money is coming from, and are struggling to feed and clothe everyone, relations with your SO get fraught and everyone starts feeling more panicked all the time. Adults can regulate this panic and understand that it passes, and normal life will be calm and pleasant again. Children who grow up in this type of environment can get into trouble though, because they don't have a "normal" to gauge their panicked feeling to, and begin to live in an constant state of being stressed.
The underlying brain mechanics can get confusing, but it's easier to imagine when you are feeling stressed, you don't feel like meeting new people, trying new things, or compromising with anyone. I think we all can relate about being really REALLY stressed out, we just want to be left alone so that we can try to feel better. Now think about what life is for a young child. EVERYTHING is a new thing. EVERY PERSON (aside from mom and dad) are new people. If you think of a child "acting out", chances are you're thinking of a child who is beyond-stressed out and that hitting/biting/tantrum they've just thrown is simply an attempt to feel a little better, if even it's only the tiniest amount. (Imagine being so frustrated with something you want to scream. And then you scream. You're going to feel better, even if it's a barely noticeable amount, and kids will throw tantrums for that same tiny release)
To get back to your question, my understanding of raising small children is to try to keep their stress levels in a manageable place, so that they feel free to work with other people, try new things, and practice old things (this is how I am improving the human race). I think the tricky part of your question is that it comes down to a choice that only you and your husband can make: Would I be anxious raising a family in a rental?
Now, to speak from experience, i can say you absolutely don't need to. Like i said, i grew up in my parents closet on the third floor of a city apartment, and i remember that place fondly. I even remember really not wanting to move, because i loved our little apartment so much. But once we moved to a house i was able to have so much more(a room, a dog, a safe(ish)-neighborhood), and now i realize how much easier things must have gotten for my parents. Before the move, my sister had a crib in the apartment's hall closet (it might have been a toddler bed by that time since she would have been 3 when we moved), we had a living room with no room, a kitchen with an adjacent dining area (i.e. we had a table in the kitchen and somehow cooked and washed dishes around it), and there was my parent's room, which had an adjacent closet that i slept in.(yes, yes, i was raised in a closet in S.F. and i didn't turn out gay. My mom says she did it cause she wanted me to be, though...)
Looking back, i don't know where we kept our things. I don't know where my parents kept their clothes, how they ever managed to have sex, let alone conceive a little-sister for me (i literally slept six feet from their bed for seven years...), or how we managed to put up relatives who came into town (i remember them visiting but where did they sleep!). I do remember playing Legos with my dad, and taking walks with my mom while my father and sister had an afternoon nap. I remember lots of walks through the neighborhood and into Golden Gate park, and thinking that going to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk was the same level of amazing as Disneyland (it's not.). I have no memory of my parents ever fighting or worrying about money, but i also remember thinking clothes from target were fancy, and that Goodwill was where everyone got their normal clothes.
I really don't know how my parents did it, and if i imagine myself in the same situation doing the same things, i imagine I'd be unhappy. But when i use my memory and think of my life at that time, i don't remember anyone being unhappy, and i think that is what made the difference for me.
So, to finally answer your question: No, i don't think you're wrong, because having kids is going to be the hardest thing you will ever do to yourself. If it would make you more comfortable to own a house, if that feeling of comfort will make you a better parent in a few years, then you owe it to your future children to be the best possible parent when they arrive, no matter what that means for you.
TL;DR: People grow bad in stress. If you're life is stressed not owning a home, don't have kids (their arrival is already going to bring enough stress). | I am, also, a 28 year old male, and a preschool teacher, and taking classes to be a better preschool teacher, and i spent years 0-7 in a two bedroom apartment in San Francisco, AND i have a sister who is 4 years younger. (for 3 years, we both slept in closets). (I'm also long winded, and I hate capitalizing my I's, so deal with it!)
Recent research on brain development in children has shown that the biggest influence on how well a person grows up is not genetics or family income or a racial/cultural factor, but how mush stress is constant in the child's growing environment. You can have a poor couple who fill their modest house with few items and provide caring and nourishing experiences for their child with what they have, and that child can grow up to be able to succeed.
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible for adults who are barely making ends meet to live a stress-free (or even low-stress) life. Chances are, if you're worried about where the money is coming from, and are struggling to feed and clothe everyone, relations with your SO get fraught and everyone starts feeling more panicked all the time. Adults can regulate this panic and understand that it passes, and normal life will be calm and pleasant again. Children who grow up in this type of environment can get into trouble though, because they don't have a "normal" to gauge their panicked feeling to, and begin to live in an constant state of being stressed.
The underlying brain mechanics can get confusing, but it's easier to imagine when you are feeling stressed, you don't feel like meeting new people, trying new things, or compromising with anyone. I think we all can relate about being really REALLY stressed out, we just want to be left alone so that we can try to feel better. Now think about what life is for a young child. EVERYTHING is a new thing. EVERY PERSON (aside from mom and dad) are new people. If you think of a child "acting out", chances are you're thinking of a child who is beyond-stressed out and that hitting/biting/tantrum they've just thrown is simply an attempt to feel a little better, if even it's only the tiniest amount. (Imagine being so frustrated with something you want to scream. And then you scream. You're going to feel better, even if it's a barely noticeable amount, and kids will throw tantrums for that same tiny release)
To get back to your question, my understanding of raising small children is to try to keep their stress levels in a manageable place, so that they feel free to work with other people, try new things, and practice old things (this is how I am improving the human race). I think the tricky part of your question is that it comes down to a choice that only you and your husband can make: Would I be anxious raising a family in a rental?
Now, to speak from experience, i can say you absolutely don't need to. Like i said, i grew up in my parents closet on the third floor of a city apartment, and i remember that place fondly. I even remember really not wanting to move, because i loved our little apartment so much. But once we moved to a house i was able to have so much more(a room, a dog, a safe(ish)-neighborhood), and now i realize how much easier things must have gotten for my parents. Before the move, my sister had a crib in the apartment's hall closet (it might have been a toddler bed by that time since she would have been 3 when we moved), we had a living room with no room, a kitchen with an adjacent dining area (i.e. we had a table in the kitchen and somehow cooked and washed dishes around it), and there was my parent's room, which had an adjacent closet that i slept in.(yes, yes, i was raised in a closet in S.F. and i didn't turn out gay. My mom says she did it cause she wanted me to be, though...)
Looking back, i don't know where we kept our things. I don't know where my parents kept their clothes, how they ever managed to have sex, let alone conceive a little-sister for me (i literally slept six feet from their bed for seven years...), or how we managed to put up relatives who came into town (i remember them visiting but where did they sleep!). I do remember playing Legos with my dad, and taking walks with my mom while my father and sister had an afternoon nap. I remember lots of walks through the neighborhood and into Golden Gate park, and thinking that going to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk was the same level of amazing as Disneyland (it's not.). I have no memory of my parents ever fighting or worrying about money, but i also remember thinking clothes from target were fancy, and that Goodwill was where everyone got their normal clothes.
I really don't know how my parents did it, and if i imagine myself in the same situation doing the same things, i imagine I'd be unhappy. But when i use my memory and think of my life at that time, i don't remember anyone being unhappy, and i think that is what made the difference for me.
So, to finally answer your question: No, i don't think you're wrong, because having kids is going to be the hardest thing you will ever do to yourself. If it would make you more comfortable to own a house, if that feeling of comfort will make you a better parent in a few years, then you owe it to your future children to be the best possible parent when they arrive, no matter what that means for you.
TL;DR: People grow bad in stress. If you're life is stressed not owning a home, don't have kids (their arrival is already going to bring enough stress).
| amiwrong | t5_2sf00 | chynwf5 | I am, also, a 28 year old male, and a preschool teacher, and taking classes to be a better preschool teacher, and i spent years 0-7 in a two bedroom apartment in San Francisco, AND i have a sister who is 4 years younger. (for 3 years, we both slept in closets). (I'm also long winded, and I hate capitalizing my I's, so deal with it!)
Recent research on brain development in children has shown that the biggest influence on how well a person grows up is not genetics or family income or a racial/cultural factor, but how mush stress is constant in the child's growing environment. You can have a poor couple who fill their modest house with few items and provide caring and nourishing experiences for their child with what they have, and that child can grow up to be able to succeed.
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible for adults who are barely making ends meet to live a stress-free (or even low-stress) life. Chances are, if you're worried about where the money is coming from, and are struggling to feed and clothe everyone, relations with your SO get fraught and everyone starts feeling more panicked all the time. Adults can regulate this panic and understand that it passes, and normal life will be calm and pleasant again. Children who grow up in this type of environment can get into trouble though, because they don't have a "normal" to gauge their panicked feeling to, and begin to live in an constant state of being stressed.
The underlying brain mechanics can get confusing, but it's easier to imagine when you are feeling stressed, you don't feel like meeting new people, trying new things, or compromising with anyone. I think we all can relate about being really REALLY stressed out, we just want to be left alone so that we can try to feel better. Now think about what life is for a young child. EVERYTHING is a new thing. EVERY PERSON (aside from mom and dad) are new people. If you think of a child "acting out", chances are you're thinking of a child who is beyond-stressed out and that hitting/biting/tantrum they've just thrown is simply an attempt to feel a little better, if even it's only the tiniest amount. (Imagine being so frustrated with something you want to scream. And then you scream. You're going to feel better, even if it's a barely noticeable amount, and kids will throw tantrums for that same tiny release)
To get back to your question, my understanding of raising small children is to try to keep their stress levels in a manageable place, so that they feel free to work with other people, try new things, and practice old things (this is how I am improving the human race). I think the tricky part of your question is that it comes down to a choice that only you and your husband can make: Would I be anxious raising a family in a rental?
Now, to speak from experience, i can say you absolutely don't need to. Like i said, i grew up in my parents closet on the third floor of a city apartment, and i remember that place fondly. I even remember really not wanting to move, because i loved our little apartment so much. But once we moved to a house i was able to have so much more(a room, a dog, a safe(ish)-neighborhood), and now i realize how much easier things must have gotten for my parents. Before the move, my sister had a crib in the apartment's hall closet (it might have been a toddler bed by that time since she would have been 3 when we moved), we had a living room with no room, a kitchen with an adjacent dining area (i.e. we had a table in the kitchen and somehow cooked and washed dishes around it), and there was my parent's room, which had an adjacent closet that i slept in.(yes, yes, i was raised in a closet in S.F. and i didn't turn out gay. My mom says she did it cause she wanted me to be, though...)
Looking back, i don't know where we kept our things. I don't know where my parents kept their clothes, how they ever managed to have sex, let alone conceive a little-sister for me (i literally slept six feet from their bed for seven years...), or how we managed to put up relatives who came into town (i remember them visiting but where did they sleep!). I do remember playing Legos with my dad, and taking walks with my mom while my father and sister had an afternoon nap. I remember lots of walks through the neighborhood and into Golden Gate park, and thinking that going to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk was the same level of amazing as Disneyland (it's not.). I have no memory of my parents ever fighting or worrying about money, but i also remember thinking clothes from target were fancy, and that Goodwill was where everyone got their normal clothes.
I really don't know how my parents did it, and if i imagine myself in the same situation doing the same things, i imagine I'd be unhappy. But when i use my memory and think of my life at that time, i don't remember anyone being unhappy, and i think that is what made the difference for me.
So, to finally answer your question: No, i don't think you're wrong, because having kids is going to be the hardest thing you will ever do to yourself. If it would make you more comfortable to own a house, if that feeling of comfort will make you a better parent in a few years, then you owe it to your future children to be the best possible parent when they arrive, no matter what that means for you. | People grow bad in stress. If you're life is stressed not owning a home, don't have kids (their arrival is already going to bring enough stress). |
veggielove | Good work on sticking to T25! I started it a total of 3 times before I stuck to it. I'm on my 2nd week of Beta and am committed to completing the 10 weeks. I got fully motivated from seeing pictures of myself at a weight I'm not happy with (prob around 15-20 pounds above my "normal" weight). I don't own a scale and go by how clothes fit and how I look in the mirror/pictures.
I don't own a scale and am not too bothered about the numbers but rather how I look. I bought a pair of jeans in my pre-overweight size which squeeeeezed and were honestly painful to put on. I could put them on semi-comfortably at around 3 weeks into Alpha and now can sit crosslegged in them very comfortably. Another thing that helps is that I eat 3 good-sized and well-rounded meals and stopped snacking between meals (except for occasional veggie sticks/fruit).
tldr: Buy clothing/an outfit in a size you want to look good in and try it on every week to mark your progress. Don't eat between meals. | Good work on sticking to T25! I started it a total of 3 times before I stuck to it. I'm on my 2nd week of Beta and am committed to completing the 10 weeks. I got fully motivated from seeing pictures of myself at a weight I'm not happy with (prob around 15-20 pounds above my "normal" weight). I don't own a scale and go by how clothes fit and how I look in the mirror/pictures.
I don't own a scale and am not too bothered about the numbers but rather how I look. I bought a pair of jeans in my pre-overweight size which squeeeeezed and were honestly painful to put on. I could put them on semi-comfortably at around 3 weeks into Alpha and now can sit crosslegged in them very comfortably. Another thing that helps is that I eat 3 good-sized and well-rounded meals and stopped snacking between meals (except for occasional veggie sticks/fruit).
tldr: Buy clothing/an outfit in a size you want to look good in and try it on every week to mark your progress. Don't eat between meals.
| FocusT25 | t5_2wx5m | ckbnmkz | Good work on sticking to T25! I started it a total of 3 times before I stuck to it. I'm on my 2nd week of Beta and am committed to completing the 10 weeks. I got fully motivated from seeing pictures of myself at a weight I'm not happy with (prob around 15-20 pounds above my "normal" weight). I don't own a scale and go by how clothes fit and how I look in the mirror/pictures.
I don't own a scale and am not too bothered about the numbers but rather how I look. I bought a pair of jeans in my pre-overweight size which squeeeeezed and were honestly painful to put on. I could put them on semi-comfortably at around 3 weeks into Alpha and now can sit crosslegged in them very comfortably. Another thing that helps is that I eat 3 good-sized and well-rounded meals and stopped snacking between meals (except for occasional veggie sticks/fruit). | Buy clothing/an outfit in a size you want to look good in and try it on every week to mark your progress. Don't eat between meals. |
barwhack | So...
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^1 the (A)uthor puts a phrase in the mouth of the (C)reationist: "... second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder" [full stop]. No. NO. No full stop. rather "from disorder" + "in a closed system". Painting an opponent as stupid by falsely attributing naive or incomplete beliefs to him: straw man; of a diminished variety so in lower case. Rather like entering a wrestling match against a poorly drawn cardboard stand-up of Hulk Hogan. Sure it resembles him and you win; but do you ...Win...?
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^2 (A) decides to credit some of the sense back to (C), with words like "they recognize" etc. But then (A) begins to insinuate silliness again, using a novel way of proclaiming 'Natural Laws': "programmed energy conversion mechanisms". This -to me- seems meant to evoke a malignant image of Design, and fails to discredit the idea even so. As it turns out, *we all believe in Natural Laws*.
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^3 (A) follows with derision heaped on - giving the impression of Enlightened Condescension - implying (really?) that science does not believe that energy transfer mechanisms cause local variations away from aggregate statistical norms. This was where my reading went from "he's just emoting" to "he is maligning".
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^4 (A) goes on to assert that *thermodynamics* - which is an agreed Natural Law on physical aggregate statistics - is not strictly applicable in the particular. WITH WHICH *NO ONE* IS ARGUING. This is the major Straw Man. What IS argued is that within a closed system - at the outermost extremity (the Entire Universe if you like) - life must either be 1) a *violation* of Entopy within the closed system or, 2) a *low-energy state feature*, such as a condition satisfying a local minimum, of that closed system. Natural Law -to significant degrees- accommodates both of these interpretations. The proper use of the statement being Prospective Study. Given (1), we might be *it* · all there is · nada mas. Given (2), life should be *everywhere* or at least *lots-a-where*. Instead this point is presented as though (C) was alone in his silly belief, and that no \\\\ sensible like-mind-to-(A) \\\\ would believe anything approaching this notion. This point undercuts thought, debate, investigation, and therefore undercuts *science itself*.
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^5 (A) hardly raises his eyes to look on equity. He just gets up in front of us and says "Hey! (C) believes in ...GOO҉OOD... how silly!" and sits down. Woop.
-------
TL;DR summary, hopefully in plain Engrish ---
͇1͇ - pushes a dim-witted (C) where (C) isn't dim-witted. Straw Man^**(C)reationist**
͇2͇ - pushes a difference between (A) and (C) without a distinction. Straw Man^**Null**
͇3͇ - fronts (A) the Disingenue. Straw Man^**Frown**
͇4͇ - exposes (A) as he fails at introspection -at best-. This would actually be the most fruitful of the points from which to *actually learn something new*, but no. Straw Man^**Grrr**
͇5͇ - pushes *ad hominem by proxy*, aka (A) calling names and parceling out to (C) guilt-by-association. ...cuz 'God' is *such* a derisive name... Straw Man^**Boogie**
-------
Steigeringly bad. | So...
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^1 the (A)uthor puts a phrase in the mouth of the (C)reationist: "... second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder" [full stop]. No. NO. No full stop. rather "from disorder" + "in a closed system". Painting an opponent as stupid by falsely attributing naive or incomplete beliefs to him: straw man; of a diminished variety so in lower case. Rather like entering a wrestling match against a poorly drawn cardboard stand-up of Hulk Hogan. Sure it resembles him and you win; but do you ...Win...?
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^2 (A) decides to credit some of the sense back to (C), with words like "they recognize" etc. But then (A) begins to insinuate silliness again, using a novel way of proclaiming 'Natural Laws': "programmed energy conversion mechanisms". This -to me- seems meant to evoke a malignant image of Design, and fails to discredit the idea even so. As it turns out, we all believe in Natural Laws .
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^3 (A) follows with derision heaped on - giving the impression of Enlightened Condescension - implying (really?) that science does not believe that energy transfer mechanisms cause local variations away from aggregate statistical norms. This was where my reading went from "he's just emoting" to "he is maligning".
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^4 (A) goes on to assert that thermodynamics - which is an agreed Natural Law on physical aggregate statistics - is not strictly applicable in the particular. WITH WHICH NO ONE IS ARGUING. This is the major Straw Man. What IS argued is that within a closed system - at the outermost extremity (the Entire Universe if you like) - life must either be 1) a violation of Entopy within the closed system or, 2) a low-energy state feature , such as a condition satisfying a local minimum, of that closed system. Natural Law -to significant degrees- accommodates both of these interpretations. The proper use of the statement being Prospective Study. Given (1), we might be it · all there is · nada mas. Given (2), life should be everywhere or at least lots-a-where . Instead this point is presented as though (C) was alone in his silly belief, and that no \\ sensible like-mind-to-(A) \\ would believe anything approaching this notion. This point undercuts thought, debate, investigation, and therefore undercuts science itself .
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^5 (A) hardly raises his eyes to look on equity. He just gets up in front of us and says "Hey! (C) believes in ...GOO҉OOD... how silly!" and sits down. Woop.
TL;DR summary, hopefully in plain Engrish ---
͇1͇ - pushes a dim-witted (C) where (C) isn't dim-witted. Straw Man^ (C)reationist
͇2͇ - pushes a difference between (A) and (C) without a distinction. Straw Man^ Null
͇3͇ - fronts (A) the Disingenue. Straw Man^ Frown
͇4͇ - exposes (A) as he fails at introspection -at best-. This would actually be the most fruitful of the points from which to actually learn something new , but no. Straw Man^ Grrr
͇5͇ - pushes ad hominem by proxy , aka (A) calling names and parceling out to (C) guilt-by-association. ...cuz 'God' is such a derisive name... Straw Man^ Boogie
Steigeringly bad.
| Christianity | t5_2qh6c | ci0545g | So...
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^1 the (A)uthor puts a phrase in the mouth of the (C)reationist: "... second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder" [full stop]. No. NO. No full stop. rather "from disorder" + "in a closed system". Painting an opponent as stupid by falsely attributing naive or incomplete beliefs to him: straw man; of a diminished variety so in lower case. Rather like entering a wrestling match against a poorly drawn cardboard stand-up of Hulk Hogan. Sure it resembles him and you win; but do you ...Win...?
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^2 (A) decides to credit some of the sense back to (C), with words like "they recognize" etc. But then (A) begins to insinuate silliness again, using a novel way of proclaiming 'Natural Laws': "programmed energy conversion mechanisms". This -to me- seems meant to evoke a malignant image of Design, and fails to discredit the idea even so. As it turns out, we all believe in Natural Laws .
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^3 (A) follows with derision heaped on - giving the impression of Enlightened Condescension - implying (really?) that science does not believe that energy transfer mechanisms cause local variations away from aggregate statistical norms. This was where my reading went from "he's just emoting" to "he is maligning".
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^4 (A) goes on to assert that thermodynamics - which is an agreed Natural Law on physical aggregate statistics - is not strictly applicable in the particular. WITH WHICH NO ONE IS ARGUING. This is the major Straw Man. What IS argued is that within a closed system - at the outermost extremity (the Entire Universe if you like) - life must either be 1) a violation of Entopy within the closed system or, 2) a low-energy state feature , such as a condition satisfying a local minimum, of that closed system. Natural Law -to significant degrees- accommodates both of these interpretations. The proper use of the statement being Prospective Study. Given (1), we might be it · all there is · nada mas. Given (2), life should be everywhere or at least lots-a-where . Instead this point is presented as though (C) was alone in his silly belief, and that no \\ sensible like-mind-to-(A) \\ would believe anything approaching this notion. This point undercuts thought, debate, investigation, and therefore undercuts science itself .
In ͇p͇o͇i͇n͇t͇^5 (A) hardly raises his eyes to look on equity. He just gets up in front of us and says "Hey! (C) believes in ...GOO҉OOD... how silly!" and sits down. Woop. | summary, hopefully in plain Engrish ---
͇1͇ - pushes a dim-witted (C) where (C) isn't dim-witted. Straw Man^ (C)reationist
͇2͇ - pushes a difference between (A) and (C) without a distinction. Straw Man^ Null
͇3͇ - fronts (A) the Disingenue. Straw Man^ Frown
͇4͇ - exposes (A) as he fails at introspection -at best-. This would actually be the most fruitful of the points from which to actually learn something new , but no. Straw Man^ Grrr
͇5͇ - pushes ad hominem by proxy , aka (A) calling names and parceling out to (C) guilt-by-association. ...cuz 'God' is such a derisive name... Straw Man^ Boogie
Steigeringly bad. |
madd74 | >I'd really like to forget
What is the non-TL;DR of this? | >I'd really like to forget
What is the non-TL;DR of this?
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | chyb05a | I'd really like to forget
What is the non- | of this? |
Itxi | That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” bullshit that’s going on in the d20 system right now. macuahuitls deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine macuahuitl in Mexico for 259,018 Pesos (that’s about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my macuahuitl.
Aztec knappers spend years working on a single macuahuitl and chipped it up to a million times to produce the finest obsidian blades known to mankind.
macuahuitls are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a macuahuitl can cut through better. I’m pretty sure a macuahuitl could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering South America? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Aztecs and their macuahuitls of destruction. Even in the colonial period, Spanish soldiers targeted the men with the macuahuitls first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? macuahuitls are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for macuahuitls:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of macuahuitls in real life, don’t you think?
tl;dr = macuahuitls need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block. | That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” bullshit that’s going on in the d20 system right now. macuahuitls deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine macuahuitl in Mexico for 259,018 Pesos (that’s about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my macuahuitl.
Aztec knappers spend years working on a single macuahuitl and chipped it up to a million times to produce the finest obsidian blades known to mankind.
macuahuitls are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a macuahuitl can cut through better. I’m pretty sure a macuahuitl could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering South America? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Aztecs and their macuahuitls of destruction. Even in the colonial period, Spanish soldiers targeted the men with the macuahuitls first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? macuahuitls are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for macuahuitls:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of macuahuitls in real life, don’t you think?
tl;dr = macuahuitls need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
| todayilearned | t5_2qqjc | chyrr2o | That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” bullshit that’s going on in the d20 system right now. macuahuitls deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine macuahuitl in Mexico for 259,018 Pesos (that’s about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my macuahuitl.
Aztec knappers spend years working on a single macuahuitl and chipped it up to a million times to produce the finest obsidian blades known to mankind.
macuahuitls are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a macuahuitl can cut through better. I’m pretty sure a macuahuitl could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering South America? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Aztecs and their macuahuitls of destruction. Even in the colonial period, Spanish soldiers targeted the men with the macuahuitls first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? macuahuitls are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for macuahuitls:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of macuahuitls in real life, don’t you think? | macuahuitls need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block. |
watdoidohere1 | My close friend, we'll call her Kelly.
Kelly and I met about 3 years ago when we worked at the same bar. We worked at 3 restaurant/bars in total for the last three years. I saw her every day, we lived 5 minutes away and I was in need of a close girlfriend that was nearby(my childhood friends were about 30 mins away). We spent a lot of time together and she started to bring me out on the town, which really pissed my SO of the time off.
Eventually him and I broke up, so most of my time was spent with Kelly since we still worked together and she lived right next to our workplace, she often invited me over after work and I would stay a lot of nights out of the week. I began to notice changes in myself and her, she became more in need of my attention since I had recently moved back to my home town now thirty minutes away and had no vehicle. I also noticed when I would stay there I would start to slack on basic life stuff, trying to get out of work so we can hang out, not going home for days and partying too much.
I ended up getting a new job that no longer took me to the area where she lived and I was/am just trying to get my life together as an unwilling participant of adulthood. Well, this really pissed Kelly off.
She was still at a bar job with odd hours and every time she wanted to hang out it had to be at her place and she would want me to spend the night. Well, I fucking work in the AM and I don't have time to drive for 40 minutes to work every damn week because I hate commuting. I try and tell her we can do other things but she gets SO mad when I don't want to stay with her. Finally one day she freaked the fuck out, I mean REALLY freaked out, started screaming at me about how she's lonely and now she's getting old and that I'm making her feel like an obligation. I sat there and let her scream, and I don't deal well with anger or confrontation so I always need to give myself time before I respond or else I, for lack of a better term, lose my damn mind. I told her that I thought I should go and I needed to think about what just happened and she just continued to scream "Why?! Why are you leaving?!" and I left.
I can't take it anymore I've been ignoring her calls and texts and don't care to salvage the relationship because she stresses me the fuck out. I have enough on my plate and I don't want to hurt her feelings but, I just want her to fuck off.
TL;DR Fuck Kelly. | My close friend, we'll call her Kelly.
Kelly and I met about 3 years ago when we worked at the same bar. We worked at 3 restaurant/bars in total for the last three years. I saw her every day, we lived 5 minutes away and I was in need of a close girlfriend that was nearby(my childhood friends were about 30 mins away). We spent a lot of time together and she started to bring me out on the town, which really pissed my SO of the time off.
Eventually him and I broke up, so most of my time was spent with Kelly since we still worked together and she lived right next to our workplace, she often invited me over after work and I would stay a lot of nights out of the week. I began to notice changes in myself and her, she became more in need of my attention since I had recently moved back to my home town now thirty minutes away and had no vehicle. I also noticed when I would stay there I would start to slack on basic life stuff, trying to get out of work so we can hang out, not going home for days and partying too much.
I ended up getting a new job that no longer took me to the area where she lived and I was/am just trying to get my life together as an unwilling participant of adulthood. Well, this really pissed Kelly off.
She was still at a bar job with odd hours and every time she wanted to hang out it had to be at her place and she would want me to spend the night. Well, I fucking work in the AM and I don't have time to drive for 40 minutes to work every damn week because I hate commuting. I try and tell her we can do other things but she gets SO mad when I don't want to stay with her. Finally one day she freaked the fuck out, I mean REALLY freaked out, started screaming at me about how she's lonely and now she's getting old and that I'm making her feel like an obligation. I sat there and let her scream, and I don't deal well with anger or confrontation so I always need to give myself time before I respond or else I, for lack of a better term, lose my damn mind. I told her that I thought I should go and I needed to think about what just happened and she just continued to scream "Why?! Why are you leaving?!" and I left.
I can't take it anymore I've been ignoring her calls and texts and don't care to salvage the relationship because she stresses me the fuck out. I have enough on my plate and I don't want to hurt her feelings but, I just want her to fuck off.
TL;DR Fuck Kelly.
| AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | ci068zh | My close friend, we'll call her Kelly.
Kelly and I met about 3 years ago when we worked at the same bar. We worked at 3 restaurant/bars in total for the last three years. I saw her every day, we lived 5 minutes away and I was in need of a close girlfriend that was nearby(my childhood friends were about 30 mins away). We spent a lot of time together and she started to bring me out on the town, which really pissed my SO of the time off.
Eventually him and I broke up, so most of my time was spent with Kelly since we still worked together and she lived right next to our workplace, she often invited me over after work and I would stay a lot of nights out of the week. I began to notice changes in myself and her, she became more in need of my attention since I had recently moved back to my home town now thirty minutes away and had no vehicle. I also noticed when I would stay there I would start to slack on basic life stuff, trying to get out of work so we can hang out, not going home for days and partying too much.
I ended up getting a new job that no longer took me to the area where she lived and I was/am just trying to get my life together as an unwilling participant of adulthood. Well, this really pissed Kelly off.
She was still at a bar job with odd hours and every time she wanted to hang out it had to be at her place and she would want me to spend the night. Well, I fucking work in the AM and I don't have time to drive for 40 minutes to work every damn week because I hate commuting. I try and tell her we can do other things but she gets SO mad when I don't want to stay with her. Finally one day she freaked the fuck out, I mean REALLY freaked out, started screaming at me about how she's lonely and now she's getting old and that I'm making her feel like an obligation. I sat there and let her scream, and I don't deal well with anger or confrontation so I always need to give myself time before I respond or else I, for lack of a better term, lose my damn mind. I told her that I thought I should go and I needed to think about what just happened and she just continued to scream "Why?! Why are you leaving?!" and I left.
I can't take it anymore I've been ignoring her calls and texts and don't care to salvage the relationship because she stresses me the fuck out. I have enough on my plate and I don't want to hurt her feelings but, I just want her to fuck off. | Fuck Kelly. |
flyingbatbeaver | This was about a month or so ago, but every time I think about it my blood boils.
She is 31, I'm 27. She is one of those "high on life" type of people and has a million fb friends. We used to work together.
There was some chick on my fb that would do scene by scene commentary on shows she watched. Revenge, Dallas, homeland (?), and game of thrones. I watch none of those, other than GOT. But my feed would be clogged with "omg team Carrie" "I wish I could wear what she's wearing" and just stupid shit.
I could have easily unfriended her, but I would get simple enjoyment of making fun of her too.
Anyways, I finally got fed up with her and called her out when she was posting about GOT and the purple wedding. Blatantly giving away the episode as it's playing. Posting things that said "ding dong the ____is dead" (sung to the tube of ding dong the witch is dead). "The ___ send their regards to the ___" basically one sentence away from saying "hey guys, this guy is dead!!!!!!"
I told her thanks for spoiling it for everyone. I knew what was going to happen in the first place, my husband read the books and he tells me what goes on. I don't mind because he's telling me and only me, not yelling it out on fb ruining it for everyone else.
She basically responds with " so just hide me". I tell her that it's unfair that if anyone who isn't watching the show as it airs will get the show ruined. She shoots back with " you obviously don't know me if you think I'm doing it on purpose. I love GOT and I get emotionally invested in it". I shoot back with " i never claimed you did it intentionally, I just think you aren't being considerate of other people who haven't watched the show yet. I love walking dead, I get invested in the characters as well. But never once have I ruined it for other people. If someone dies I always kept it ambiguous 'oh man, that was intense' not 'omg RIP _____"
I did a very immature thing and "released the kraken on her". I got my husband to comment on that thread with GOT book spoilers. I have no regrets. She immediately deleted his comments and unfriended him.
I forgot what else was said because it was late at night and I had to go to bed. In the morning, I checked the thread and it was gone. So was her fb, she deactivated it and made a new account.
TL;DR: chick on my fb that is passionate and emotionally invested in shows/movies/etc. spoils every show. I call her out because it got super annoying and that she was being a hypocrite. She wants the experience, but doesn't care that she is basically stealing that experience from other people. She goes "sorry, not sorry". My husband posts spoilers on her fb, she ends up deactivating her fb and makes a new one.
No regrets | This was about a month or so ago, but every time I think about it my blood boils.
She is 31, I'm 27. She is one of those "high on life" type of people and has a million fb friends. We used to work together.
There was some chick on my fb that would do scene by scene commentary on shows she watched. Revenge, Dallas, homeland (?), and game of thrones. I watch none of those, other than GOT. But my feed would be clogged with "omg team Carrie" "I wish I could wear what she's wearing" and just stupid shit.
I could have easily unfriended her, but I would get simple enjoyment of making fun of her too.
Anyways, I finally got fed up with her and called her out when she was posting about GOT and the purple wedding. Blatantly giving away the episode as it's playing. Posting things that said "ding dong the _ is dead" (sung to the tube of ding dong the witch is dead). "The send their regards to the ___" basically one sentence away from saying "hey guys, this guy is dead!!!!!!"
I told her thanks for spoiling it for everyone. I knew what was going to happen in the first place, my husband read the books and he tells me what goes on. I don't mind because he's telling me and only me, not yelling it out on fb ruining it for everyone else.
She basically responds with " so just hide me". I tell her that it's unfair that if anyone who isn't watching the show as it airs will get the show ruined. She shoots back with " you obviously don't know me if you think I'm doing it on purpose. I love GOT and I get emotionally invested in it". I shoot back with " i never claimed you did it intentionally, I just think you aren't being considerate of other people who haven't watched the show yet. I love walking dead, I get invested in the characters as well. But never once have I ruined it for other people. If someone dies I always kept it ambiguous 'oh man, that was intense' not 'omg RIP _ "
I did a very immature thing and "released the kraken on her". I got my husband to comment on that thread with GOT book spoilers. I have no regrets. She immediately deleted his comments and unfriended him.
I forgot what else was said because it was late at night and I had to go to bed. In the morning, I checked the thread and it was gone. So was her fb, she deactivated it and made a new account.
TL;DR: chick on my fb that is passionate and emotionally invested in shows/movies/etc. spoils every show. I call her out because it got super annoying and that she was being a hypocrite. She wants the experience, but doesn't care that she is basically stealing that experience from other people. She goes "sorry, not sorry". My husband posts spoilers on her fb, she ends up deactivating her fb and makes a new one.
No regrets
| AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | chywjzy | This was about a month or so ago, but every time I think about it my blood boils.
She is 31, I'm 27. She is one of those "high on life" type of people and has a million fb friends. We used to work together.
There was some chick on my fb that would do scene by scene commentary on shows she watched. Revenge, Dallas, homeland (?), and game of thrones. I watch none of those, other than GOT. But my feed would be clogged with "omg team Carrie" "I wish I could wear what she's wearing" and just stupid shit.
I could have easily unfriended her, but I would get simple enjoyment of making fun of her too.
Anyways, I finally got fed up with her and called her out when she was posting about GOT and the purple wedding. Blatantly giving away the episode as it's playing. Posting things that said "ding dong the _ is dead" (sung to the tube of ding dong the witch is dead). "The send their regards to the ___" basically one sentence away from saying "hey guys, this guy is dead!!!!!!"
I told her thanks for spoiling it for everyone. I knew what was going to happen in the first place, my husband read the books and he tells me what goes on. I don't mind because he's telling me and only me, not yelling it out on fb ruining it for everyone else.
She basically responds with " so just hide me". I tell her that it's unfair that if anyone who isn't watching the show as it airs will get the show ruined. She shoots back with " you obviously don't know me if you think I'm doing it on purpose. I love GOT and I get emotionally invested in it". I shoot back with " i never claimed you did it intentionally, I just think you aren't being considerate of other people who haven't watched the show yet. I love walking dead, I get invested in the characters as well. But never once have I ruined it for other people. If someone dies I always kept it ambiguous 'oh man, that was intense' not 'omg RIP _ "
I did a very immature thing and "released the kraken on her". I got my husband to comment on that thread with GOT book spoilers. I have no regrets. She immediately deleted his comments and unfriended him.
I forgot what else was said because it was late at night and I had to go to bed. In the morning, I checked the thread and it was gone. So was her fb, she deactivated it and made a new account. | chick on my fb that is passionate and emotionally invested in shows/movies/etc. spoils every show. I call her out because it got super annoying and that she was being a hypocrite. She wants the experience, but doesn't care that she is basically stealing that experience from other people. She goes "sorry, not sorry". My husband posts spoilers on her fb, she ends up deactivating her fb and makes a new one.
No regrets |
prophet001 | This article is so poorly documented that I have trouble believing any of the sensationalized points it attempts to make.
I wrote a research paper about diagnosis and drug prescription rates for ADD, ADHD, and associated disorders a few years ago for a writing class in college, and I found very little evidence of prevalent overdiagnosis/overprescription in the academic literature.
Even in studies that focused solely on the question of whether or not the disorders were overdiagnosed, and those that focused on whether or not stimulants were overprescribed, the overarching conclusion was that yes, it's a real disorder, and yes, in aggregate, the kids on stimulant anti-ADHD meds are helped by them.
I went into the assignment assuming that the presumption of overdiagnosis and overprescription was true, and came away from my research with a completely different opinion. If the author of this article can back her conclusions with real data, bring it on, but I see no such empirical references.
TL;DR: This article is horseshit. | This article is so poorly documented that I have trouble believing any of the sensationalized points it attempts to make.
I wrote a research paper about diagnosis and drug prescription rates for ADD, ADHD, and associated disorders a few years ago for a writing class in college, and I found very little evidence of prevalent overdiagnosis/overprescription in the academic literature.
Even in studies that focused solely on the question of whether or not the disorders were overdiagnosed, and those that focused on whether or not stimulants were overprescribed, the overarching conclusion was that yes, it's a real disorder, and yes, in aggregate, the kids on stimulant anti-ADHD meds are helped by them.
I went into the assignment assuming that the presumption of overdiagnosis and overprescription was true, and came away from my research with a completely different opinion. If the author of this article can back her conclusions with real data, bring it on, but I see no such empirical references.
TL;DR: This article is horseshit.
| TrueReddit | t5_2qyt6 | ci1v5tf | This article is so poorly documented that I have trouble believing any of the sensationalized points it attempts to make.
I wrote a research paper about diagnosis and drug prescription rates for ADD, ADHD, and associated disorders a few years ago for a writing class in college, and I found very little evidence of prevalent overdiagnosis/overprescription in the academic literature.
Even in studies that focused solely on the question of whether or not the disorders were overdiagnosed, and those that focused on whether or not stimulants were overprescribed, the overarching conclusion was that yes, it's a real disorder, and yes, in aggregate, the kids on stimulant anti-ADHD meds are helped by them.
I went into the assignment assuming that the presumption of overdiagnosis and overprescription was true, and came away from my research with a completely different opinion. If the author of this article can back her conclusions with real data, bring it on, but I see no such empirical references. | This article is horseshit. |
ULalum06 | lsu got butthurt when we changed our name in 1984 to The University of Louisiana. For one semester we had diplomas issued saying "The University of Louisiana" then lsu got scared. they made a rule saying that superseded the law stating that no one university could change it's name without another university doing so thereby eliminating any chance that any one school could be flagship of The University of Louisiana system while lsua&m@br is the flagship of the Louisiana state system as well as the self-appointed flagship for the state. We had to revert back to USL. Then finally in 2001 we got ULM (northeastern) to go along with us. the only way to gain accreditation and grant/research money is to grow from a multi-directional college to a state university.
tl:dr lsu was scared, they made a law. now we are The University of Louisiana at Lafayette academically. | lsu got butthurt when we changed our name in 1984 to The University of Louisiana. For one semester we had diplomas issued saying "The University of Louisiana" then lsu got scared. they made a rule saying that superseded the law stating that no one university could change it's name without another university doing so thereby eliminating any chance that any one school could be flagship of The University of Louisiana system while lsua&m@br is the flagship of the Louisiana state system as well as the self-appointed flagship for the state. We had to revert back to USL. Then finally in 2001 we got ULM (northeastern) to go along with us. the only way to gain accreditation and grant/research money is to grow from a multi-directional college to a state university.
tl:dr lsu was scared, they made a law. now we are The University of Louisiana at Lafayette academically.
| collegebaseball | t5_2sart | chz83ng | lsu got butthurt when we changed our name in 1984 to The University of Louisiana. For one semester we had diplomas issued saying "The University of Louisiana" then lsu got scared. they made a rule saying that superseded the law stating that no one university could change it's name without another university doing so thereby eliminating any chance that any one school could be flagship of The University of Louisiana system while lsua&m@br is the flagship of the Louisiana state system as well as the self-appointed flagship for the state. We had to revert back to USL. Then finally in 2001 we got ULM (northeastern) to go along with us. the only way to gain accreditation and grant/research money is to grow from a multi-directional college to a state university. | lsu was scared, they made a law. now we are The University of Louisiana at Lafayette academically. |
loveupintheair | Exactly! I don't think it only applies to Chinese culture, it applies to the whole Asian culture, and by Asian I really do mean Asian. I'm Indonesian, it's a south east Asian country if you don't know it. In this country, people are literally only doing good deeds for saving their face. They didn't do it just for the good sake like what some of the western philanthropists do. I'm sick of these people around me trying to do good deeds in front of others and become really sick hypocrites when no one around. This whole 'eastern culture' really doesn't fit my personal value at all. I value a true, sincere good deeds, freedom, and I also believe that all baby born in this world really have terrific potential to be genius and whatsoever it is. However, sadly, we really waste all of those potentials by treating our child so badly. I don't like how my parents always prohibit me to do anything dangerous when I was a child, and then complaining why their kids are too timid, lack of initiative, and fearful to do anything. I mean, that's totally what you're trying to teach to your kids since they were born. I hate these people, who can only breeds, treating their child like they're their slaves and make them fulfill their ego and achieve something that they can't never do when they were a child. There are still tons and tons of stuffs that I don't really like about living in eastern hemisphere. Somehow, I wish I could switch places with all of those complaining xSTJs living in the west.
People in my country generally are nationalist to the point that it become chauvinistic. I believe in kindness and love toward humanity in general but these people are so selfish that all they really care is their own country. I mean, if you want your country to be helped, you have to help others too right? No wonder this country is fucked up. There are so many people here using their 'nationalism' for their own gain, like when they sell products, they would say 'this product is from Indonesia, so buy it'. And I'm like, WTF, that's totally against my values. So what if you were born accidentally with these people? That doesn't make you have to be responsible to do good things to these random people who mostly are fucked up people with bigger ego than Kanye West's ego. I agree with what John Lennon (he's INFP too, so...) and George Carlin about love and pride for your nationality.
>"Pride should be reserved for something you achieve or obtain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth. Being Irish isn't a skill... it's a fucking genetic accident. You wouldn't say I'm proud to be 5'11"; I'm proud to have a pre-disposition for colon cancer."
tl;dr - I'm Asian, not Chinese, but I also hate my 'eastern culture'. It never fit me at all, and it almost never let me grow to be a better person. | Exactly! I don't think it only applies to Chinese culture, it applies to the whole Asian culture, and by Asian I really do mean Asian. I'm Indonesian, it's a south east Asian country if you don't know it. In this country, people are literally only doing good deeds for saving their face. They didn't do it just for the good sake like what some of the western philanthropists do. I'm sick of these people around me trying to do good deeds in front of others and become really sick hypocrites when no one around. This whole 'eastern culture' really doesn't fit my personal value at all. I value a true, sincere good deeds, freedom, and I also believe that all baby born in this world really have terrific potential to be genius and whatsoever it is. However, sadly, we really waste all of those potentials by treating our child so badly. I don't like how my parents always prohibit me to do anything dangerous when I was a child, and then complaining why their kids are too timid, lack of initiative, and fearful to do anything. I mean, that's totally what you're trying to teach to your kids since they were born. I hate these people, who can only breeds, treating their child like they're their slaves and make them fulfill their ego and achieve something that they can't never do when they were a child. There are still tons and tons of stuffs that I don't really like about living in eastern hemisphere. Somehow, I wish I could switch places with all of those complaining xSTJs living in the west.
People in my country generally are nationalist to the point that it become chauvinistic. I believe in kindness and love toward humanity in general but these people are so selfish that all they really care is their own country. I mean, if you want your country to be helped, you have to help others too right? No wonder this country is fucked up. There are so many people here using their 'nationalism' for their own gain, like when they sell products, they would say 'this product is from Indonesia, so buy it'. And I'm like, WTF, that's totally against my values. So what if you were born accidentally with these people? That doesn't make you have to be responsible to do good things to these random people who mostly are fucked up people with bigger ego than Kanye West's ego. I agree with what John Lennon (he's INFP too, so...) and George Carlin about love and pride for your nationality.
>"Pride should be reserved for something you achieve or obtain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth. Being Irish isn't a skill... it's a fucking genetic accident. You wouldn't say I'm proud to be 5'11"; I'm proud to have a pre-disposition for colon cancer."
tl;dr - I'm Asian, not Chinese, but I also hate my 'eastern culture'. It never fit me at all, and it almost never let me grow to be a better person.
| infp | t5_2qn2o | ci3lq3c | Exactly! I don't think it only applies to Chinese culture, it applies to the whole Asian culture, and by Asian I really do mean Asian. I'm Indonesian, it's a south east Asian country if you don't know it. In this country, people are literally only doing good deeds for saving their face. They didn't do it just for the good sake like what some of the western philanthropists do. I'm sick of these people around me trying to do good deeds in front of others and become really sick hypocrites when no one around. This whole 'eastern culture' really doesn't fit my personal value at all. I value a true, sincere good deeds, freedom, and I also believe that all baby born in this world really have terrific potential to be genius and whatsoever it is. However, sadly, we really waste all of those potentials by treating our child so badly. I don't like how my parents always prohibit me to do anything dangerous when I was a child, and then complaining why their kids are too timid, lack of initiative, and fearful to do anything. I mean, that's totally what you're trying to teach to your kids since they were born. I hate these people, who can only breeds, treating their child like they're their slaves and make them fulfill their ego and achieve something that they can't never do when they were a child. There are still tons and tons of stuffs that I don't really like about living in eastern hemisphere. Somehow, I wish I could switch places with all of those complaining xSTJs living in the west.
People in my country generally are nationalist to the point that it become chauvinistic. I believe in kindness and love toward humanity in general but these people are so selfish that all they really care is their own country. I mean, if you want your country to be helped, you have to help others too right? No wonder this country is fucked up. There are so many people here using their 'nationalism' for their own gain, like when they sell products, they would say 'this product is from Indonesia, so buy it'. And I'm like, WTF, that's totally against my values. So what if you were born accidentally with these people? That doesn't make you have to be responsible to do good things to these random people who mostly are fucked up people with bigger ego than Kanye West's ego. I agree with what John Lennon (he's INFP too, so...) and George Carlin about love and pride for your nationality.
>"Pride should be reserved for something you achieve or obtain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth. Being Irish isn't a skill... it's a fucking genetic accident. You wouldn't say I'm proud to be 5'11"; I'm proud to have a pre-disposition for colon cancer." | I'm Asian, not Chinese, but I also hate my 'eastern culture'. It never fit me at all, and it almost never let me grow to be a better person. |
_monad | A lot of people have conflicting opinions on this matter. In my opinion I think the metro interface is irritating as I never even use it and it's clearly designed for mobile devices. However, windows 8 has many advantages that I simply can't ignore. Windows 8.1 boots faster because they use hybrid boot methods to hibernate the kernel instead of turning everything off. Also, 8.1 is more resource efficient, it uses less system resources to power the OS and therefore things seem snappier especially if you run with lower specs. 8.1 has support for secure booting on UEFI systems so it's harder for viruses to infect bootloader, and 8.1 has a virus protection software pre-loaded onto the device, you can download it on 7 too but 8.1 has it already enabled and ready to go. The only thing about 7 vs 8.1 is the annoying interface, which can be ignore largely by simply not using the start button and using the file explorer shortcut.
tl;dr I use 8.1 despite it's stupid metro interface because its got under-the-hood improvements. | A lot of people have conflicting opinions on this matter. In my opinion I think the metro interface is irritating as I never even use it and it's clearly designed for mobile devices. However, windows 8 has many advantages that I simply can't ignore. Windows 8.1 boots faster because they use hybrid boot methods to hibernate the kernel instead of turning everything off. Also, 8.1 is more resource efficient, it uses less system resources to power the OS and therefore things seem snappier especially if you run with lower specs. 8.1 has support for secure booting on UEFI systems so it's harder for viruses to infect bootloader, and 8.1 has a virus protection software pre-loaded onto the device, you can download it on 7 too but 8.1 has it already enabled and ready to go. The only thing about 7 vs 8.1 is the annoying interface, which can be ignore largely by simply not using the start button and using the file explorer shortcut.
tl;dr I use 8.1 despite it's stupid metro interface because its got under-the-hood improvements.
| buildapc | t5_2rnve | ci0t1yh | A lot of people have conflicting opinions on this matter. In my opinion I think the metro interface is irritating as I never even use it and it's clearly designed for mobile devices. However, windows 8 has many advantages that I simply can't ignore. Windows 8.1 boots faster because they use hybrid boot methods to hibernate the kernel instead of turning everything off. Also, 8.1 is more resource efficient, it uses less system resources to power the OS and therefore things seem snappier especially if you run with lower specs. 8.1 has support for secure booting on UEFI systems so it's harder for viruses to infect bootloader, and 8.1 has a virus protection software pre-loaded onto the device, you can download it on 7 too but 8.1 has it already enabled and ready to go. The only thing about 7 vs 8.1 is the annoying interface, which can be ignore largely by simply not using the start button and using the file explorer shortcut. | I use 8.1 despite it's stupid metro interface because its got under-the-hood improvements. |
EnviousBird | Totally disagree.
Why would we have to stick with this subpar mode?
There are a lot more reasons for having a casual 5v5 than "not wanting to derank".
Sometimes people want to relax, and not play a 100% serious, and they don't want to get flamed by their team.
Another reason for having 5v5 casual is playing the less popular maps, those are rarely played in classic comp because they're either unbalanced or not very competitive, but i can see them being played a little more in a more casual environment.
Or some people have little time to play a full comp game so they play a casual game (which are shorter).
CS is SUPPOSED to be played 5v5, 10v10 is a clusterfuck and is nothing like the real thing.
Those are most of the reasons i can think of right now, your argument seems to be like "CS players are not entitled to a 5v5 mode" which i totally disagree with.
If Valve wants CS:GO to grow as a game and as an e-Sport they need to improve the game in a number of ways.
It's true that rank isn't that important right now, but it could be, with a decent classic comp environment that uses the same rules and server settings as the pros (yes 128tick here we go again), a 5v5 ranked queue and a solo/duo queue ranks could actually mean something.
IMO services like Altpug and Faceit shouldn't have to exist for players to get the best out of their game.
Also, these unranked 5v5 games wouldn't have to be truly "unranked", as in silvers vs eagles, there could be an underlying MMR system like LoL has.
TLDR; 10v10 is subpar and is simply unacceptable | Totally disagree.
Why would we have to stick with this subpar mode?
There are a lot more reasons for having a casual 5v5 than "not wanting to derank".
Sometimes people want to relax, and not play a 100% serious, and they don't want to get flamed by their team.
Another reason for having 5v5 casual is playing the less popular maps, those are rarely played in classic comp because they're either unbalanced or not very competitive, but i can see them being played a little more in a more casual environment.
Or some people have little time to play a full comp game so they play a casual game (which are shorter).
CS is SUPPOSED to be played 5v5, 10v10 is a clusterfuck and is nothing like the real thing.
Those are most of the reasons i can think of right now, your argument seems to be like "CS players are not entitled to a 5v5 mode" which i totally disagree with.
If Valve wants CS:GO to grow as a game and as an e-Sport they need to improve the game in a number of ways.
It's true that rank isn't that important right now, but it could be, with a decent classic comp environment that uses the same rules and server settings as the pros (yes 128tick here we go again), a 5v5 ranked queue and a solo/duo queue ranks could actually mean something.
IMO services like Altpug and Faceit shouldn't have to exist for players to get the best out of their game.
Also, these unranked 5v5 games wouldn't have to be truly "unranked", as in silvers vs eagles, there could be an underlying MMR system like LoL has.
TLDR; 10v10 is subpar and is simply unacceptable
| GlobalOffensive | t5_2sqho | chzqi7l | Totally disagree.
Why would we have to stick with this subpar mode?
There are a lot more reasons for having a casual 5v5 than "not wanting to derank".
Sometimes people want to relax, and not play a 100% serious, and they don't want to get flamed by their team.
Another reason for having 5v5 casual is playing the less popular maps, those are rarely played in classic comp because they're either unbalanced or not very competitive, but i can see them being played a little more in a more casual environment.
Or some people have little time to play a full comp game so they play a casual game (which are shorter).
CS is SUPPOSED to be played 5v5, 10v10 is a clusterfuck and is nothing like the real thing.
Those are most of the reasons i can think of right now, your argument seems to be like "CS players are not entitled to a 5v5 mode" which i totally disagree with.
If Valve wants CS:GO to grow as a game and as an e-Sport they need to improve the game in a number of ways.
It's true that rank isn't that important right now, but it could be, with a decent classic comp environment that uses the same rules and server settings as the pros (yes 128tick here we go again), a 5v5 ranked queue and a solo/duo queue ranks could actually mean something.
IMO services like Altpug and Faceit shouldn't have to exist for players to get the best out of their game.
Also, these unranked 5v5 games wouldn't have to be truly "unranked", as in silvers vs eagles, there could be an underlying MMR system like LoL has. | 10v10 is subpar and is simply unacceptable |
casparh | I'm not a health inspector but I am a catering equipment engineer and believe me when I tell you that NOWHERE is perfect. Here in the UK we have a star rating system: 5 stars = excellent, 0 stars = terrible/possible closure but trust me, 5 stars doesn't guarantee you a safe ride :( I have seen some horrendous sites, with one of the worst being within the last few months.
I was working at a local seafood pub-restaurant which is well respected locally, and features a 4 star rating. This in itself is nothing unusual as old buildings rarely receive the full 5 stars as they're not designed to have commercial kitchens in them, so can be difficult to keep spotlessly clean (this particular building is 500+ years old!). So I walk in the back door and the first thing that hits me is the smell!! Something between vomit, animal shite and garbage (more about that later). We then move in to the kitchen and it's like a nightmare!! The walls and ceilings are yellow/brown from years of grease build up, no hand wash sink, fly zapper above the prep area, no dishwasher!!! So many other things wrong with the place I couldn't possibly list them here!! Also at no point do any staff members appear to be embarrassed/give a fuck about the state of the place!
So, back to the smell. I'm working away and it seems to be coming from near the cold room. Fast forward several hours and the KP/cleaner turns up and I'm thinking this must be one lazy bastard, from looking at the state of this place. It turns out it's this girls first day and I'm gonna assume also her last!!! They set her to work on the cold room and about 5 mins later it becomes apparent she's found the source of the smell (due to the fact that she now a quivering vomiting mess in the corner of the garden! What she had found were 4 buckets of rancid putrified mussels, which had been in the cold room so long that all of the water had evaporated from the buckets (remember, this is a seafood speciality restaurant!)! I can't begin to describe the smell, I've been doing this job 7 years and nothing else even comes close, it's what I can only imagine what it's like to find a dead body after they've been left somewhere warm for 2 months and I'm not ashamed to tell you that I threw up a little too! The chef then proceeds to pull an open bag of green rotting meat, which turned out to be venison, from the fridge and dump it in the bin. But then the worst bit: underneath the rotting venison was a tray of hand cut raw chips (French fries if you prefer) which had turned pink due to soaking up the blood from the carcass above!! Chef proceeds to "wash" said chips before evaluating wether they are worth keeping!!!!!!! At this point I noped the fuck out of there and contacted the health department!
TL:DR sometimes agency chefs can ruin your whole fucking day! | I'm not a health inspector but I am a catering equipment engineer and believe me when I tell you that NOWHERE is perfect. Here in the UK we have a star rating system: 5 stars = excellent, 0 stars = terrible/possible closure but trust me, 5 stars doesn't guarantee you a safe ride :( I have seen some horrendous sites, with one of the worst being within the last few months.
I was working at a local seafood pub-restaurant which is well respected locally, and features a 4 star rating. This in itself is nothing unusual as old buildings rarely receive the full 5 stars as they're not designed to have commercial kitchens in them, so can be difficult to keep spotlessly clean (this particular building is 500+ years old!). So I walk in the back door and the first thing that hits me is the smell!! Something between vomit, animal shite and garbage (more about that later). We then move in to the kitchen and it's like a nightmare!! The walls and ceilings are yellow/brown from years of grease build up, no hand wash sink, fly zapper above the prep area, no dishwasher!!! So many other things wrong with the place I couldn't possibly list them here!! Also at no point do any staff members appear to be embarrassed/give a fuck about the state of the place!
So, back to the smell. I'm working away and it seems to be coming from near the cold room. Fast forward several hours and the KP/cleaner turns up and I'm thinking this must be one lazy bastard, from looking at the state of this place. It turns out it's this girls first day and I'm gonna assume also her last!!! They set her to work on the cold room and about 5 mins later it becomes apparent she's found the source of the smell (due to the fact that she now a quivering vomiting mess in the corner of the garden! What she had found were 4 buckets of rancid putrified mussels, which had been in the cold room so long that all of the water had evaporated from the buckets (remember, this is a seafood speciality restaurant!)! I can't begin to describe the smell, I've been doing this job 7 years and nothing else even comes close, it's what I can only imagine what it's like to find a dead body after they've been left somewhere warm for 2 months and I'm not ashamed to tell you that I threw up a little too! The chef then proceeds to pull an open bag of green rotting meat, which turned out to be venison, from the fridge and dump it in the bin. But then the worst bit: underneath the rotting venison was a tray of hand cut raw chips (French fries if you prefer) which had turned pink due to soaking up the blood from the carcass above!! Chef proceeds to "wash" said chips before evaluating wether they are worth keeping!!!!!!! At this point I noped the fuck out of there and contacted the health department!
TL:DR sometimes agency chefs can ruin your whole fucking day!
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | chzmf9g | I'm not a health inspector but I am a catering equipment engineer and believe me when I tell you that NOWHERE is perfect. Here in the UK we have a star rating system: 5 stars = excellent, 0 stars = terrible/possible closure but trust me, 5 stars doesn't guarantee you a safe ride :( I have seen some horrendous sites, with one of the worst being within the last few months.
I was working at a local seafood pub-restaurant which is well respected locally, and features a 4 star rating. This in itself is nothing unusual as old buildings rarely receive the full 5 stars as they're not designed to have commercial kitchens in them, so can be difficult to keep spotlessly clean (this particular building is 500+ years old!). So I walk in the back door and the first thing that hits me is the smell!! Something between vomit, animal shite and garbage (more about that later). We then move in to the kitchen and it's like a nightmare!! The walls and ceilings are yellow/brown from years of grease build up, no hand wash sink, fly zapper above the prep area, no dishwasher!!! So many other things wrong with the place I couldn't possibly list them here!! Also at no point do any staff members appear to be embarrassed/give a fuck about the state of the place!
So, back to the smell. I'm working away and it seems to be coming from near the cold room. Fast forward several hours and the KP/cleaner turns up and I'm thinking this must be one lazy bastard, from looking at the state of this place. It turns out it's this girls first day and I'm gonna assume also her last!!! They set her to work on the cold room and about 5 mins later it becomes apparent she's found the source of the smell (due to the fact that she now a quivering vomiting mess in the corner of the garden! What she had found were 4 buckets of rancid putrified mussels, which had been in the cold room so long that all of the water had evaporated from the buckets (remember, this is a seafood speciality restaurant!)! I can't begin to describe the smell, I've been doing this job 7 years and nothing else even comes close, it's what I can only imagine what it's like to find a dead body after they've been left somewhere warm for 2 months and I'm not ashamed to tell you that I threw up a little too! The chef then proceeds to pull an open bag of green rotting meat, which turned out to be venison, from the fridge and dump it in the bin. But then the worst bit: underneath the rotting venison was a tray of hand cut raw chips (French fries if you prefer) which had turned pink due to soaking up the blood from the carcass above!! Chef proceeds to "wash" said chips before evaluating wether they are worth keeping!!!!!!! At this point I noped the fuck out of there and contacted the health department! | sometimes agency chefs can ruin your whole fucking day! |
Joliet_Jake_Blues | I wholeheartedly agree.
I've been downvoted in the past because I said McDonald's is probably the cleanest restaurant in town.
Chain restaurants have cleaning schedules that are checked up on by corporate employees. And if a franchisor is getting bad health inspections they are risking their (in McDonald's case) $2.5 million investment.
10-15 years ago a Chili's restaurant in my area gave people, iirc, salmonella. It didn't just put that location out of business, it put 2 neighboring Chili's out of business (first closed within 6 months, the other 2 within a year).
Also, Chi-Chi's. They followed proper procedures but got people sick. It put the whole chain out of business. It wasn't even their fault, it was tainted green onions contaminated with E.Coli. You can't wash it away if it is *in* the vegetable.
TL;DR: Chain restaurants stand to lose tens of millions of dollars, they take sanitation seriously. | I wholeheartedly agree.
I've been downvoted in the past because I said McDonald's is probably the cleanest restaurant in town.
Chain restaurants have cleaning schedules that are checked up on by corporate employees. And if a franchisor is getting bad health inspections they are risking their (in McDonald's case) $2.5 million investment.
10-15 years ago a Chili's restaurant in my area gave people, iirc, salmonella. It didn't just put that location out of business, it put 2 neighboring Chili's out of business (first closed within 6 months, the other 2 within a year).
Also, Chi-Chi's. They followed proper procedures but got people sick. It put the whole chain out of business. It wasn't even their fault, it was tainted green onions contaminated with E.Coli. You can't wash it away if it is in the vegetable.
TL;DR: Chain restaurants stand to lose tens of millions of dollars, they take sanitation seriously.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | chzn3go | I wholeheartedly agree.
I've been downvoted in the past because I said McDonald's is probably the cleanest restaurant in town.
Chain restaurants have cleaning schedules that are checked up on by corporate employees. And if a franchisor is getting bad health inspections they are risking their (in McDonald's case) $2.5 million investment.
10-15 years ago a Chili's restaurant in my area gave people, iirc, salmonella. It didn't just put that location out of business, it put 2 neighboring Chili's out of business (first closed within 6 months, the other 2 within a year).
Also, Chi-Chi's. They followed proper procedures but got people sick. It put the whole chain out of business. It wasn't even their fault, it was tainted green onions contaminated with E.Coli. You can't wash it away if it is in the vegetable. | Chain restaurants stand to lose tens of millions of dollars, they take sanitation seriously. |
Masterdindin | Hello mate. I'm a couple years younger and in a similar situation to you, except I interact with girls in a regular enough basis, I suppose, even though I have had 2/3 casual female friends who I don't talk to all that often who treat me decently enough. Only one girl who is fairly close to me in my life. I'm not sexually experienced in any way, and most of my friends aren't as well. I've been on some platonic dates but that's about it in the relationship scheme of things. The same thoughts of inadequacy have tormented me, and either I've talked with girls only to get rejected or they hit on me hard and a do that back, until they stop and ignore me, which has crushed me. I've been talking with this girl for nearly a year now and I'm at least a decent friend to her, and I'd like to take it to the next level, but that's another story. The point is, you can't let rejection dissuade you. Even if you ask out a dozen girls and they all reject you, won't your perseverance be worth it when one accepts and makes you forget about the other girls who decided to not give you a chance? I know it may sound hollow when it hasn't been working out for you previously, but you're not doing anything wrong by asking, and it very well can pay off. If you give up completely, then you're robbing yourself of opportunities. I've been hopeless and bitter and have laughed at these words, but hopefully you realize that rolling over because women aren't flocking to you isn't the end of the word, and doesn't necessarily reflect on your personal qualities.
I'm really thin physically and can't put on weight, except a bit of muscle, for the life of me, so I can't really relate to that personally, but it sounds like you should keep on doing what you're doing. As other people have said, it's not about having a girl to cuddle; that's not the point. It's about developing emotional and social connections with her, which lust alone may try to trick you into believing you already have, or can obtain, especially from pr0n, or random pretty girls you may see and never talk to.
Honestly, that's all my weary mind can produce at this late hour. Maybe you're right. Maybe people like you and me are doomed to be shit out of luck with women for eternity. I've felt the same feelings as you, and they're some of the most demoralizing I've experienced. But NoFap is largely about self-improvement, and encouraging you to have the drive to do so through ending your PMO habits. You CAN be happier by improving yourself, for instance by clearing your mind of toxic thoughts which only serve to breed misery within you, in turn creating a plethora of other problems. If you are getting fitter, it may take some time for your body to adjust to these changes, so you may have quite a decent body in a few months.
TL;DR: keep on pushing forward, focus on improving yourself, and the rest of the pieces in your life you feel are missing shall hopefully reveal themselves and fall into place. Hold your head up high, my friend. | Hello mate. I'm a couple years younger and in a similar situation to you, except I interact with girls in a regular enough basis, I suppose, even though I have had 2/3 casual female friends who I don't talk to all that often who treat me decently enough. Only one girl who is fairly close to me in my life. I'm not sexually experienced in any way, and most of my friends aren't as well. I've been on some platonic dates but that's about it in the relationship scheme of things. The same thoughts of inadequacy have tormented me, and either I've talked with girls only to get rejected or they hit on me hard and a do that back, until they stop and ignore me, which has crushed me. I've been talking with this girl for nearly a year now and I'm at least a decent friend to her, and I'd like to take it to the next level, but that's another story. The point is, you can't let rejection dissuade you. Even if you ask out a dozen girls and they all reject you, won't your perseverance be worth it when one accepts and makes you forget about the other girls who decided to not give you a chance? I know it may sound hollow when it hasn't been working out for you previously, but you're not doing anything wrong by asking, and it very well can pay off. If you give up completely, then you're robbing yourself of opportunities. I've been hopeless and bitter and have laughed at these words, but hopefully you realize that rolling over because women aren't flocking to you isn't the end of the word, and doesn't necessarily reflect on your personal qualities.
I'm really thin physically and can't put on weight, except a bit of muscle, for the life of me, so I can't really relate to that personally, but it sounds like you should keep on doing what you're doing. As other people have said, it's not about having a girl to cuddle; that's not the point. It's about developing emotional and social connections with her, which lust alone may try to trick you into believing you already have, or can obtain, especially from pr0n, or random pretty girls you may see and never talk to.
Honestly, that's all my weary mind can produce at this late hour. Maybe you're right. Maybe people like you and me are doomed to be shit out of luck with women for eternity. I've felt the same feelings as you, and they're some of the most demoralizing I've experienced. But NoFap is largely about self-improvement, and encouraging you to have the drive to do so through ending your PMO habits. You CAN be happier by improving yourself, for instance by clearing your mind of toxic thoughts which only serve to breed misery within you, in turn creating a plethora of other problems. If you are getting fitter, it may take some time for your body to adjust to these changes, so you may have quite a decent body in a few months.
TL;DR: keep on pushing forward, focus on improving yourself, and the rest of the pieces in your life you feel are missing shall hopefully reveal themselves and fall into place. Hold your head up high, my friend.
| NoFap | t5_2skrn | chzo5in | Hello mate. I'm a couple years younger and in a similar situation to you, except I interact with girls in a regular enough basis, I suppose, even though I have had 2/3 casual female friends who I don't talk to all that often who treat me decently enough. Only one girl who is fairly close to me in my life. I'm not sexually experienced in any way, and most of my friends aren't as well. I've been on some platonic dates but that's about it in the relationship scheme of things. The same thoughts of inadequacy have tormented me, and either I've talked with girls only to get rejected or they hit on me hard and a do that back, until they stop and ignore me, which has crushed me. I've been talking with this girl for nearly a year now and I'm at least a decent friend to her, and I'd like to take it to the next level, but that's another story. The point is, you can't let rejection dissuade you. Even if you ask out a dozen girls and they all reject you, won't your perseverance be worth it when one accepts and makes you forget about the other girls who decided to not give you a chance? I know it may sound hollow when it hasn't been working out for you previously, but you're not doing anything wrong by asking, and it very well can pay off. If you give up completely, then you're robbing yourself of opportunities. I've been hopeless and bitter and have laughed at these words, but hopefully you realize that rolling over because women aren't flocking to you isn't the end of the word, and doesn't necessarily reflect on your personal qualities.
I'm really thin physically and can't put on weight, except a bit of muscle, for the life of me, so I can't really relate to that personally, but it sounds like you should keep on doing what you're doing. As other people have said, it's not about having a girl to cuddle; that's not the point. It's about developing emotional and social connections with her, which lust alone may try to trick you into believing you already have, or can obtain, especially from pr0n, or random pretty girls you may see and never talk to.
Honestly, that's all my weary mind can produce at this late hour. Maybe you're right. Maybe people like you and me are doomed to be shit out of luck with women for eternity. I've felt the same feelings as you, and they're some of the most demoralizing I've experienced. But NoFap is largely about self-improvement, and encouraging you to have the drive to do so through ending your PMO habits. You CAN be happier by improving yourself, for instance by clearing your mind of toxic thoughts which only serve to breed misery within you, in turn creating a plethora of other problems. If you are getting fitter, it may take some time for your body to adjust to these changes, so you may have quite a decent body in a few months. | keep on pushing forward, focus on improving yourself, and the rest of the pieces in your life you feel are missing shall hopefully reveal themselves and fall into place. Hold your head up high, my friend. |
iron_fisticuffs | I see you were asking about foolproof clearos a few days ago. Did you try any of the suggestions? I get that you're completely against Kanger products, but it sounds like you're using the cheaper plastic tanks. Things like EVOD tanks and iclears are, honestly, kind of crappy, entry-level tanks. People on the other thread suggested the Protanks. That's all I use. I have two mini Protank 3 tanks that I swap out every day. They're glass, so you don't have to worry about the tank cracking. Replacement coils are about $2 each, and I've replaced a total of 2 coils in almost a month. The tank itself costs about $10 online (I've sent it higher, I've seen it lower). I have a job, pets, kids, and zero time for RBAs, and the Protanks have been working great. Hell, I've got a chip in one of the tanks and it still doesn't leak. My point is, like anything else, you have to spend a little bit more for quality. Spending $20 on 2 tanks means I'll never spend $5 every time I need to replace a leaky EVOD.
TL;DR - You've gotta spend money to save money. | I see you were asking about foolproof clearos a few days ago. Did you try any of the suggestions? I get that you're completely against Kanger products, but it sounds like you're using the cheaper plastic tanks. Things like EVOD tanks and iclears are, honestly, kind of crappy, entry-level tanks. People on the other thread suggested the Protanks. That's all I use. I have two mini Protank 3 tanks that I swap out every day. They're glass, so you don't have to worry about the tank cracking. Replacement coils are about $2 each, and I've replaced a total of 2 coils in almost a month. The tank itself costs about $10 online (I've sent it higher, I've seen it lower). I have a job, pets, kids, and zero time for RBAs, and the Protanks have been working great. Hell, I've got a chip in one of the tanks and it still doesn't leak. My point is, like anything else, you have to spend a little bit more for quality. Spending $20 on 2 tanks means I'll never spend $5 every time I need to replace a leaky EVOD.
TL;DR - You've gotta spend money to save money.
| electronic_cigarette | t5_2qmlu | ci0bq5e | I see you were asking about foolproof clearos a few days ago. Did you try any of the suggestions? I get that you're completely against Kanger products, but it sounds like you're using the cheaper plastic tanks. Things like EVOD tanks and iclears are, honestly, kind of crappy, entry-level tanks. People on the other thread suggested the Protanks. That's all I use. I have two mini Protank 3 tanks that I swap out every day. They're glass, so you don't have to worry about the tank cracking. Replacement coils are about $2 each, and I've replaced a total of 2 coils in almost a month. The tank itself costs about $10 online (I've sent it higher, I've seen it lower). I have a job, pets, kids, and zero time for RBAs, and the Protanks have been working great. Hell, I've got a chip in one of the tanks and it still doesn't leak. My point is, like anything else, you have to spend a little bit more for quality. Spending $20 on 2 tanks means I'll never spend $5 every time I need to replace a leaky EVOD. | You've gotta spend money to save money. |
SoloShot | Haha I can tell it does. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one because I don't think text is going to get my argument across well without me seeming like an asshole.
Oh I'm not sure if you've watched onwards but Ep5 features full frontal female nudity as well so I'd have to say that as far as I've watched they've at least been even in so far as stupid sexual scenes.
tl;dr: I agree shock nudity is dumb, but at least their not only doing female shock nudity so you know...progress? | Haha I can tell it does. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one because I don't think text is going to get my argument across well without me seeming like an asshole.
Oh I'm not sure if you've watched onwards but Ep5 features full frontal female nudity as well so I'd have to say that as far as I've watched they've at least been even in so far as stupid sexual scenes.
tl;dr: I agree shock nudity is dumb, but at least their not only doing female shock nudity so you know...progress?
| orangeisthenewblack | t5_2xh2n | ci0rf2f | Haha I can tell it does. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one because I don't think text is going to get my argument across well without me seeming like an asshole.
Oh I'm not sure if you've watched onwards but Ep5 features full frontal female nudity as well so I'd have to say that as far as I've watched they've at least been even in so far as stupid sexual scenes. | I agree shock nudity is dumb, but at least their not only doing female shock nudity so you know...progress? |
121895 | that's like saying in the wire they should have had more white guys randomly get shot because a vast majority of the dead characters were black. it's not about the dead characters, it's about the fact that black people were far more represented in the wire because of the story...
also, the reason shows do female shock nudity is because of the networks like abc and nbc and showtime etc, where breasts arent considered bad but vagina is and thus penis is too. it only makes sense.
i just dont see how this can be considered a good thing. the fact they're going out of their way to incorporate male nudity in a female-based show just for equal representation of nudity is downright absurd, but that's not the end, no, they've gone even further and now there's more male nudity in a female show than female nudity! Maybe not more as in quantity, but more as in quality (as in we've seen dicks and balls, but no vagina etc)
tl:dr i disagree and this stuff annoys me. | that's like saying in the wire they should have had more white guys randomly get shot because a vast majority of the dead characters were black. it's not about the dead characters, it's about the fact that black people were far more represented in the wire because of the story...
also, the reason shows do female shock nudity is because of the networks like abc and nbc and showtime etc, where breasts arent considered bad but vagina is and thus penis is too. it only makes sense.
i just dont see how this can be considered a good thing. the fact they're going out of their way to incorporate male nudity in a female-based show just for equal representation of nudity is downright absurd, but that's not the end, no, they've gone even further and now there's more male nudity in a female show than female nudity! Maybe not more as in quantity, but more as in quality (as in we've seen dicks and balls, but no vagina etc)
tl:dr i disagree and this stuff annoys me.
| orangeisthenewblack | t5_2xh2n | ci0raee | that's like saying in the wire they should have had more white guys randomly get shot because a vast majority of the dead characters were black. it's not about the dead characters, it's about the fact that black people were far more represented in the wire because of the story...
also, the reason shows do female shock nudity is because of the networks like abc and nbc and showtime etc, where breasts arent considered bad but vagina is and thus penis is too. it only makes sense.
i just dont see how this can be considered a good thing. the fact they're going out of their way to incorporate male nudity in a female-based show just for equal representation of nudity is downright absurd, but that's not the end, no, they've gone even further and now there's more male nudity in a female show than female nudity! Maybe not more as in quantity, but more as in quality (as in we've seen dicks and balls, but no vagina etc) | i disagree and this stuff annoys me. |
EDaniels21 | I'm really glad you put the donations poll up. I think it can certainly ruin the legitimacy of the project, but at the same time it seems hard to turn it down... My greatest concern if you allow it and other donations is that eventually it *could* catch on enough that people will gather together and donate all the cards you could need for the deck. However, I think a compromise could be reached. Perhaps instead of just accepting it, you could still use your budget but get a discount price on it. So instead of spending $18 of your budget on Thoughtseize, you could take out just $9 instead. This keeps some legitimacy to the project, while also kind of factoring in for things like friends giving you a good trade deal to help you start out or similar things of that nature.
Also, I'm wondering about the replacing of Elspeth from the deck... Can't we factor that into our cost as well? If you take out an expensive card, can we assume you could trade that for value or trade it into the store and get some additional money back for our budget? IRL if you were to buy this deck and swap out the Elspeth, it's not like the card just vanishes, but instead likely goes into a trade binder or something similar which can be used toward acquiring Thoughtseize.
TL;DR: Some compromise should be reached on donations (such as being from the budget but 50% off) to help reserve some legitimacy to the project. Also, cards removed from the deck should be in some way put into our budget as additional money to spend. | I'm really glad you put the donations poll up. I think it can certainly ruin the legitimacy of the project, but at the same time it seems hard to turn it down... My greatest concern if you allow it and other donations is that eventually it could catch on enough that people will gather together and donate all the cards you could need for the deck. However, I think a compromise could be reached. Perhaps instead of just accepting it, you could still use your budget but get a discount price on it. So instead of spending $18 of your budget on Thoughtseize, you could take out just $9 instead. This keeps some legitimacy to the project, while also kind of factoring in for things like friends giving you a good trade deal to help you start out or similar things of that nature.
Also, I'm wondering about the replacing of Elspeth from the deck... Can't we factor that into our cost as well? If you take out an expensive card, can we assume you could trade that for value or trade it into the store and get some additional money back for our budget? IRL if you were to buy this deck and swap out the Elspeth, it's not like the card just vanishes, but instead likely goes into a trade binder or something similar which can be used toward acquiring Thoughtseize.
TL;DR: Some compromise should be reached on donations (such as being from the budget but 50% off) to help reserve some legitimacy to the project. Also, cards removed from the deck should be in some way put into our budget as additional money to spend.
| ModernMagic | t5_2xs5t | ci0ox38 | I'm really glad you put the donations poll up. I think it can certainly ruin the legitimacy of the project, but at the same time it seems hard to turn it down... My greatest concern if you allow it and other donations is that eventually it could catch on enough that people will gather together and donate all the cards you could need for the deck. However, I think a compromise could be reached. Perhaps instead of just accepting it, you could still use your budget but get a discount price on it. So instead of spending $18 of your budget on Thoughtseize, you could take out just $9 instead. This keeps some legitimacy to the project, while also kind of factoring in for things like friends giving you a good trade deal to help you start out or similar things of that nature.
Also, I'm wondering about the replacing of Elspeth from the deck... Can't we factor that into our cost as well? If you take out an expensive card, can we assume you could trade that for value or trade it into the store and get some additional money back for our budget? IRL if you were to buy this deck and swap out the Elspeth, it's not like the card just vanishes, but instead likely goes into a trade binder or something similar which can be used toward acquiring Thoughtseize. | Some compromise should be reached on donations (such as being from the budget but 50% off) to help reserve some legitimacy to the project. Also, cards removed from the deck should be in some way put into our budget as additional money to spend. |
HolyFolk | Imogen Heap's ["Hide and Seek"]( comes to mind first for its bareness, allowing the artist's mostly despondent vocals cut with exasperated builds and bursts to leave listeners to breathless sobs. I realize it has been posted here at least once, but Heap deserves recognition beyond this piece alone.
Another captivating piece, which captures unimaginably well love held deep for a close friend about whom one can only fantasize, is ["Goodnight and Go"]( Once again her vocalizations are emotionally affective in their contextually based flow; this is compounded by the perspective from which its lyrics are written, an intimate monologue performed daily in hopes of it transforming into something acted by two.
Two covers also cut in a way the originals do not (keeping in mind they may not have held that intention). Heap's version of Michael Jackson's ["Thriller"]( rather than channeling the delight of '80s horror film cheese, puts the listener in a place of true fear to the degree that cliffhanging line "This is the end of your life" feels terrifyingly real. Contrasting emotionally is her version of Leonard Cohen's ["Hallelujah"]( which returns to the bareness of "Hide and Seek" in recalling moments so profound and life altering that nothing can break the barrier surrounding the listener as it plays.
TL;DR: Imogen Heap is one of music's most emotionally powerful songwriters and performers. | Imogen Heap's ["Hide and Seek"]( comes to mind first for its bareness, allowing the artist's mostly despondent vocals cut with exasperated builds and bursts to leave listeners to breathless sobs. I realize it has been posted here at least once, but Heap deserves recognition beyond this piece alone.
Another captivating piece, which captures unimaginably well love held deep for a close friend about whom one can only fantasize, is ["Goodnight and Go"]( Once again her vocalizations are emotionally affective in their contextually based flow; this is compounded by the perspective from which its lyrics are written, an intimate monologue performed daily in hopes of it transforming into something acted by two.
Two covers also cut in a way the originals do not (keeping in mind they may not have held that intention). Heap's version of Michael Jackson's ["Thriller"]( rather than channeling the delight of '80s horror film cheese, puts the listener in a place of true fear to the degree that cliffhanging line "This is the end of your life" feels terrifyingly real. Contrasting emotionally is her version of Leonard Cohen's ["Hallelujah"]( which returns to the bareness of "Hide and Seek" in recalling moments so profound and life altering that nothing can break the barrier surrounding the listener as it plays.
TL;DR: Imogen Heap is one of music's most emotionally powerful songwriters and performers.
| Music | t5_2qh1u | ci1hnn0 | Imogen Heap's ["Hide and Seek"]( comes to mind first for its bareness, allowing the artist's mostly despondent vocals cut with exasperated builds and bursts to leave listeners to breathless sobs. I realize it has been posted here at least once, but Heap deserves recognition beyond this piece alone.
Another captivating piece, which captures unimaginably well love held deep for a close friend about whom one can only fantasize, is ["Goodnight and Go"]( Once again her vocalizations are emotionally affective in their contextually based flow; this is compounded by the perspective from which its lyrics are written, an intimate monologue performed daily in hopes of it transforming into something acted by two.
Two covers also cut in a way the originals do not (keeping in mind they may not have held that intention). Heap's version of Michael Jackson's ["Thriller"]( rather than channeling the delight of '80s horror film cheese, puts the listener in a place of true fear to the degree that cliffhanging line "This is the end of your life" feels terrifyingly real. Contrasting emotionally is her version of Leonard Cohen's ["Hallelujah"]( which returns to the bareness of "Hide and Seek" in recalling moments so profound and life altering that nothing can break the barrier surrounding the listener as it plays. | Imogen Heap is one of music's most emotionally powerful songwriters and performers. |
MyLastThrowaway1 | Here's something I wrote on Inforoo if you want to take a look:
TLDR: Start with his Enough Thunder EP | Here's something I wrote on Inforoo if you want to take a look:
TLDR: Start with his Enough Thunder EP
| bonnaroo | t5_2rg7a | ci130ip | Here's something I wrote on Inforoo if you want to take a look: | Start with his Enough Thunder EP |
PinkNinjaMan | It technically depends on how the 'gravity' works, clearly since the gravity does not affect ships on their own it is not true gravity. Also as far as I know there is no way to just create matter so the mass block getting 'turned on' is more like turning on an electromagnet that is effected by the 'gravity' from the gravity generator.
TLDR; Can't just make mass out of nowhere and gravity generators don't make gravity but simulate it | It technically depends on how the 'gravity' works, clearly since the gravity does not affect ships on their own it is not true gravity. Also as far as I know there is no way to just create matter so the mass block getting 'turned on' is more like turning on an electromagnet that is effected by the 'gravity' from the gravity generator.
TLDR; Can't just make mass out of nowhere and gravity generators don't make gravity but simulate it
| spaceengineers | t5_2ygas | ci119pm | It technically depends on how the 'gravity' works, clearly since the gravity does not affect ships on their own it is not true gravity. Also as far as I know there is no way to just create matter so the mass block getting 'turned on' is more like turning on an electromagnet that is effected by the 'gravity' from the gravity generator. | Can't just make mass out of nowhere and gravity generators don't make gravity but simulate it |
ked_man | That was a wonderful article to read. It really grasps the multiple views on hunting, from the hunter, the casual non-hunting observer, the guide, and the people that it will feed.
I went to South Africa last month and I can wholeheartedly agree with much of this article and it's message. Elephants, rhinos, giraffes, and zebras are engrained in our childhood memories as stuffed animals or cartoons. But in Africa, they are game species like deer and turkey are to us.
One point I will make that I think the author didn't strongly enough cover is how hunting legally, prevents poaching. Unlike the US, most of South Africa is privately owned land. As a landowner you also own the animals, so to speak. They are yours to manage. If you raise cattle, sheep, or crops, these wild animals eat your livestocks food or your crops. So they are hunted so that their numbers do not effect your livelihood. But game farms manage the animals to have a robust huntable population of game animals. They also protect these animals, with fences, and private security. If they cannot profit from having an animal on their property (i.e. if elephant hunting was illegal and they couldn't charge someone to shoot it) then there is no use for that animal on their property.
That elephant she shot cost 60,000 dollars, 10,000 of that went to the government, but the other 50,000 dollars went to the guide who will use that to pay his staff, some of whom will include private security to make sure the rest of the herd is not poached. Therefore one dead animal pays for the rest of the herd to live safely. It also pays the trackers and skinners for their work. This way they are more likely to work for an honest guide, than to lead poachers into the same bush to kill elephants illegally.
This is the only way that conservation of these animals will work in Africa. Governments there do not have the infrastructure and funding to provide the security these animals need. Our fish and wildlife system in the US, as extensive as it is, cannot stop poaching completely, and one that is much smaller and poorly funded could not hope to curb it over such a large expanse of areas in Africa.
If you've ever thought about going to Africa on a hunt, do it. You'll do more to help the animals there than donating 10,000 to the SCI or WWF. It will give you a new perspective on hunting, game management, and life in general.
TL;DR: killing an elephant( or any game species) in Africa does more to help the population of animals, and the local economy than any donation could ever match. | That was a wonderful article to read. It really grasps the multiple views on hunting, from the hunter, the casual non-hunting observer, the guide, and the people that it will feed.
I went to South Africa last month and I can wholeheartedly agree with much of this article and it's message. Elephants, rhinos, giraffes, and zebras are engrained in our childhood memories as stuffed animals or cartoons. But in Africa, they are game species like deer and turkey are to us.
One point I will make that I think the author didn't strongly enough cover is how hunting legally, prevents poaching. Unlike the US, most of South Africa is privately owned land. As a landowner you also own the animals, so to speak. They are yours to manage. If you raise cattle, sheep, or crops, these wild animals eat your livestocks food or your crops. So they are hunted so that their numbers do not effect your livelihood. But game farms manage the animals to have a robust huntable population of game animals. They also protect these animals, with fences, and private security. If they cannot profit from having an animal on their property (i.e. if elephant hunting was illegal and they couldn't charge someone to shoot it) then there is no use for that animal on their property.
That elephant she shot cost 60,000 dollars, 10,000 of that went to the government, but the other 50,000 dollars went to the guide who will use that to pay his staff, some of whom will include private security to make sure the rest of the herd is not poached. Therefore one dead animal pays for the rest of the herd to live safely. It also pays the trackers and skinners for their work. This way they are more likely to work for an honest guide, than to lead poachers into the same bush to kill elephants illegally.
This is the only way that conservation of these animals will work in Africa. Governments there do not have the infrastructure and funding to provide the security these animals need. Our fish and wildlife system in the US, as extensive as it is, cannot stop poaching completely, and one that is much smaller and poorly funded could not hope to curb it over such a large expanse of areas in Africa.
If you've ever thought about going to Africa on a hunt, do it. You'll do more to help the animals there than donating 10,000 to the SCI or WWF. It will give you a new perspective on hunting, game management, and life in general.
TL;DR: killing an elephant( or any game species) in Africa does more to help the population of animals, and the local economy than any donation could ever match.
| Hunting | t5_2qlkx | ci1gml0 | That was a wonderful article to read. It really grasps the multiple views on hunting, from the hunter, the casual non-hunting observer, the guide, and the people that it will feed.
I went to South Africa last month and I can wholeheartedly agree with much of this article and it's message. Elephants, rhinos, giraffes, and zebras are engrained in our childhood memories as stuffed animals or cartoons. But in Africa, they are game species like deer and turkey are to us.
One point I will make that I think the author didn't strongly enough cover is how hunting legally, prevents poaching. Unlike the US, most of South Africa is privately owned land. As a landowner you also own the animals, so to speak. They are yours to manage. If you raise cattle, sheep, or crops, these wild animals eat your livestocks food or your crops. So they are hunted so that their numbers do not effect your livelihood. But game farms manage the animals to have a robust huntable population of game animals. They also protect these animals, with fences, and private security. If they cannot profit from having an animal on their property (i.e. if elephant hunting was illegal and they couldn't charge someone to shoot it) then there is no use for that animal on their property.
That elephant she shot cost 60,000 dollars, 10,000 of that went to the government, but the other 50,000 dollars went to the guide who will use that to pay his staff, some of whom will include private security to make sure the rest of the herd is not poached. Therefore one dead animal pays for the rest of the herd to live safely. It also pays the trackers and skinners for their work. This way they are more likely to work for an honest guide, than to lead poachers into the same bush to kill elephants illegally.
This is the only way that conservation of these animals will work in Africa. Governments there do not have the infrastructure and funding to provide the security these animals need. Our fish and wildlife system in the US, as extensive as it is, cannot stop poaching completely, and one that is much smaller and poorly funded could not hope to curb it over such a large expanse of areas in Africa.
If you've ever thought about going to Africa on a hunt, do it. You'll do more to help the animals there than donating 10,000 to the SCI or WWF. It will give you a new perspective on hunting, game management, and life in general. | killing an elephant( or any game species) in Africa does more to help the population of animals, and the local economy than any donation could ever match. |
mcflyjr | If you note, I only preached about wearing gear. I'm not bashing on any other gear.
The reason I chose Icon is because I had heard good reviews of their gear through other rides, and incidentally the jacket and gloves I had were the only motorcycle gear available for purchase on base.
My only experience is with the gear I currently have, as I haven't been riding for that long.
That being said, I've always bought into the concept of wearing gear.
Advertising doesn't affect what I buy (consciously). In fact, I didn't even know how Icon advertised their gear until this post. I just heard good reviews of it from other riders.
Also, in response to your "Tap out" look of Icon, this is the jacket I have. All black, no "Tap out" look about it: (sorry about potato quality. The S5 doesn't like to focus)
Ultimately I was protected because I had gear. Would the results have been different if I had different gear? No saying. Because that hasn't happened.
I go off of my experience and other's experience. So far my experience is GEAR saves skin.
So wear your god damn gear kiddies.
TL;DR: ATGATT. Any gear is better than no gear. | If you note, I only preached about wearing gear. I'm not bashing on any other gear.
The reason I chose Icon is because I had heard good reviews of their gear through other rides, and incidentally the jacket and gloves I had were the only motorcycle gear available for purchase on base.
My only experience is with the gear I currently have, as I haven't been riding for that long.
That being said, I've always bought into the concept of wearing gear.
Advertising doesn't affect what I buy (consciously). In fact, I didn't even know how Icon advertised their gear until this post. I just heard good reviews of it from other riders.
Also, in response to your "Tap out" look of Icon, this is the jacket I have. All black, no "Tap out" look about it: (sorry about potato quality. The S5 doesn't like to focus)
Ultimately I was protected because I had gear. Would the results have been different if I had different gear? No saying. Because that hasn't happened.
I go off of my experience and other's experience. So far my experience is GEAR saves skin.
So wear your god damn gear kiddies.
TL;DR: ATGATT. Any gear is better than no gear.
| motorcycles | t5_2qi6d | ci1wb5y | If you note, I only preached about wearing gear. I'm not bashing on any other gear.
The reason I chose Icon is because I had heard good reviews of their gear through other rides, and incidentally the jacket and gloves I had were the only motorcycle gear available for purchase on base.
My only experience is with the gear I currently have, as I haven't been riding for that long.
That being said, I've always bought into the concept of wearing gear.
Advertising doesn't affect what I buy (consciously). In fact, I didn't even know how Icon advertised their gear until this post. I just heard good reviews of it from other riders.
Also, in response to your "Tap out" look of Icon, this is the jacket I have. All black, no "Tap out" look about it: (sorry about potato quality. The S5 doesn't like to focus)
Ultimately I was protected because I had gear. Would the results have been different if I had different gear? No saying. Because that hasn't happened.
I go off of my experience and other's experience. So far my experience is GEAR saves skin.
So wear your god damn gear kiddies. | ATGATT. Any gear is better than no gear. |
Skyoung93 | Well, if you really wanna get into a higher bracket, just learn to solo rat. It won't make you a better player overall though. Chances are whatever you gained from rat doto you'll lose when you stop rat doto, and you'll be abysmal compared to the higher bracket.
First thing first, learn to farm well, regardless of hero. After all, what do you lose by having more money? And if you're playing a carry, you'll be the buffest mofo on the field.
Second, don't blame your teammates because that takes the focus off of you. How will complaining about your teammates make you a better player? It won't. Always focus on what you could have done better. I know losing is discouraging, but you'll get better and eventually pull yourself out of the 1k bracket.
The most important thing in the game is positioning. It's hard, yes. It won't come easily to you, but positioning and map awareness go hand in hand to protect you. Just gotta practice.
Maybe you should choose one hero and learn him/her first. Like really master it and the role they fill.
TL;DR: gotta just improve your solo game. Stop being mad at others cause that only makes you bitter, not better. Life advice right there. | Well, if you really wanna get into a higher bracket, just learn to solo rat. It won't make you a better player overall though. Chances are whatever you gained from rat doto you'll lose when you stop rat doto, and you'll be abysmal compared to the higher bracket.
First thing first, learn to farm well, regardless of hero. After all, what do you lose by having more money? And if you're playing a carry, you'll be the buffest mofo on the field.
Second, don't blame your teammates because that takes the focus off of you. How will complaining about your teammates make you a better player? It won't. Always focus on what you could have done better. I know losing is discouraging, but you'll get better and eventually pull yourself out of the 1k bracket.
The most important thing in the game is positioning. It's hard, yes. It won't come easily to you, but positioning and map awareness go hand in hand to protect you. Just gotta practice.
Maybe you should choose one hero and learn him/her first. Like really master it and the role they fill.
TL;DR: gotta just improve your solo game. Stop being mad at others cause that only makes you bitter, not better. Life advice right there.
| DotA2 | t5_2s580 | ci1qhjl | Well, if you really wanna get into a higher bracket, just learn to solo rat. It won't make you a better player overall though. Chances are whatever you gained from rat doto you'll lose when you stop rat doto, and you'll be abysmal compared to the higher bracket.
First thing first, learn to farm well, regardless of hero. After all, what do you lose by having more money? And if you're playing a carry, you'll be the buffest mofo on the field.
Second, don't blame your teammates because that takes the focus off of you. How will complaining about your teammates make you a better player? It won't. Always focus on what you could have done better. I know losing is discouraging, but you'll get better and eventually pull yourself out of the 1k bracket.
The most important thing in the game is positioning. It's hard, yes. It won't come easily to you, but positioning and map awareness go hand in hand to protect you. Just gotta practice.
Maybe you should choose one hero and learn him/her first. Like really master it and the role they fill. | gotta just improve your solo game. Stop being mad at others cause that only makes you bitter, not better. Life advice right there. |
Stacks_of_Books | My step father raped me from the age of 12 to 16. It resulted in a pregnancy and subsequent abortion. My mother became aware at that time, although I suspect she was aware before. I testified. I talked. I gave dates that they could prove. I named times and places in which I was dragged to hotels. I also had witness to him beating me and my younger sisters.
I don't mean that we were smacked. I mean he hit us with a rake handle until the wood broke in half.
I stood in front of a judge and shakily told him what happened. My step father's attorney suggested that I was jealous of my mother and I had been seducing him for a while and while I wasn't at fault, I was complicit.
We were not rich. We were middle class. He received 4 months in jail. They decided he could only be charged with 4 accounts of statutory rape.
He wrote me from jail and said he found God and I should too.
It isn't about money. The system is broken when it comes to sex crimes.
TLDR: Sex crimes are lightly punished, whether you have money or not. | My step father raped me from the age of 12 to 16. It resulted in a pregnancy and subsequent abortion. My mother became aware at that time, although I suspect she was aware before. I testified. I talked. I gave dates that they could prove. I named times and places in which I was dragged to hotels. I also had witness to him beating me and my younger sisters.
I don't mean that we were smacked. I mean he hit us with a rake handle until the wood broke in half.
I stood in front of a judge and shakily told him what happened. My step father's attorney suggested that I was jealous of my mother and I had been seducing him for a while and while I wasn't at fault, I was complicit.
We were not rich. We were middle class. He received 4 months in jail. They decided he could only be charged with 4 accounts of statutory rape.
He wrote me from jail and said he found God and I should too.
It isn't about money. The system is broken when it comes to sex crimes.
TLDR: Sex crimes are lightly punished, whether you have money or not.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci21fn2 | My step father raped me from the age of 12 to 16. It resulted in a pregnancy and subsequent abortion. My mother became aware at that time, although I suspect she was aware before. I testified. I talked. I gave dates that they could prove. I named times and places in which I was dragged to hotels. I also had witness to him beating me and my younger sisters.
I don't mean that we were smacked. I mean he hit us with a rake handle until the wood broke in half.
I stood in front of a judge and shakily told him what happened. My step father's attorney suggested that I was jealous of my mother and I had been seducing him for a while and while I wasn't at fault, I was complicit.
We were not rich. We were middle class. He received 4 months in jail. They decided he could only be charged with 4 accounts of statutory rape.
He wrote me from jail and said he found God and I should too.
It isn't about money. The system is broken when it comes to sex crimes. | Sex crimes are lightly punished, whether you have money or not. |
Eclipto14 | No, a "false accusation" is when there is definitive evidence that—beyond a reasonable doubt—the accused did not commit a crime. This was not the case in the OP.
An example would be if you accused me of stealing your car and I provided undeniable evidence (e.g., a plane ticket, hotel receipt, credit card chargers, and surveillance footage) that proved that I was not in the city or country when your car was stolen. In this case, I am legally **innocent** and your accusation is proven false.
The other scenario is that you fail to provide sufficient evidence that proves within a reasonable doubt that I stole your car. In this case, I would be "**not guilty**" (which has a different legal definition than "innocent"). Your accusation wouldn't be counted as "false" because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that I did or did not steal your car. And please note that is a direct consequence of **innocent until proven guilty**.
**TL;DR** — Your testimony would only be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because I was able to prove my innocence. Your testimony would not be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because you failed to prove I was guilty. In the latter, there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove your accusation which leaves its falsity unknown.
EDIT: spelling | No, a "false accusation" is when there is definitive evidence that—beyond a reasonable doubt—the accused did not commit a crime. This was not the case in the OP.
An example would be if you accused me of stealing your car and I provided undeniable evidence (e.g., a plane ticket, hotel receipt, credit card chargers, and surveillance footage) that proved that I was not in the city or country when your car was stolen. In this case, I am legally innocent and your accusation is proven false.
The other scenario is that you fail to provide sufficient evidence that proves within a reasonable doubt that I stole your car. In this case, I would be " not guilty " (which has a different legal definition than "innocent"). Your accusation wouldn't be counted as "false" because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that I did or did not steal your car. And please note that is a direct consequence of innocent until proven guilty .
TL;DR — Your testimony would only be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because I was able to prove my innocence. Your testimony would not be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because you failed to prove I was guilty. In the latter, there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove your accusation which leaves its falsity unknown.
EDIT: spelling
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci22c8i | No, a "false accusation" is when there is definitive evidence that—beyond a reasonable doubt—the accused did not commit a crime. This was not the case in the OP.
An example would be if you accused me of stealing your car and I provided undeniable evidence (e.g., a plane ticket, hotel receipt, credit card chargers, and surveillance footage) that proved that I was not in the city or country when your car was stolen. In this case, I am legally innocent and your accusation is proven false.
The other scenario is that you fail to provide sufficient evidence that proves within a reasonable doubt that I stole your car. In this case, I would be " not guilty " (which has a different legal definition than "innocent"). Your accusation wouldn't be counted as "false" because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that I did or did not steal your car. And please note that is a direct consequence of innocent until proven guilty . | Your testimony would only be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because I was able to prove my innocence. Your testimony would not be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because you failed to prove I was guilty. In the latter, there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove your accusation which leaves its falsity unknown.
EDIT: spelling |
pamor | Hey. Do you even read another article other than this one?
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, **his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses**, so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the **records**.
>
> **A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient**.
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, **and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand.**
Tl;dr : The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault *is one the most fucking sensitive thing* to be released **and to be played to an audience**. The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify **even without** the counseling record, but then it then overturned to *not allow the girl to testify* if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator *already* admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up. | Hey. Do you even read another article other than this one?
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses , so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the records .
>
> A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient .
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand.
Tl;dr : The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault is one the most fucking sensitive thing to be released and to be played to an audience . The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify even without the counseling record, but then it then overturned to not allow the girl to testify if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator already admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci22ccp | Hey. Do you even read another article other than this one?
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses , so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the records .
>
> A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient .
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand. | The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault is one the most fucking sensitive thing to be released and to be played to an audience . The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify even without the counseling record, but then it then overturned to not allow the girl to testify if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator already admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up. |
pamor | I'll copy my comment :
------------------------------------------------
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, **his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses**, so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the **records**.
>
> **A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient**.
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, **and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand.**
Tl;dr : The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault *is one the most fucking sensitive thing* to be released **and to be played to an audience**. The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify **even without** the counseling record, but then it then overturned to *not allow the girl to testify* if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator *already* admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up. | I'll copy my comment :
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses , so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the records .
>
> A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient .
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand.
Tl;dr : The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault is one the most fucking sensitive thing to be released and to be played to an audience . The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify even without the counseling record, but then it then overturned to not allow the girl to testify if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator already admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci22dov | I'll copy my comment :
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses , so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the records .
>
> A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient .
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand. | The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault is one the most fucking sensitive thing to be released and to be played to an audience . The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify even without the counseling record, but then it then overturned to not allow the girl to testify if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator already admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up. |
Stacks_of_Books | I think in my case it was a bit harder to wiggle away from the truth. My step father had bragged to some co workers that he had taken my virginity, at least that is what I have heard. It was because he owed them money that they contacted the police and then backed up my statement. It then became possible to force my mother to admit that she had taken me to get an abortion and that she was aware of my assault.
I think if it was just me, standing alone, with no one to back up my story, the case would have been dropped. My advocate seemed to be surprised he even got 4 months. I think everyone was expecting him to get a warning.
What is really fucked up is that while waiting for the court case to make it's way through the system, I was in foster care. My sisters remained in the home with him. The courts ordered our entire family to attend therapy together.
Together is the important word here. Once a week, I was forced into a small room with him and my mother as they talked about how hard this was on them. The cost of attorneys and how much they had to sacrifices to make ends meet. At one point, I felt so guilty that my sisters didn't have any pocket money or new shoes for school or that they couldn't afford school supplies, that I told my advocate and foster parents that I no longer wanted to testify.
I just wanted to make it all stop. Thankfully my foster mom marched down to CPS and demanded they stop forcing me into therapy with my abuser and remove any means of communication between me and my parents.
That foster mom saved my life I think.
TLDR: As the defendant you are always defending yourself and reliving the assult, not just in the court room, police station or hospitals. ALWAYS. | I think in my case it was a bit harder to wiggle away from the truth. My step father had bragged to some co workers that he had taken my virginity, at least that is what I have heard. It was because he owed them money that they contacted the police and then backed up my statement. It then became possible to force my mother to admit that she had taken me to get an abortion and that she was aware of my assault.
I think if it was just me, standing alone, with no one to back up my story, the case would have been dropped. My advocate seemed to be surprised he even got 4 months. I think everyone was expecting him to get a warning.
What is really fucked up is that while waiting for the court case to make it's way through the system, I was in foster care. My sisters remained in the home with him. The courts ordered our entire family to attend therapy together.
Together is the important word here. Once a week, I was forced into a small room with him and my mother as they talked about how hard this was on them. The cost of attorneys and how much they had to sacrifices to make ends meet. At one point, I felt so guilty that my sisters didn't have any pocket money or new shoes for school or that they couldn't afford school supplies, that I told my advocate and foster parents that I no longer wanted to testify.
I just wanted to make it all stop. Thankfully my foster mom marched down to CPS and demanded they stop forcing me into therapy with my abuser and remove any means of communication between me and my parents.
That foster mom saved my life I think.
TLDR: As the defendant you are always defending yourself and reliving the assult, not just in the court room, police station or hospitals. ALWAYS.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci23w40 | I think in my case it was a bit harder to wiggle away from the truth. My step father had bragged to some co workers that he had taken my virginity, at least that is what I have heard. It was because he owed them money that they contacted the police and then backed up my statement. It then became possible to force my mother to admit that she had taken me to get an abortion and that she was aware of my assault.
I think if it was just me, standing alone, with no one to back up my story, the case would have been dropped. My advocate seemed to be surprised he even got 4 months. I think everyone was expecting him to get a warning.
What is really fucked up is that while waiting for the court case to make it's way through the system, I was in foster care. My sisters remained in the home with him. The courts ordered our entire family to attend therapy together.
Together is the important word here. Once a week, I was forced into a small room with him and my mother as they talked about how hard this was on them. The cost of attorneys and how much they had to sacrifices to make ends meet. At one point, I felt so guilty that my sisters didn't have any pocket money or new shoes for school or that they couldn't afford school supplies, that I told my advocate and foster parents that I no longer wanted to testify.
I just wanted to make it all stop. Thankfully my foster mom marched down to CPS and demanded they stop forcing me into therapy with my abuser and remove any means of communication between me and my parents.
That foster mom saved my life I think. | As the defendant you are always defending yourself and reliving the assult, not just in the court room, police station or hospitals. ALWAYS. |
pamor | There's a *lot* of powerful people, especially powerful men, who has sexually assaulted another human being. They "can have anything in the world", o.k, that's pretty right. They could buy mansions, luxury cars, have respect from other people for their status/works.. but it didn't stop many of them from raping another person. Why?
Because it didn't matter. Sexual assault is about power. One of the many reasons why so many people didn't believe Dylan Farrow (Woody Allen's stepdaughter) when she said that he sexually assaulted her when she was a child is because **they do not believe** how someone *oh so powerful*, so prolific, so great, so rich, so acclaimed and famous could so something that could destroy his whole career and life.
Some people were *furious* whenever someone from a low socio-economic class say that they've been sexually assaulted by someone rich and famous. They'll say, *oh he have everything how could he did that? the accuser must be lying! she must've wanted the fame/his money so she made the case up!* and other rationalizations even when the evidence overwhelmingly say the opposite.
The view that "the man can have anything in the god damn world" and still chose to do something heinous and illogical like molesting his stepdaughter is not an incongruous one.
edit : Tl;dr whether or not the man is powerful/rich/famous doesn't matter one bit. | There's a lot of powerful people, especially powerful men, who has sexually assaulted another human being. They "can have anything in the world", o.k, that's pretty right. They could buy mansions, luxury cars, have respect from other people for their status/works.. but it didn't stop many of them from raping another person. Why?
Because it didn't matter. Sexual assault is about power. One of the many reasons why so many people didn't believe Dylan Farrow (Woody Allen's stepdaughter) when she said that he sexually assaulted her when she was a child is because they do not believe how someone oh so powerful , so prolific, so great, so rich, so acclaimed and famous could so something that could destroy his whole career and life.
Some people were furious whenever someone from a low socio-economic class say that they've been sexually assaulted by someone rich and famous. They'll say, oh he have everything how could he did that? the accuser must be lying! she must've wanted the fame/his money so she made the case up! and other rationalizations even when the evidence overwhelmingly say the opposite.
The view that "the man can have anything in the god damn world" and still chose to do something heinous and illogical like molesting his stepdaughter is not an incongruous one.
edit : Tl;dr whether or not the man is powerful/rich/famous doesn't matter one bit.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci21qjy | There's a lot of powerful people, especially powerful men, who has sexually assaulted another human being. They "can have anything in the world", o.k, that's pretty right. They could buy mansions, luxury cars, have respect from other people for their status/works.. but it didn't stop many of them from raping another person. Why?
Because it didn't matter. Sexual assault is about power. One of the many reasons why so many people didn't believe Dylan Farrow (Woody Allen's stepdaughter) when she said that he sexually assaulted her when she was a child is because they do not believe how someone oh so powerful , so prolific, so great, so rich, so acclaimed and famous could so something that could destroy his whole career and life.
Some people were furious whenever someone from a low socio-economic class say that they've been sexually assaulted by someone rich and famous. They'll say, oh he have everything how could he did that? the accuser must be lying! she must've wanted the fame/his money so she made the case up! and other rationalizations even when the evidence overwhelmingly say the opposite.
The view that "the man can have anything in the god damn world" and still chose to do something heinous and illogical like molesting his stepdaughter is not an incongruous one.
edit : | whether or not the man is powerful/rich/famous doesn't matter one bit. |
saumanahaii | Believe me, you are helping more than you know. Just being there for him means the world. Take that from someone who was in the same spot as him years ago. There's not much more than that you can do; the rest is up to him. There's a real risk when you're at your lowest that you take too much from those you love and you wind up damaging them, too. Don't let that happen. What's happening to him isn't your fault, its something that's part of him. That's where the solution lies, too. Be there for him, love him, and be willing to help him up from his lowest points. But don't blame yourself for what's happening to him. It's a sad confluence of situation and genes.
There is no easy solution to depression. I haven't been on drugs for years because the side effects are worse than the disease. Worse still, depression can make you manipulative as you look for something to make you hurt less. Don't let him take too much of yourself in his attempt to feel better, because the depressed are selfish in their desire to recover and they can easily ask too much. And in the end doing so will only hurt them further. Butthat doesn't mean you can't still be there for him. No matter what happens, the fact that his wellbeing matters to you matters to him.
TLDR: Don't blame yourself, don't sacrifice too much to his sickness, and love him for who he is when he's not at his lowest. He'll love you for that more than he may let on. | Believe me, you are helping more than you know. Just being there for him means the world. Take that from someone who was in the same spot as him years ago. There's not much more than that you can do; the rest is up to him. There's a real risk when you're at your lowest that you take too much from those you love and you wind up damaging them, too. Don't let that happen. What's happening to him isn't your fault, its something that's part of him. That's where the solution lies, too. Be there for him, love him, and be willing to help him up from his lowest points. But don't blame yourself for what's happening to him. It's a sad confluence of situation and genes.
There is no easy solution to depression. I haven't been on drugs for years because the side effects are worse than the disease. Worse still, depression can make you manipulative as you look for something to make you hurt less. Don't let him take too much of yourself in his attempt to feel better, because the depressed are selfish in their desire to recover and they can easily ask too much. And in the end doing so will only hurt them further. Butthat doesn't mean you can't still be there for him. No matter what happens, the fact that his wellbeing matters to you matters to him.
TLDR: Don't blame yourself, don't sacrifice too much to his sickness, and love him for who he is when he's not at his lowest. He'll love you for that more than he may let on.
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | ci23zh8 | Believe me, you are helping more than you know. Just being there for him means the world. Take that from someone who was in the same spot as him years ago. There's not much more than that you can do; the rest is up to him. There's a real risk when you're at your lowest that you take too much from those you love and you wind up damaging them, too. Don't let that happen. What's happening to him isn't your fault, its something that's part of him. That's where the solution lies, too. Be there for him, love him, and be willing to help him up from his lowest points. But don't blame yourself for what's happening to him. It's a sad confluence of situation and genes.
There is no easy solution to depression. I haven't been on drugs for years because the side effects are worse than the disease. Worse still, depression can make you manipulative as you look for something to make you hurt less. Don't let him take too much of yourself in his attempt to feel better, because the depressed are selfish in their desire to recover and they can easily ask too much. And in the end doing so will only hurt them further. Butthat doesn't mean you can't still be there for him. No matter what happens, the fact that his wellbeing matters to you matters to him. | Don't blame yourself, don't sacrifice too much to his sickness, and love him for who he is when he's not at his lowest. He'll love you for that more than he may let on. |
Willasaurus | To add to that, the Olympics has become, essentially, a black hole. You pay for everything, you have to practically bribe the IOC to even look at your city, and then you get almost no money from it. Most cities who have held the Olympics go downhill afterwards, with very few exceptions. I believe it was the 2022 Olympics I read about, no one wants them because of the aforementioned issues, plus the host city has to build an Olympian village, as well as other places to house some events.
TL;DR glad the Olympics didn't come to Chicago because they are a money sucking black hole. | To add to that, the Olympics has become, essentially, a black hole. You pay for everything, you have to practically bribe the IOC to even look at your city, and then you get almost no money from it. Most cities who have held the Olympics go downhill afterwards, with very few exceptions. I believe it was the 2022 Olympics I read about, no one wants them because of the aforementioned issues, plus the host city has to build an Olympian village, as well as other places to house some events.
TL;DR glad the Olympics didn't come to Chicago because they are a money sucking black hole.
| news | t5_2qh3l | ci29kn5 | To add to that, the Olympics has become, essentially, a black hole. You pay for everything, you have to practically bribe the IOC to even look at your city, and then you get almost no money from it. Most cities who have held the Olympics go downhill afterwards, with very few exceptions. I believe it was the 2022 Olympics I read about, no one wants them because of the aforementioned issues, plus the host city has to build an Olympian village, as well as other places to house some events. | glad the Olympics didn't come to Chicago because they are a money sucking black hole. |
Slukaj | > In my analogy I am treating it as a tool that specialized to a particular problem field that can be activated when a relevant problem arises to provide a solution.
Then I misunderstood, my apologies.
> String them together so that they know which other sub-systems they need to communicate with and adding on skill-sets like that you can achieve "equivalent" capability to any particular human via an entity built from a collection of weak AI's
That would be correct. You would then have to ask whether or not multiple networked machines counts as a Strong AI, or if it's still just a network of Weak AI's (or both).
My own opinion is that it would not. Imagine if we designed Weak AI machines to perform every menial task on planet Earth. Every custodial, maintenance, and menial job we can come up with. Does the ability to perform all of those tasks equate to the intelligence of a human? Do those machines that clean houses have the faculty to be truly self aware, able to learn, and be able to reason, imagine, and create the way a human does? No, of course not, ergo I would not necessarily call it a Smart AI as it does not meet or surpass the intellect of a human.
Now, to extrapolate... that's the direction our field is moving. I don't think the pursuit of a single device Strong AI is a worthwhile endeavor, largely because we don't need any single multi-purpose machine. What we need, like you mentioned, is a collection of highly specialized sub machines that can interact and communicate with each other, and are driven together by some master logic.
What I *really* don't think is going to happen is the construction of a machine with an intelligence on par with a human, especially to do something as menial as housework. We don't need a machine that has our brain capacity to do it, pure and simple.
> As for the definitions - weak AI is an extremely fuzzy definition.
Not in my opinion. Weak AI < human intelligence, Strong AI >= human intelligence. On the surface, that's pretty straightforward. The only problem is the definition of human intelligence.
> Strong AI is a theoretical definition as none have yet been produced. It's also relies on fuzzy definitions like "self-awareness", conscience, learning...
I can't disagree. Our own definition of human intelligence is so nebulous that we may create a Strong AI and not even know it. Does human intelligence include the ability to imagine? The ability to be creative? The ability to handle abstract thought?
In short, we don't have that definition written in a way that you or I (as computer scientists) are able to use as field goals.
EDIT: I suppose I should TL;DR: that.
The question boils down to this: does the metric we use to determine if an AI is Weak or Strong hinge on computational power? Or does it hinge on ability? My personal opinion is ability, but I could see the other side holding true as well. | > In my analogy I am treating it as a tool that specialized to a particular problem field that can be activated when a relevant problem arises to provide a solution.
Then I misunderstood, my apologies.
> String them together so that they know which other sub-systems they need to communicate with and adding on skill-sets like that you can achieve "equivalent" capability to any particular human via an entity built from a collection of weak AI's
That would be correct. You would then have to ask whether or not multiple networked machines counts as a Strong AI, or if it's still just a network of Weak AI's (or both).
My own opinion is that it would not. Imagine if we designed Weak AI machines to perform every menial task on planet Earth. Every custodial, maintenance, and menial job we can come up with. Does the ability to perform all of those tasks equate to the intelligence of a human? Do those machines that clean houses have the faculty to be truly self aware, able to learn, and be able to reason, imagine, and create the way a human does? No, of course not, ergo I would not necessarily call it a Smart AI as it does not meet or surpass the intellect of a human.
Now, to extrapolate... that's the direction our field is moving. I don't think the pursuit of a single device Strong AI is a worthwhile endeavor, largely because we don't need any single multi-purpose machine. What we need, like you mentioned, is a collection of highly specialized sub machines that can interact and communicate with each other, and are driven together by some master logic.
What I really don't think is going to happen is the construction of a machine with an intelligence on par with a human, especially to do something as menial as housework. We don't need a machine that has our brain capacity to do it, pure and simple.
> As for the definitions - weak AI is an extremely fuzzy definition.
Not in my opinion. Weak AI < human intelligence, Strong AI >= human intelligence. On the surface, that's pretty straightforward. The only problem is the definition of human intelligence.
> Strong AI is a theoretical definition as none have yet been produced. It's also relies on fuzzy definitions like "self-awareness", conscience, learning...
I can't disagree. Our own definition of human intelligence is so nebulous that we may create a Strong AI and not even know it. Does human intelligence include the ability to imagine? The ability to be creative? The ability to handle abstract thought?
In short, we don't have that definition written in a way that you or I (as computer scientists) are able to use as field goals.
EDIT: I suppose I should TL;DR: that.
The question boils down to this: does the metric we use to determine if an AI is Weak or Strong hinge on computational power? Or does it hinge on ability? My personal opinion is ability, but I could see the other side holding true as well.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ci35wcc | In my analogy I am treating it as a tool that specialized to a particular problem field that can be activated when a relevant problem arises to provide a solution.
Then I misunderstood, my apologies.
> String them together so that they know which other sub-systems they need to communicate with and adding on skill-sets like that you can achieve "equivalent" capability to any particular human via an entity built from a collection of weak AI's
That would be correct. You would then have to ask whether or not multiple networked machines counts as a Strong AI, or if it's still just a network of Weak AI's (or both).
My own opinion is that it would not. Imagine if we designed Weak AI machines to perform every menial task on planet Earth. Every custodial, maintenance, and menial job we can come up with. Does the ability to perform all of those tasks equate to the intelligence of a human? Do those machines that clean houses have the faculty to be truly self aware, able to learn, and be able to reason, imagine, and create the way a human does? No, of course not, ergo I would not necessarily call it a Smart AI as it does not meet or surpass the intellect of a human.
Now, to extrapolate... that's the direction our field is moving. I don't think the pursuit of a single device Strong AI is a worthwhile endeavor, largely because we don't need any single multi-purpose machine. What we need, like you mentioned, is a collection of highly specialized sub machines that can interact and communicate with each other, and are driven together by some master logic.
What I really don't think is going to happen is the construction of a machine with an intelligence on par with a human, especially to do something as menial as housework. We don't need a machine that has our brain capacity to do it, pure and simple.
> As for the definitions - weak AI is an extremely fuzzy definition.
Not in my opinion. Weak AI < human intelligence, Strong AI >= human intelligence. On the surface, that's pretty straightforward. The only problem is the definition of human intelligence.
> Strong AI is a theoretical definition as none have yet been produced. It's also relies on fuzzy definitions like "self-awareness", conscience, learning...
I can't disagree. Our own definition of human intelligence is so nebulous that we may create a Strong AI and not even know it. Does human intelligence include the ability to imagine? The ability to be creative? The ability to handle abstract thought?
In short, we don't have that definition written in a way that you or I (as computer scientists) are able to use as field goals.
EDIT: I suppose I should | that.
The question boils down to this: does the metric we use to determine if an AI is Weak or Strong hinge on computational power? Or does it hinge on ability? My personal opinion is ability, but I could see the other side holding true as well. |
flupo42 | Well in that case - strong AI by your definition is not needed.
That said a multi-purpose robot, that encapsulates a few hundred weak AIs with a set of modules and can switch between the higher-tier ones as it switches between high-level tasks like cleaning a room, folding laundry - would sell quite well. Sort of like what [Willow Garage]( are doing.
Overtime such robots might evolve in processing power and complexity of modules to become strong AIs by your definition, at least when it comes to fulfilling requirements.
Things like "learning" is in itself a set of systems of which many we have already reproduced in robots. Learning to move as we do as kids, or when we learn a particular sport - all factory robots now have smarter and smarter calibration algorithms.
Learning information and decision making - expert systems, such as medical diagnostics are all about that (and they learn pretty much the same way human doctors do).
Creativity - we already did music composition. Visual arts are held back by inability to explain what is desired. A machine that generates pictures similar to ones it has found and lets viewers grade beauty to measure it's success would be quite identical to almost all artists.
Self-awareness - that's pretty easy to give to a machine however one defines it. Let it identify itself a set of software that can hook up to the hardware that is it's body. That plus a set definition of purpose and constraints would total self awareness.
Imagination - we already have systems that are able to plan. Take the algorithms used to come up with any plan and start removing/adding/modifying constraints - already you will have a pretty good approximation of "imagination".
I am working with a SCADA control system - could give it limited imagination in the scope of its problem set with a liberal use of randomization functions and a few days of work. It could start "imagining" results of switching various breakers and cutting lines toward a whole bunch of different "goals" (some set of values of its diagnostic metrics) - and it wouldn't be all that different from a controller who stares at the wall half the day and sometimes imagines how make the city lights spell out words to planes passing by... I mean obviously our SCADA system doesn't have a concept of visual look of the city to the human eye... but hypothetically I could give it one if for example I told it to look up lyric's to a song on the web, and than pass images of how the city power map would look like in a given configuration of breakers. And pass those images through a captcha system until it starts getting better match results to the words of lyrics...
Tl.DR all the the properties we ascribe to strong AIs can be broken down to another set of weak AIs working together. | Well in that case - strong AI by your definition is not needed.
That said a multi-purpose robot, that encapsulates a few hundred weak AIs with a set of modules and can switch between the higher-tier ones as it switches between high-level tasks like cleaning a room, folding laundry - would sell quite well. Sort of like what [Willow Garage]( are doing.
Overtime such robots might evolve in processing power and complexity of modules to become strong AIs by your definition, at least when it comes to fulfilling requirements.
Things like "learning" is in itself a set of systems of which many we have already reproduced in robots. Learning to move as we do as kids, or when we learn a particular sport - all factory robots now have smarter and smarter calibration algorithms.
Learning information and decision making - expert systems, such as medical diagnostics are all about that (and they learn pretty much the same way human doctors do).
Creativity - we already did music composition. Visual arts are held back by inability to explain what is desired. A machine that generates pictures similar to ones it has found and lets viewers grade beauty to measure it's success would be quite identical to almost all artists.
Self-awareness - that's pretty easy to give to a machine however one defines it. Let it identify itself a set of software that can hook up to the hardware that is it's body. That plus a set definition of purpose and constraints would total self awareness.
Imagination - we already have systems that are able to plan. Take the algorithms used to come up with any plan and start removing/adding/modifying constraints - already you will have a pretty good approximation of "imagination".
I am working with a SCADA control system - could give it limited imagination in the scope of its problem set with a liberal use of randomization functions and a few days of work. It could start "imagining" results of switching various breakers and cutting lines toward a whole bunch of different "goals" (some set of values of its diagnostic metrics) - and it wouldn't be all that different from a controller who stares at the wall half the day and sometimes imagines how make the city lights spell out words to planes passing by... I mean obviously our SCADA system doesn't have a concept of visual look of the city to the human eye... but hypothetically I could give it one if for example I told it to look up lyric's to a song on the web, and than pass images of how the city power map would look like in a given configuration of breakers. And pass those images through a captcha system until it starts getting better match results to the words of lyrics...
Tl.DR all the the properties we ascribe to strong AIs can be broken down to another set of weak AIs working together.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ci36z42 | Well in that case - strong AI by your definition is not needed.
That said a multi-purpose robot, that encapsulates a few hundred weak AIs with a set of modules and can switch between the higher-tier ones as it switches between high-level tasks like cleaning a room, folding laundry - would sell quite well. Sort of like what [Willow Garage]( are doing.
Overtime such robots might evolve in processing power and complexity of modules to become strong AIs by your definition, at least when it comes to fulfilling requirements.
Things like "learning" is in itself a set of systems of which many we have already reproduced in robots. Learning to move as we do as kids, or when we learn a particular sport - all factory robots now have smarter and smarter calibration algorithms.
Learning information and decision making - expert systems, such as medical diagnostics are all about that (and they learn pretty much the same way human doctors do).
Creativity - we already did music composition. Visual arts are held back by inability to explain what is desired. A machine that generates pictures similar to ones it has found and lets viewers grade beauty to measure it's success would be quite identical to almost all artists.
Self-awareness - that's pretty easy to give to a machine however one defines it. Let it identify itself a set of software that can hook up to the hardware that is it's body. That plus a set definition of purpose and constraints would total self awareness.
Imagination - we already have systems that are able to plan. Take the algorithms used to come up with any plan and start removing/adding/modifying constraints - already you will have a pretty good approximation of "imagination".
I am working with a SCADA control system - could give it limited imagination in the scope of its problem set with a liberal use of randomization functions and a few days of work. It could start "imagining" results of switching various breakers and cutting lines toward a whole bunch of different "goals" (some set of values of its diagnostic metrics) - and it wouldn't be all that different from a controller who stares at the wall half the day and sometimes imagines how make the city lights spell out words to planes passing by... I mean obviously our SCADA system doesn't have a concept of visual look of the city to the human eye... but hypothetically I could give it one if for example I told it to look up lyric's to a song on the web, and than pass images of how the city power map would look like in a given configuration of breakers. And pass those images through a captcha system until it starts getting better match results to the words of lyrics... | all the the properties we ascribe to strong AIs can be broken down to another set of weak AIs working together. |
WirsindApfel | The normal ge-form of the verb goes like this: ge-verb-t. Most verbs that are used in every day speech are irregular, though. The irregularity of them varies, but the most common is changing the -t to -en. There are other variations, but you'll learn them on the way. To do with the helping verb (haben, in your example); it can either be haben or sein. The general rule of thumb is that you use sein when you move from one place to another; when you change locations. You use haben for when you don't move. Tanzen, to dance, would use haben, even though you technically move while dancing. The only time you would use sein for getanzt (past tense of tanzen) is if you happen to dance from your house to, lets say, on the street. If you change location, use sein. There are exceptions, but there are always exceptions. Also, this is the spoken past tense. The one you'll hear more often than not. There is also a written past tense that's much more like the English past tense, but sounds, to German speakers, very proper and prissy. Basically, you take add a "t", or sometimes "te" if unpronounceable, to the end of the stem of the verb and then ad the ending. You will only see this if you're reading a book in German, in most cases, though.
**TL;DR**: You have to memorize which verbs take which ending in the ge-form. | The normal ge-form of the verb goes like this: ge-verb-t. Most verbs that are used in every day speech are irregular, though. The irregularity of them varies, but the most common is changing the -t to -en. There are other variations, but you'll learn them on the way. To do with the helping verb (haben, in your example); it can either be haben or sein. The general rule of thumb is that you use sein when you move from one place to another; when you change locations. You use haben for when you don't move. Tanzen, to dance, would use haben, even though you technically move while dancing. The only time you would use sein for getanzt (past tense of tanzen) is if you happen to dance from your house to, lets say, on the street. If you change location, use sein. There are exceptions, but there are always exceptions. Also, this is the spoken past tense. The one you'll hear more often than not. There is also a written past tense that's much more like the English past tense, but sounds, to German speakers, very proper and prissy. Basically, you take add a "t", or sometimes "te" if unpronounceable, to the end of the stem of the verb and then ad the ending. You will only see this if you're reading a book in German, in most cases, though.
TL;DR : You have to memorize which verbs take which ending in the ge-form.
| German | t5_2qq51 | ci3ta0r | The normal ge-form of the verb goes like this: ge-verb-t. Most verbs that are used in every day speech are irregular, though. The irregularity of them varies, but the most common is changing the -t to -en. There are other variations, but you'll learn them on the way. To do with the helping verb (haben, in your example); it can either be haben or sein. The general rule of thumb is that you use sein when you move from one place to another; when you change locations. You use haben for when you don't move. Tanzen, to dance, would use haben, even though you technically move while dancing. The only time you would use sein for getanzt (past tense of tanzen) is if you happen to dance from your house to, lets say, on the street. If you change location, use sein. There are exceptions, but there are always exceptions. Also, this is the spoken past tense. The one you'll hear more often than not. There is also a written past tense that's much more like the English past tense, but sounds, to German speakers, very proper and prissy. Basically, you take add a "t", or sometimes "te" if unpronounceable, to the end of the stem of the verb and then ad the ending. You will only see this if you're reading a book in German, in most cases, though. | You have to memorize which verbs take which ending in the ge-form. |
nivvydaskrl | I'm trying very hard to think of why it would be better to arbitrarily limit the scope of possible play for everyone than it would be to just let people play however they like.
If you're not worried about competitive advantage, then it seems a lot more reasonable to just not program much instead of deciding that no-one should be allowed to have a fully functional programming feature.
I, personally, would like to automate certain things because logical problem solving is more interesting to me than welding over 9,000 blocks by hand.
**Furthermore**, I think that software engineering should fit neatly within the scope of the game's title.
**TL;DR** Why suggest limits on others' play simply because you don't want to play that way yourself? | I'm trying very hard to think of why it would be better to arbitrarily limit the scope of possible play for everyone than it would be to just let people play however they like.
If you're not worried about competitive advantage, then it seems a lot more reasonable to just not program much instead of deciding that no-one should be allowed to have a fully functional programming feature.
I, personally, would like to automate certain things because logical problem solving is more interesting to me than welding over 9,000 blocks by hand.
Furthermore , I think that software engineering should fit neatly within the scope of the game's title.
TL;DR Why suggest limits on others' play simply because you don't want to play that way yourself?
| spaceengineers | t5_2ygas | ci2joz8 | I'm trying very hard to think of why it would be better to arbitrarily limit the scope of possible play for everyone than it would be to just let people play however they like.
If you're not worried about competitive advantage, then it seems a lot more reasonable to just not program much instead of deciding that no-one should be allowed to have a fully functional programming feature.
I, personally, would like to automate certain things because logical problem solving is more interesting to me than welding over 9,000 blocks by hand.
Furthermore , I think that software engineering should fit neatly within the scope of the game's title. | Why suggest limits on others' play simply because you don't want to play that way yourself? |
Morilibus | I understand the OP point.
Here are some of my views on what has been purposed so far.
**Could Alienate players and/or break Immersion**
I would prefer not to have to stop playing the game, take my hands off the controls and sit there typing up some code. I feel that could alienate anyone that either doesn't know how to code using c#, or has no interest in learning it to play a video game. If the only other solution is to download, or copy paste other peoples code from the internet, I feel that too could ruin the Immersion of the game. Perhaps if there is a in game feature that connects to the workshop or something, and allows you to download the program from in game. But even still, that could work, or it could be terrible. Might be odd from a gameplay perspective. Here I am trapped on an asteroid, no worries, I can just log on to the internet and download some programs for this fancy thing I just build. That's just an example, I look forward to seeing how they go about implementing everything.
It's a neat concept to have in the game, but I'd agree that the way it is implemented could to be done in a way that is both enjoyable and usable to all players.
**Graphical Interface**
I personally would like to see some kind of graphical interface for the user to use. It could still be C# if possible, just the graphical interface can write up some basic code for you based on the different inputs and outputs you have selected and how you have configured them.
**Basic/Advanced Modes**
Having an Advanced mode, where when you are programming you could switch it to advanced mode and write the code yourself. That way it covers both groups. A graphical interface is easier to learn then memorizing code, or having to reference documentation. Some would enjoy that, and some would not. I believe trying to cater to both sides is a good way to go.
**Ladder Logic**
I would like to see a graphical interface similar to that used in a PLC(Programmable Logic Controller). It's a ladder logic system, where you can put your inputs(EX: buttons) and your outputs(EX: rotor).
In it's simplest for you could have that button on the left side of one rung, then the rotor to the right of it. When that button is pressed it turns on the rotor. A program could be a single rung, or many rungs, depending on the complexity of the program.
Here is the basics
I feel it would be a system you could learn by just playing around with it. You could have virtual devices in the system too that could do delays, or monitor an item in a system, etc, anything that wouldn't have a physical block in the game. Limitation would only be what Keen would provide us in terms of these virtual devices.
For example you could have a 'check for item= Iron ore'. You could have that as a input on a rung, and when that item is in the container it is monitoring it would trigger the output, which could just be a light.
**Limiting the player**
In terms of limitations, as the OP had mentioned. There could be some limitation in the game governing the amount or complexity of the programs you can have.
For example, if you had a "computer block" that could only hold so much code, or a certain number of programs. That way you have to invest time and resources too to make a fancy automated machine. The more complex the code, the more 'computer blocks' and power you will need to run it. These are things that have already been mentioned as ways to limit it. I think something along those lines could work.
**TL;DR** Having both a graphical interface as a basic mode and have an advanced mode for those that would like to write the code themselves could be a way to please both sides. Will have to wait and see how they decide to implement it. I don't think us giving feedback on the system suggested is a bad thing, especially if it is provided in a constructive manner. | I understand the OP point.
Here are some of my views on what has been purposed so far.
Could Alienate players and/or break Immersion
I would prefer not to have to stop playing the game, take my hands off the controls and sit there typing up some code. I feel that could alienate anyone that either doesn't know how to code using c#, or has no interest in learning it to play a video game. If the only other solution is to download, or copy paste other peoples code from the internet, I feel that too could ruin the Immersion of the game. Perhaps if there is a in game feature that connects to the workshop or something, and allows you to download the program from in game. But even still, that could work, or it could be terrible. Might be odd from a gameplay perspective. Here I am trapped on an asteroid, no worries, I can just log on to the internet and download some programs for this fancy thing I just build. That's just an example, I look forward to seeing how they go about implementing everything.
It's a neat concept to have in the game, but I'd agree that the way it is implemented could to be done in a way that is both enjoyable and usable to all players.
Graphical Interface
I personally would like to see some kind of graphical interface for the user to use. It could still be C# if possible, just the graphical interface can write up some basic code for you based on the different inputs and outputs you have selected and how you have configured them.
Basic/Advanced Modes
Having an Advanced mode, where when you are programming you could switch it to advanced mode and write the code yourself. That way it covers both groups. A graphical interface is easier to learn then memorizing code, or having to reference documentation. Some would enjoy that, and some would not. I believe trying to cater to both sides is a good way to go.
Ladder Logic
I would like to see a graphical interface similar to that used in a PLC(Programmable Logic Controller). It's a ladder logic system, where you can put your inputs(EX: buttons) and your outputs(EX: rotor).
In it's simplest for you could have that button on the left side of one rung, then the rotor to the right of it. When that button is pressed it turns on the rotor. A program could be a single rung, or many rungs, depending on the complexity of the program.
Here is the basics
I feel it would be a system you could learn by just playing around with it. You could have virtual devices in the system too that could do delays, or monitor an item in a system, etc, anything that wouldn't have a physical block in the game. Limitation would only be what Keen would provide us in terms of these virtual devices.
For example you could have a 'check for item= Iron ore'. You could have that as a input on a rung, and when that item is in the container it is monitoring it would trigger the output, which could just be a light.
Limiting the player
In terms of limitations, as the OP had mentioned. There could be some limitation in the game governing the amount or complexity of the programs you can have.
For example, if you had a "computer block" that could only hold so much code, or a certain number of programs. That way you have to invest time and resources too to make a fancy automated machine. The more complex the code, the more 'computer blocks' and power you will need to run it. These are things that have already been mentioned as ways to limit it. I think something along those lines could work.
TL;DR Having both a graphical interface as a basic mode and have an advanced mode for those that would like to write the code themselves could be a way to please both sides. Will have to wait and see how they decide to implement it. I don't think us giving feedback on the system suggested is a bad thing, especially if it is provided in a constructive manner.
| spaceengineers | t5_2ygas | ci2ltbw | I understand the OP point.
Here are some of my views on what has been purposed so far.
Could Alienate players and/or break Immersion
I would prefer not to have to stop playing the game, take my hands off the controls and sit there typing up some code. I feel that could alienate anyone that either doesn't know how to code using c#, or has no interest in learning it to play a video game. If the only other solution is to download, or copy paste other peoples code from the internet, I feel that too could ruin the Immersion of the game. Perhaps if there is a in game feature that connects to the workshop or something, and allows you to download the program from in game. But even still, that could work, or it could be terrible. Might be odd from a gameplay perspective. Here I am trapped on an asteroid, no worries, I can just log on to the internet and download some programs for this fancy thing I just build. That's just an example, I look forward to seeing how they go about implementing everything.
It's a neat concept to have in the game, but I'd agree that the way it is implemented could to be done in a way that is both enjoyable and usable to all players.
Graphical Interface
I personally would like to see some kind of graphical interface for the user to use. It could still be C# if possible, just the graphical interface can write up some basic code for you based on the different inputs and outputs you have selected and how you have configured them.
Basic/Advanced Modes
Having an Advanced mode, where when you are programming you could switch it to advanced mode and write the code yourself. That way it covers both groups. A graphical interface is easier to learn then memorizing code, or having to reference documentation. Some would enjoy that, and some would not. I believe trying to cater to both sides is a good way to go.
Ladder Logic
I would like to see a graphical interface similar to that used in a PLC(Programmable Logic Controller). It's a ladder logic system, where you can put your inputs(EX: buttons) and your outputs(EX: rotor).
In it's simplest for you could have that button on the left side of one rung, then the rotor to the right of it. When that button is pressed it turns on the rotor. A program could be a single rung, or many rungs, depending on the complexity of the program.
Here is the basics
I feel it would be a system you could learn by just playing around with it. You could have virtual devices in the system too that could do delays, or monitor an item in a system, etc, anything that wouldn't have a physical block in the game. Limitation would only be what Keen would provide us in terms of these virtual devices.
For example you could have a 'check for item= Iron ore'. You could have that as a input on a rung, and when that item is in the container it is monitoring it would trigger the output, which could just be a light.
Limiting the player
In terms of limitations, as the OP had mentioned. There could be some limitation in the game governing the amount or complexity of the programs you can have.
For example, if you had a "computer block" that could only hold so much code, or a certain number of programs. That way you have to invest time and resources too to make a fancy automated machine. The more complex the code, the more 'computer blocks' and power you will need to run it. These are things that have already been mentioned as ways to limit it. I think something along those lines could work. | Having both a graphical interface as a basic mode and have an advanced mode for those that would like to write the code themselves could be a way to please both sides. Will have to wait and see how they decide to implement it. I don't think us giving feedback on the system suggested is a bad thing, especially if it is provided in a constructive manner. |
DoktorDemento | We're trying to save money, so our save-the-date was a text message, an email or a phone call depending on recipient - you do need to make sure you mention that "full invitations will be sent out closer to the time" otherwise idiots will call you asking for more information. You've already sent those, though.
Our invites were literally a single sheet of A5 paper, folded in half, in an envelope (we did stretch to some fancy paper and envelopes though). The invites had on them:
* Where it was, including a map I made in Inkscape, and how to get there by train / car etc.
* What time things were happening
* Contact details and directions for 3 hotels, including the one we'd arranged a deal with
* How to RSVP: a phone number, a postal address, and a tinyurl link to a Google Form (which had fields asking for the names of everyone coming, if they needed high chairs, and dietary requirements).
* The names of the people invited (handwritten), so we could make it clear if they had a +1 or not, if their kids were invited, etc.
We *didn't* pay for them to post anything back to us. I've been to a few weddings (here in the UK) and never seen that, so we didn't even consider it. We also only used cheap stamps.
Also, it is *definitely* not bad taste to ask for names - especially if they've got a +1!
TL;DR it's your wedding, make 'em as fancy or as cheap as you want!
Don't know if that's helpful :) | We're trying to save money, so our save-the-date was a text message, an email or a phone call depending on recipient - you do need to make sure you mention that "full invitations will be sent out closer to the time" otherwise idiots will call you asking for more information. You've already sent those, though.
Our invites were literally a single sheet of A5 paper, folded in half, in an envelope (we did stretch to some fancy paper and envelopes though). The invites had on them:
Where it was, including a map I made in Inkscape, and how to get there by train / car etc.
What time things were happening
Contact details and directions for 3 hotels, including the one we'd arranged a deal with
How to RSVP: a phone number, a postal address, and a tinyurl link to a Google Form (which had fields asking for the names of everyone coming, if they needed high chairs, and dietary requirements).
The names of the people invited (handwritten), so we could make it clear if they had a +1 or not, if their kids were invited, etc.
We didn't pay for them to post anything back to us. I've been to a few weddings (here in the UK) and never seen that, so we didn't even consider it. We also only used cheap stamps.
Also, it is definitely not bad taste to ask for names - especially if they've got a +1!
TL;DR it's your wedding, make 'em as fancy or as cheap as you want!
Don't know if that's helpful :)
| weddingplanning | t5_2rv3t | ci2vl57 | We're trying to save money, so our save-the-date was a text message, an email or a phone call depending on recipient - you do need to make sure you mention that "full invitations will be sent out closer to the time" otherwise idiots will call you asking for more information. You've already sent those, though.
Our invites were literally a single sheet of A5 paper, folded in half, in an envelope (we did stretch to some fancy paper and envelopes though). The invites had on them:
Where it was, including a map I made in Inkscape, and how to get there by train / car etc.
What time things were happening
Contact details and directions for 3 hotels, including the one we'd arranged a deal with
How to RSVP: a phone number, a postal address, and a tinyurl link to a Google Form (which had fields asking for the names of everyone coming, if they needed high chairs, and dietary requirements).
The names of the people invited (handwritten), so we could make it clear if they had a +1 or not, if their kids were invited, etc.
We didn't pay for them to post anything back to us. I've been to a few weddings (here in the UK) and never seen that, so we didn't even consider it. We also only used cheap stamps.
Also, it is definitely not bad taste to ask for names - especially if they've got a +1! | it's your wedding, make 'em as fancy or as cheap as you want!
Don't know if that's helpful :) |
hellomynameistimothy | Nobody will ever see this and it is against the meta, since it is to love Phreak hard, but I do not like him casting.
LCS has become the real deal and a major face of electronic sports for the US and EU scene and it is becoming professional and that is part of what draws in the new crowd. When people come to watch a professional game and hear Phreak as their first caster they associate it with an unprofessional spirit or mannerism. This is also why I don't like him casting.
To his defense, I am almost sure I would love to hang out with him and I'd imagine I'd get along with him. His memory/ability to recollect prior games and plays is almost unparalleled (except for maybe Monte Christo), his game understanding is top notch, and his strategy awareness is obviously above that of many of the other casters or even guys on the analyst desk.
The point is, his bad puns do not belong on the main stage for a game that is trying to become the face of professional esports as his mannerisms just aren't professional. A good pun every now and then would be fine, but he shotguns them in there and tries to fit as many puns as he possibly can. Despite how intelligent the guy clearly is, it doesn't come across as intelligent or professional.
**tl;dr - Phreak is an amazing analyst and an OK caster (IMO), but his overuse of puns and not using them tastefully is unprofessional and as a game trying to gain respect and as a sport it does LoL, LCS, and esports damage (again, in my opinion).**
EDIT: Grammar | Nobody will ever see this and it is against the meta, since it is to love Phreak hard, but I do not like him casting.
LCS has become the real deal and a major face of electronic sports for the US and EU scene and it is becoming professional and that is part of what draws in the new crowd. When people come to watch a professional game and hear Phreak as their first caster they associate it with an unprofessional spirit or mannerism. This is also why I don't like him casting.
To his defense, I am almost sure I would love to hang out with him and I'd imagine I'd get along with him. His memory/ability to recollect prior games and plays is almost unparalleled (except for maybe Monte Christo), his game understanding is top notch, and his strategy awareness is obviously above that of many of the other casters or even guys on the analyst desk.
The point is, his bad puns do not belong on the main stage for a game that is trying to become the face of professional esports as his mannerisms just aren't professional. A good pun every now and then would be fine, but he shotguns them in there and tries to fit as many puns as he possibly can. Despite how intelligent the guy clearly is, it doesn't come across as intelligent or professional.
tl;dr - Phreak is an amazing analyst and an OK caster (IMO), but his overuse of puns and not using them tastefully is unprofessional and as a game trying to gain respect and as a sport it does LoL, LCS, and esports damage (again, in my opinion).
EDIT: Grammar
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci30wjh | Nobody will ever see this and it is against the meta, since it is to love Phreak hard, but I do not like him casting.
LCS has become the real deal and a major face of electronic sports for the US and EU scene and it is becoming professional and that is part of what draws in the new crowd. When people come to watch a professional game and hear Phreak as their first caster they associate it with an unprofessional spirit or mannerism. This is also why I don't like him casting.
To his defense, I am almost sure I would love to hang out with him and I'd imagine I'd get along with him. His memory/ability to recollect prior games and plays is almost unparalleled (except for maybe Monte Christo), his game understanding is top notch, and his strategy awareness is obviously above that of many of the other casters or even guys on the analyst desk.
The point is, his bad puns do not belong on the main stage for a game that is trying to become the face of professional esports as his mannerisms just aren't professional. A good pun every now and then would be fine, but he shotguns them in there and tries to fit as many puns as he possibly can. Despite how intelligent the guy clearly is, it doesn't come across as intelligent or professional. | Phreak is an amazing analyst and an OK caster (IMO), but his overuse of puns and not using them tastefully is unprofessional and as a game trying to gain respect and as a sport it does LoL, LCS, and esports damage (again, in my opinion).
EDIT: Grammar |
Bronze4Life420 | Because she is toxic to the game, she has a possible 1600 damage nuke on a 6 second cooldown, with a broken hitbox.
Also she has little weakness to compensate for this absurd damage, she is incredibly safe in the laning phase and throughout the game with her huge heals and her cougar "w".
Her slightly weak teamfighting can be compensated by having a disengage heavy team or seiging comp, she only has to land one or maybe two successful spears before you can engage and win a team fight because the carries are very low, or have to base to heal.
She is toxic to the game because you can miss most of your skill shots, but if one hits, you can win a team fight.
TL;DR: Stupid OP champ | Because she is toxic to the game, she has a possible 1600 damage nuke on a 6 second cooldown, with a broken hitbox.
Also she has little weakness to compensate for this absurd damage, she is incredibly safe in the laning phase and throughout the game with her huge heals and her cougar "w".
Her slightly weak teamfighting can be compensated by having a disengage heavy team or seiging comp, she only has to land one or maybe two successful spears before you can engage and win a team fight because the carries are very low, or have to base to heal.
She is toxic to the game because you can miss most of your skill shots, but if one hits, you can win a team fight.
TL;DR: Stupid OP champ
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci2v6p5 | Because she is toxic to the game, she has a possible 1600 damage nuke on a 6 second cooldown, with a broken hitbox.
Also she has little weakness to compensate for this absurd damage, she is incredibly safe in the laning phase and throughout the game with her huge heals and her cougar "w".
Her slightly weak teamfighting can be compensated by having a disengage heavy team or seiging comp, she only has to land one or maybe two successful spears before you can engage and win a team fight because the carries are very low, or have to base to heal.
She is toxic to the game because you can miss most of your skill shots, but if one hits, you can win a team fight. | Stupid OP champ |
Haieshu | - Type: Targetted spell
- Range: 550
- Cooldown: 8s
- Damage: 300 (+ 90% AP)
- CC: Stun (1.5s)
- Cost: 100 mana
vs
- Type: Skillshot
- Range: 1500
- Cooldown: 6s
- Damage: 230 (+ 65% AP) - 575 (+ 162.5% AP)
- CC: -
- Cost: 90 mana
___________
Why bother taking a champ you have to get up close and personal with to mid/high damage early/midgame when you can pick the easier choice of safely spamming spears and traps from up to 1500 range, dealing up to twice the damage?
/tldr: OP wants to spam Nidalee a little longer.
edit: That wasn't all, but there are more reasons not to pick Sion even though he has a highdamage stun. |
Type: Targetted spell
Range: 550
Cooldown: 8s
Damage: 300 (+ 90% AP)
CC: Stun (1.5s)
Cost: 100 mana
vs
Type: Skillshot
Range: 1500
Cooldown: 6s
Damage: 230 (+ 65% AP) - 575 (+ 162.5% AP)
CC: -
Cost: 90 mana
Why bother taking a champ you have to get up close and personal with to mid/high damage early/midgame when you can pick the easier choice of safely spamming spears and traps from up to 1500 range, dealing up to twice the damage?
/tldr: OP wants to spam Nidalee a little longer.
edit: That wasn't all, but there are more reasons not to pick Sion even though he has a highdamage stun.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci2v9df | Type: Targetted spell
Range: 550
Cooldown: 8s
Damage: 300 (+ 90% AP)
CC: Stun (1.5s)
Cost: 100 mana
vs
Type: Skillshot
Range: 1500
Cooldown: 6s
Damage: 230 (+ 65% AP) - 575 (+ 162.5% AP)
CC: -
Cost: 90 mana
Why bother taking a champ you have to get up close and personal with to mid/high damage early/midgame when you can pick the easier choice of safely spamming spears and traps from up to 1500 range, dealing up to twice the damage?
/ | OP wants to spam Nidalee a little longer.
edit: That wasn't all, but there are more reasons not to pick Sion even though he has a highdamage stun. |
okouchthathurt | This happens to me regularly and I'm not completely sure why. But I have found something that helps. I think what's going on is that because I've trapped myself in my house, my mind compartmentalizes it's surroundings. It's kind of like I forget there's more than just my house, and my world gets very small and very black and white.
What seems to fix it, is to go for a drive. For one reason or another that re-stimulates me. It's as if my brain needs reminded that there's more than my house and computer.
TL;DR Try going outside for a bit. | This happens to me regularly and I'm not completely sure why. But I have found something that helps. I think what's going on is that because I've trapped myself in my house, my mind compartmentalizes it's surroundings. It's kind of like I forget there's more than just my house, and my world gets very small and very black and white.
What seems to fix it, is to go for a drive. For one reason or another that re-stimulates me. It's as if my brain needs reminded that there's more than my house and computer.
TL;DR Try going outside for a bit.
| ForeverAlone | t5_2s3yz | ci336bm | This happens to me regularly and I'm not completely sure why. But I have found something that helps. I think what's going on is that because I've trapped myself in my house, my mind compartmentalizes it's surroundings. It's kind of like I forget there's more than just my house, and my world gets very small and very black and white.
What seems to fix it, is to go for a drive. For one reason or another that re-stimulates me. It's as if my brain needs reminded that there's more than my house and computer. | Try going outside for a bit. |
Surprisebutsekz69 | I work at a very popular food chain restaurant. One night i was closing and a guy comes through the drive through and asks for a 12 piece supper(just a huge supper that includes chicken, rolls, potato salad, cole slaw, and a half gallon of tea.) Well we didn't have all the pieces this late at night so he wanted us to make it however we can, that's cool i can do that. Well, when he gets to the window he engaged me in conversation, which of course I obliged. But as the conversation went on, he would change his order on the chicken, as in asking what we had and wanting different combinations. Well me being the "hard" worker and want the customer to be happy i of course would change the order for him, while engaging him in conversation. Well after a few minutes of me going back and forth between him and the guy on chicken so we can get the customers order how he wants it, the customer straight up told me, "If you were working for my grandma she would fire you." Ok that comment took me by surprise. So i of course asked him, "What do you mean sir?" He tells me that I wasn't paying attention to him while he was trying to carry on a little conversation! It kind of struck a nerve with me, it being late at night of course. I didn't want to argue so I just said, "I'm sorry about the inconvenience, but I was talking to you. Its just I'm also making sure your order is just right for you." He didn't believe me so after I gave him his food he left on a sour note. Get this though, 3 days later he reported my "terrible" hospitality. So yeah i got written up for that. Tldr tried to get a customer his "perfect" order while engaged in conversation and got written up for it because I was a horrible person. | I work at a very popular food chain restaurant. One night i was closing and a guy comes through the drive through and asks for a 12 piece supper(just a huge supper that includes chicken, rolls, potato salad, cole slaw, and a half gallon of tea.) Well we didn't have all the pieces this late at night so he wanted us to make it however we can, that's cool i can do that. Well, when he gets to the window he engaged me in conversation, which of course I obliged. But as the conversation went on, he would change his order on the chicken, as in asking what we had and wanting different combinations. Well me being the "hard" worker and want the customer to be happy i of course would change the order for him, while engaging him in conversation. Well after a few minutes of me going back and forth between him and the guy on chicken so we can get the customers order how he wants it, the customer straight up told me, "If you were working for my grandma she would fire you." Ok that comment took me by surprise. So i of course asked him, "What do you mean sir?" He tells me that I wasn't paying attention to him while he was trying to carry on a little conversation! It kind of struck a nerve with me, it being late at night of course. I didn't want to argue so I just said, "I'm sorry about the inconvenience, but I was talking to you. Its just I'm also making sure your order is just right for you." He didn't believe me so after I gave him his food he left on a sour note. Get this though, 3 days later he reported my "terrible" hospitality. So yeah i got written up for that. Tldr tried to get a customer his "perfect" order while engaged in conversation and got written up for it because I was a horrible person.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ci2ybi2 | I work at a very popular food chain restaurant. One night i was closing and a guy comes through the drive through and asks for a 12 piece supper(just a huge supper that includes chicken, rolls, potato salad, cole slaw, and a half gallon of tea.) Well we didn't have all the pieces this late at night so he wanted us to make it however we can, that's cool i can do that. Well, when he gets to the window he engaged me in conversation, which of course I obliged. But as the conversation went on, he would change his order on the chicken, as in asking what we had and wanting different combinations. Well me being the "hard" worker and want the customer to be happy i of course would change the order for him, while engaging him in conversation. Well after a few minutes of me going back and forth between him and the guy on chicken so we can get the customers order how he wants it, the customer straight up told me, "If you were working for my grandma she would fire you." Ok that comment took me by surprise. So i of course asked him, "What do you mean sir?" He tells me that I wasn't paying attention to him while he was trying to carry on a little conversation! It kind of struck a nerve with me, it being late at night of course. I didn't want to argue so I just said, "I'm sorry about the inconvenience, but I was talking to you. Its just I'm also making sure your order is just right for you." He didn't believe me so after I gave him his food he left on a sour note. Get this though, 3 days later he reported my "terrible" hospitality. So yeah i got written up for that. | tried to get a customer his "perfect" order while engaged in conversation and got written up for it because I was a horrible person. |
QRGCCrysisCore | I agree to an extent. I think getting a new job simply for the sake of getting a new job "because I've been here for 5 years" (a reason I've heard a few people use before) is not a good reason in and of itself. If the job you're at provides you everything you need - new challenges, opportunity for growth and promotion, change in career path possibilities, etc. - I don't see a reason to leave, unless of course you're unhappy, or would simply like to experience a change of environment or the pace at a different company you're interested in.
tl;dr - I think leaving a job solely because a certain amount of time has passed is dumb | I agree to an extent. I think getting a new job simply for the sake of getting a new job "because I've been here for 5 years" (a reason I've heard a few people use before) is not a good reason in and of itself. If the job you're at provides you everything you need - new challenges, opportunity for growth and promotion, change in career path possibilities, etc. - I don't see a reason to leave, unless of course you're unhappy, or would simply like to experience a change of environment or the pace at a different company you're interested in.
tl;dr - I think leaving a job solely because a certain amount of time has passed is dumb
| AdviceAnimals | t5_2s7tt | ci38tkw | I agree to an extent. I think getting a new job simply for the sake of getting a new job "because I've been here for 5 years" (a reason I've heard a few people use before) is not a good reason in and of itself. If the job you're at provides you everything you need - new challenges, opportunity for growth and promotion, change in career path possibilities, etc. - I don't see a reason to leave, unless of course you're unhappy, or would simply like to experience a change of environment or the pace at a different company you're interested in. | I think leaving a job solely because a certain amount of time has passed is dumb |
acideath | No one is out until the umpire raises a finger. Fielders catching where the umpires have no clear view (outfield and such) should be appealed honestly. Or should batsman walk for plum lbws too?
TL:Dr Only walk when the bails hit the floor. | No one is out until the umpire raises a finger. Fielders catching where the umpires have no clear view (outfield and such) should be appealed honestly. Or should batsman walk for plum lbws too?
TL:Dr Only walk when the bails hit the floor.
| Cricket | t5_2qhe0 | ci3p0mp | No one is out until the umpire raises a finger. Fielders catching where the umpires have no clear view (outfield and such) should be appealed honestly. Or should batsman walk for plum lbws too? | Only walk when the bails hit the floor. |
Pecanpig | It's real and scientifically verified, that vague sense you have is probably just honest suspension of something you haven't heard of and don't know much about.
The TL;DR of it is that they specialize in bones and muscles. | It's real and scientifically verified, that vague sense you have is probably just honest suspension of something you haven't heard of and don't know much about.
The TL;DR of it is that they specialize in bones and muscles.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ci32mqd | It's real and scientifically verified, that vague sense you have is probably just honest suspension of something you haven't heard of and don't know much about.
The | of it is that they specialize in bones and muscles. |
andrew_the_geek | The Vanguard Target funds are a great place to start. Take a look at its holdings:
* Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund - 63.0%
* Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund -27.0%
* Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund - 8.0%
* Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund - 2.0%
Total Stock Market itself is about 72% Large and 28% Mid/Small. If you held Target 2055 and a separate S&P 500 fund in your 401k, then you'd shift that 72/28 split more towards Large and the International and Bond %'s would also drop. With a low 401k balance that shift is pretty minor, but if your 401k grows faster than your IRA then you might end up way out of balance.
Here's a a version of my allocation tracker with your potential funds, made up holdings and pretty standard asset allocation targets:
Save a copy and play with the numbers. The 401k value is controlled by overall value and the IRA funds are controlled by # of shares. You'll notice one issue with the slice and dice approach is meeting Vanguard's $3000 fund minimum, especially for bonds. You could get around this by buying the RGVGX bond fund in your 401k instead.
tl;dr; version: S&P 500 fund in your 401k is fine for now, but that will eventually make you overweight in US Large Cap stocks. Holding individuals funds in IRA instead of Target 2055 will let you balance things out and meet asset allocation targets. | The Vanguard Target funds are a great place to start. Take a look at its holdings:
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund - 63.0%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund -27.0%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund - 8.0%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund - 2.0%
Total Stock Market itself is about 72% Large and 28% Mid/Small. If you held Target 2055 and a separate S&P 500 fund in your 401k, then you'd shift that 72/28 split more towards Large and the International and Bond %'s would also drop. With a low 401k balance that shift is pretty minor, but if your 401k grows faster than your IRA then you might end up way out of balance.
Here's a a version of my allocation tracker with your potential funds, made up holdings and pretty standard asset allocation targets:
Save a copy and play with the numbers. The 401k value is controlled by overall value and the IRA funds are controlled by # of shares. You'll notice one issue with the slice and dice approach is meeting Vanguard's $3000 fund minimum, especially for bonds. You could get around this by buying the RGVGX bond fund in your 401k instead.
tl;dr; version: S&P 500 fund in your 401k is fine for now, but that will eventually make you overweight in US Large Cap stocks. Holding individuals funds in IRA instead of Target 2055 will let you balance things out and meet asset allocation targets.
| personalfinance | t5_2qstm | ci3dsl5 | The Vanguard Target funds are a great place to start. Take a look at its holdings:
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund - 63.0%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund -27.0%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund - 8.0%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund - 2.0%
Total Stock Market itself is about 72% Large and 28% Mid/Small. If you held Target 2055 and a separate S&P 500 fund in your 401k, then you'd shift that 72/28 split more towards Large and the International and Bond %'s would also drop. With a low 401k balance that shift is pretty minor, but if your 401k grows faster than your IRA then you might end up way out of balance.
Here's a a version of my allocation tracker with your potential funds, made up holdings and pretty standard asset allocation targets:
Save a copy and play with the numbers. The 401k value is controlled by overall value and the IRA funds are controlled by # of shares. You'll notice one issue with the slice and dice approach is meeting Vanguard's $3000 fund minimum, especially for bonds. You could get around this by buying the RGVGX bond fund in your 401k instead. | version: S&P 500 fund in your 401k is fine for now, but that will eventually make you overweight in US Large Cap stocks. Holding individuals funds in IRA instead of Target 2055 will let you balance things out and meet asset allocation targets. |
GhostOfAebeAmraen | Corp shares are (almost) completely useless.
1. Shares can only be gifted, so you gift someone the shares and have to trust them to pay you (or they pay you and have to trust you to gift them). They can't actually be bought or sold. There's no exchange market.
2. There's no connection between share ownership and corp membership, but a majority share holder can oust the CEO and take over a corp. For this reason the first thing every corp CEO should do is make sure he owns all the shares.
3. I have heard stories of joint ventures (e.g. a group of friends getting together and pooling money to build capital ships) using shares as a way to manage payouts, but this requires that you already trust each other and is not entirely trivial. There are also people and groups who sell shares as gimmicks.
tldr generally useless. | Corp shares are (almost) completely useless.
Shares can only be gifted, so you gift someone the shares and have to trust them to pay you (or they pay you and have to trust you to gift them). They can't actually be bought or sold. There's no exchange market.
There's no connection between share ownership and corp membership, but a majority share holder can oust the CEO and take over a corp. For this reason the first thing every corp CEO should do is make sure he owns all the shares.
I have heard stories of joint ventures (e.g. a group of friends getting together and pooling money to build capital ships) using shares as a way to manage payouts, but this requires that you already trust each other and is not entirely trivial. There are also people and groups who sell shares as gimmicks.
tldr generally useless.
| evenewbies | t5_2tkgx | ci35dgr | Corp shares are (almost) completely useless.
Shares can only be gifted, so you gift someone the shares and have to trust them to pay you (or they pay you and have to trust you to gift them). They can't actually be bought or sold. There's no exchange market.
There's no connection between share ownership and corp membership, but a majority share holder can oust the CEO and take over a corp. For this reason the first thing every corp CEO should do is make sure he owns all the shares.
I have heard stories of joint ventures (e.g. a group of friends getting together and pooling money to build capital ships) using shares as a way to manage payouts, but this requires that you already trust each other and is not entirely trivial. There are also people and groups who sell shares as gimmicks. | generally useless. |
ImostlyLurk | This is arrogance, small-mindedness, and ignorance, they're stealing from anyone they can, same as every other nation. Welcome to globalcapitalism101, is this your first day?
>The US is responsible for more biomedical research (45%of global spending) than almost the rest of the world combined
The US is also over diagnosing how many children with which disorders(?) to give them all sorts of psychotropic drugs? What? ADHD doesn't exist in Uganda? Yea, they're researching drugs to push them on the entire population, and they get paid to pacify us. Open your eyes.
>There has been a one-way extraction of ideas and techniques from the US for decades.
0_o Actually, The US has all sorts of restrictions on scientific research regarding stem cells, Europe is leading that charge. All sorts of advancements come from all over the world. I'm sure I could find other exceptions as well, either way remove the red white and blue dildo from your ass, think objectively.. we're sharing; and pretending that humanity's advancements belong to one group or another...
Oh and hold on; stop contradicting yourself too:
>Who the fuck is the US stealing from?
>Does international industrial espionage by the US occur? Yes.
Stealing is stealing, and humanity should be working together, not competing amongst ourselves, thus, the following comment hold absolutely no merit:
>But comparing US industrial espionage to foreign competitors is like comparing a slap from a baby to a punch from Mike Tyson.
It's by principle the same thing: stealing instead of sharing. Also fuck the dollar bill "worth" anyone is trying to assign to intellectual property, it's worth is exactly, "how can this benefit humanity".
Also, check out ARXIV.org, google scholar is just an engine, not the repository. They'd still be able to attain the information they needed without the search engine crawling those repositories, and they'd have to be dumbasses of the highest magnitude to not copy paste any reference material they needed for they own keeping. Keep in mind Arxiv is open source, peer reviewed, not the only one of it's kind. Science doesn't care about politics or the invisible borders that have been drawn about to keep people divided. People from all over the world are able to read, and build off those ideas. So the "ownership" comes down to patents? Maybe the US has the most lawyers trolling about trying to horde patents for MURICA!? Maybe this is why you FEEL the US is coming up with ev-er-ry-thing.
TL;DR crypto dude has confirmation bias and sees the world through red-white-blue tinted glasses. Ideas and techniques are advanced all over the planet continuously. People think they "own" the advancements, so others steal them. Everyone steals.
| This is arrogance, small-mindedness, and ignorance, they're stealing from anyone they can, same as every other nation. Welcome to globalcapitalism101, is this your first day?
>The US is responsible for more biomedical research (45%of global spending) than almost the rest of the world combined
The US is also over diagnosing how many children with which disorders(?) to give them all sorts of psychotropic drugs? What? ADHD doesn't exist in Uganda? Yea, they're researching drugs to push them on the entire population, and they get paid to pacify us. Open your eyes.
>There has been a one-way extraction of ideas and techniques from the US for decades.
0_o Actually, The US has all sorts of restrictions on scientific research regarding stem cells, Europe is leading that charge. All sorts of advancements come from all over the world. I'm sure I could find other exceptions as well, either way remove the red white and blue dildo from your ass, think objectively.. we're sharing; and pretending that humanity's advancements belong to one group or another...
Oh and hold on; stop contradicting yourself too:
>Who the fuck is the US stealing from?
>Does international industrial espionage by the US occur? Yes.
Stealing is stealing, and humanity should be working together, not competing amongst ourselves, thus, the following comment hold absolutely no merit:
>But comparing US industrial espionage to foreign competitors is like comparing a slap from a baby to a punch from Mike Tyson.
It's by principle the same thing: stealing instead of sharing. Also fuck the dollar bill "worth" anyone is trying to assign to intellectual property, it's worth is exactly, "how can this benefit humanity".
Also, check out ARXIV.org, google scholar is just an engine, not the repository. They'd still be able to attain the information they needed without the search engine crawling those repositories, and they'd have to be dumbasses of the highest magnitude to not copy paste any reference material they needed for they own keeping. Keep in mind Arxiv is open source, peer reviewed, not the only one of it's kind. Science doesn't care about politics or the invisible borders that have been drawn about to keep people divided. People from all over the world are able to read, and build off those ideas. So the "ownership" comes down to patents? Maybe the US has the most lawyers trolling about trying to horde patents for MURICA!? Maybe this is why you FEEL the US is coming up with ev-er-ry-thing.
TL;DR crypto dude has confirmation bias and sees the world through red-white-blue tinted glasses. Ideas and techniques are advanced all over the planet continuously. People think they "own" the advancements, so others steal them. Everyone steals.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ci4c0el | This is arrogance, small-mindedness, and ignorance, they're stealing from anyone they can, same as every other nation. Welcome to globalcapitalism101, is this your first day?
>The US is responsible for more biomedical research (45%of global spending) than almost the rest of the world combined
The US is also over diagnosing how many children with which disorders(?) to give them all sorts of psychotropic drugs? What? ADHD doesn't exist in Uganda? Yea, they're researching drugs to push them on the entire population, and they get paid to pacify us. Open your eyes.
>There has been a one-way extraction of ideas and techniques from the US for decades.
0_o Actually, The US has all sorts of restrictions on scientific research regarding stem cells, Europe is leading that charge. All sorts of advancements come from all over the world. I'm sure I could find other exceptions as well, either way remove the red white and blue dildo from your ass, think objectively.. we're sharing; and pretending that humanity's advancements belong to one group or another...
Oh and hold on; stop contradicting yourself too:
>Who the fuck is the US stealing from?
>Does international industrial espionage by the US occur? Yes.
Stealing is stealing, and humanity should be working together, not competing amongst ourselves, thus, the following comment hold absolutely no merit:
>But comparing US industrial espionage to foreign competitors is like comparing a slap from a baby to a punch from Mike Tyson.
It's by principle the same thing: stealing instead of sharing. Also fuck the dollar bill "worth" anyone is trying to assign to intellectual property, it's worth is exactly, "how can this benefit humanity".
Also, check out ARXIV.org, google scholar is just an engine, not the repository. They'd still be able to attain the information they needed without the search engine crawling those repositories, and they'd have to be dumbasses of the highest magnitude to not copy paste any reference material they needed for they own keeping. Keep in mind Arxiv is open source, peer reviewed, not the only one of it's kind. Science doesn't care about politics or the invisible borders that have been drawn about to keep people divided. People from all over the world are able to read, and build off those ideas. So the "ownership" comes down to patents? Maybe the US has the most lawyers trolling about trying to horde patents for MURICA!? Maybe this is why you FEEL the US is coming up with ev-er-ry-thing. | crypto dude has confirmation bias and sees the world through red-white-blue tinted glasses. Ideas and techniques are advanced all over the planet continuously. People think they "own" the advancements, so others steal them. Everyone steals. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.